I enjoyed it Keith, even for the selfish reason I confess below. But allow me a little disagreement.
If only it were so simple as cats on mats, but reality is no more a set of isolated tableaus than language is a collection of words.
Billy Kirby, Judge Temple, and Natty Bumppo in J.F. Cooper's the Pioneers all see sap-making maple trees as sap-making maple trees. And yet Billy speaks of them as a resource to be exploited until dried up, after which he picks up stakes and moves on to the nest stand. Judge Temple, our protagonist, speaks a recognizable religio-moral discourse of the trees as resource to be stewarded. He's the Sierra Club to Billy's Exxon. Garrulous Natty speaks what in the novel's terms is a dying red-face myth of the tree as, like all of nature, a rights-bearing creature -- a person, as our legal discourse would have it. Temple thinks that he and Natty agree and that Billy is the odd man out, but Natty insists that he lives beyond where Temple is capable of traveling because Temple, like Billy, within a world of possessive individualism in which trees' lives matter, but not for themselves. Today, Natty represents an old but new again theory of nature lost in the disenchantments of enlightenment that birthed instrumental reason. Are they all the same maple tree? (This works for most anything including history, which isn't the events themselves but, as Hayden White said, their emplotment into a meaning.)
And Speaking of Trees, Richard Powers, The Overstory.
That's not to say that I sign on to everything "woke," largely because, I suppose, I'm more postmodern than they are, certainly more resistant to bad totalities (all of them so far; progress made possible Clinton Tankersley's recent essay on environmental depredation) and metanarratives. I find negation no more leads to nihilistic despair than a lack of faith in God does. That negativity is an important part of activism simply because good intentions left unchecked tend unerringly to the other place. What your recital od Pluckrose and Lindsay does for me, and it is no small thing, is reassure me that I needn't look closer. So thanks very much for that.
I look forward to your treatment of Mounck. From shorter excerpts laying out his genealogical theory, he seems to have a better handle. What a respondent in the Chronicle of Higher Ed missed in suggesting that the work Mounck critiques was of a piece with the processes described by Perry Anderson in Imagined Communities is that the nation-state *in theory* embraced difference under the identity of citizen, this work tends to divide citizens by ascribed or elected identities. Of course, in practice, the normative citizen was and, in many ways, still is, a white, cis-gendered, property-owning male, but while that is the impetus for much of "woke" counter-discourse, my utmost concern is for erosion of what small amount of civic unity still exists, since the nation-state, that social and textual construct, is the ultimate guarantor of rights. Yes, the courts remain (in theory) a venue of recourse, but would that be a democratic solution if the court were some third force distant from all parties rather than an office of a government of, by, and for the people?
Indeed I have seen Glimmerglass. Went to a summer seminar for department chairs hosted at the Otesaga Hotel, at the foot of the lake.. Lovely long weekend in early June. Wow!
The affirmation of objectivity does not preclude interpretive or perceptual diversity. If postmodernism only affirmed, for instance that the nude body is perceived differently by the anatomist, the artist, and the lover, who would object? Such platitudes would hardly have provoked the furor elicited by postmodernist critique. No, the true postmodernist spirit is shown in such works as Donna Haraway's Primate Visions, which is an attempt to erase the distinction between fiction and scientific fact. Then there is W.J.T. Mitchell's The Last Dinosaur Book, which attempts to deconstruct the distinction between dinosaurs as cultural icons and as objects of scientific inquiry. The quality of argument in these works is so poor as to descend into the merely fatuous. The most remarkable thing about them is that they were published by two highly respectable academic publishers, Routledge and The University of Chicago Press. Scientific objects, like primates or dinosaurs, certainly may be and should be stimuli to imagination and interpretation. But there are limits. If imagination contradicts fact--like the fundamentalists who imagine dinosaurs on the Ark with Noah--then it is wrong. Full stop.
Negativity is not bad per se. Bad things should be negated. However, consistent negativity is close to the definition of nihilism. Negation that is not in the name of something better leaves us with nothing but spite, like Dostoevsky's Underground Man. Living for spite makes you miserable, and if someone wants to be miserable, it is their perfect right. I would just ask that they go be miserable somewhere else.
Yes, I recall our disagreement about Mitchell's book, which I quite enjoyed. I don't see the boundary between icon and object of scientific inquiry as so impermeable; I found Thomas Laquer's Making Sex quite convincing in its history of medicine. And all of the medical theories were propounded by people who would have said they were looking objectively. I'm afraid I've never been a Haraway fan. Again, as so often, we'll disagree.
Something can certainly be both a scientific object and a cultural icon, just as a piece of colored cloth can be a flag symbolizing national identity. Mitchell so conflates the icon and the object that he seems to lose track of the fact that a dinosaur was an animal.
Sorry, folks., I am a terrible proofreader. I say that Pluckrose and Lindsay identify six theses of postmodernism and give four. Sorry. It was four. Sheesh.
I would also like to address your attempt to make it seem as though language is unimportant or insignificant in the cause of equality. You stated, "Because of their emphasis on the near-omnipotence of language, Theorists see oppression as pervasively encoded in language. They do not mean just the invidious stereotypes built into language." Then you listed several common English phrases with discriminatory origins, appearing to long for the days when you could still use them without being called out for your discriminatory language. You then continued, "According to Theory, even the most seemingly innocuous discourse can be an oppressive imposition by a dominant group." Frankly, I am having trouble believing that "someone deeply imbued with scientific/rationalist/realist assumptions" (as I believe I am as well) such as yourself cannot fathom how the use of language -- whether termed "a common vocabulary" or "propaganda" or "marketing" -- can and does have real-world impacts, for better or worse, on the cause of equality.
Or is there some other reason for why we Whites no longer use the N-word?
I would also like to address your discussion of "cancel culture." I completely agree that it has gone too far. We need space in relationships, in families, and in society for forgiveness. Everyone errs from time to time. Everyone gets heated and says and does things that they later regret. Every human deserves the dignity of not being reduced to nothing more than your worst mistakes. For example, if someone is found to have behaved badly and they take sincere steps to make amends (see, e.g., James Gunn and Kevin Hart), then you (partner, family member, fellow citizen) need to nod with respect and move on. On the other hand, if someone is found to have behaved badly and they take no sincere steps to make amends (see, e.g., Harvey Weinstein and Andrew Tate), then I am 100% onboard with their complete and utter cancellation.
Finally, I would like to comment on this:
"Activists seek to undermine the whole conceptual scheme that classifies people according to such categories as able/disabled or thin/fat. 'Disabilities' are, in fact, to be accepted and even celebrated; the 'disabled' are actually 'differently abled.' The autistic should celebrate their difference from the 'neurotypical.'...Is a disability something to celebrate? In my experience, definitely not. Losing my hearing has been a major hassle and has no upside. Being hearing-impaired is something that has happened to me; it is no part of who I am and does not constitute an identity I would wish to embrace."
I will set aside the "fat studies" issue because that is a total red herring, in my view, and will focus just on the disability part.
I would like to offer you a different perspective, from a fellow "disabled." I actually have never once described myself as "disabled" until now, and still don't want to own up to it, because it is just who I am and I would not change it even if I was given the option. I want to learn how to better manage it, but I don't want to make it go away because there are many benefits that come with my disability. If a genie popped up and offered me a wish to "cure" my disability, then would politely decline, as without it I would stop being me. I probably wouldn't be as funny without my disability. I would certainly not be sitting here obsessively replying to your post. I would not be the passionate lover of art and serial nonprofit founder and volunteer. I would not have deep, beautiful relationships with my fellow disabled. I would not have my same level of grit and perseverance in the face of adversity. So, yes, my disability is something to be celebrated, but that does require a degree of acceptance on my part, which has taken time.
What's my disability, you say?
I am autistic.
Dr. Parsons, there are many advantages that come with your disability as well, if you will take the time to look and consider them. I do not know you, but I will venture to say (forgive me for my bluntness--that is an autistic trait) that I think you may need to work on the acceptance part first before you will be able to see the good in your disability (don't get angry, please, I know that this is hard to hear, especially from a complete stranger, just my speculation based on your writing above). If you would sincerely like to interrogate that part of yourself, I recommend the tome (I "read" the audiobook, which is 40 hours and 37 minutes long, and is read by the author) "Far From the Tree: Parents, Children and the Search for Identity" by Andrew Solomon, a deeply moving and insightful look at many "conditions," from being gay to being deaf to being autistic, and many others (each chapter covers a different state of being, drawing on personal case studies and scientific research); you may come away with a whole new outlook on your own and others' "disability." (No judgment either way! Apologies for being overly forthright with my opinions on this very personal topic.)
To sum up where you got it right, I think that you are correct to critique the left for pushing too hard on some human and civil rights issues (I find so much of their zeal to be incredibly counter-productive -- for example, literally stopping the production of a cohesive left because certain zealots require every single human-to-human introduction to begin with a pronoun request and disclosure.) I am teaching my four (4) kids to be kind, respectful, and loving to all people, including trans people, but I am not teaching them to say, "My name is Clinton, he him his" every time they meet someone and they should not be made to feel illiberal or socially deviant for not doing so.
To sum up where I think you got it wrong, it is mainly your assertion that social justice aims for absolute equality. It does not. I also am of the opinion that cancel culture has gone too far, but I do think that it is good for unrepentant bad actors to face consequences for their actions.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts, if you do end up reading this tardy comment to your thought-provoking essay. Thank you very much.
Hi Dr. Parsons. I am just now reading your piece and I have thoughts.
First, thank you for having the courage to even write about this topic. Public discourse in this arena is way too frothy and prone to societal "cancellation," as you alluded to in your piece. I commend you for that.
Second, I learned a lot about postmodernism, and its critiques, so thank you for that as well. I do not feel a need to pick sides in this, though, as I see it as a false choice -- postmodernism and liberalism (or whatever you are arguing is the superior school of thought) all have much to offer and either need not be dismissed out of hand.
Overall, I will say that my experience reading this essay was quite the rollercoaster. I am a proud proponent of social justice and you say that social justice is bad because it comes from postmodernism, which is bad (I am oversimplifying here with "bad," but you catch my drift).
But before you, or anyone else, attempts to label me with the right wing epithet of "social justice warrior" or "SJW," I would like to inform you that you, too, sir are a proponent of social justice. Furthermore, your attempt to categorically discredit all of social justice by essentially framing it as "fruit of the poisonous tree," a descendant of wackadoodle postmodernism philosophies, falls short, in my never humble opinion.
I have often struggled to find a satisfying definition of social justice, as I understand it. Now, I have a great one and it is from Dr. Keith Parsons, Professor of Philosophy and Humanities, Emeritus, University of Houston-Clear Lake. For me, promoting social justice is:
"...to effect broad societal changes that empower and include those historically powerless and excluded. These changes involve revisions of law, custom, representation, and attitude. Concomitantly, the over-privileges enjoyed by some must be curtailed. The goal is equality, not absolute equality in every respect, but in essential respects: equality of rights, equality of opportunity, equality before the law, and equality of respect and dignity. 'Equal rights for all; special privileges for none.' "
"For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances — for better health care and better schools and better jobs — to the larger aspirations of all Americans: the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who has been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for our own lives — by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny."
To equate absolute equality with the aims of social justice, as you seem to have done, is a gross mischaracterization and a straw man argument because no credible social justice activist is arguing for absolute equality. Show me one (1) extreme left "SJW" absolutist and I will introduce you to ninety-nine (99) hardworking, fair-minded social justice activists who are fighting for Obama's vision with not a single shred of delusional desire for absolute equality. My friend, nobody is saying, as right wingers like to imply, things like "The population is 50% women so women should have exactly 50% representation in every single aspect of society, and if they don't then that is sexism." No! Not even close. The goal is exactly what you said: equality, not absolute equality.
For me, social justice is about having a more perfect union as a global humanity, not some autocratic, neo-communistic obsession with exact proportionate distribution of everything everywhere all at once.
I would wager that you and I, if we were to have a one-on-one chat (which I would thoroughly enjoy and appreciate, in actual fact), would see pretty close to eye-to-eye on the many ways that the left has overplayed the so-called "woke agenda" (as right wingers term it; a term that I find to be mostly a slur that tends to curtail meaningful dialog rather than encourage it). For example, I believe that transgender people exist and they have always existed, I believe in trans rights, and I will flight for trans rights, BUT I don't believe that it is the human rights issue of our day and time -- that is, unequivocally, the issue of Climate Changed (that "d" is not a typo--we are already in it, so let's face it for what it is). This is not the hill to die on for the cause of liberalism and societal progress, and continuing to push it hard in academia and society has already caused (and continues to cause) a right wing / independent backlash that is harmful to much more important causes. As you say, the left should be "leading the fight against Trump"; I would only quibble that I would have preferred something like, "leading the fight against Trump because he rejects Climate Changed, the most dire threat that humankind has ever faced."
I enjoyed it Keith, even for the selfish reason I confess below. But allow me a little disagreement.
If only it were so simple as cats on mats, but reality is no more a set of isolated tableaus than language is a collection of words.
Billy Kirby, Judge Temple, and Natty Bumppo in J.F. Cooper's the Pioneers all see sap-making maple trees as sap-making maple trees. And yet Billy speaks of them as a resource to be exploited until dried up, after which he picks up stakes and moves on to the nest stand. Judge Temple, our protagonist, speaks a recognizable religio-moral discourse of the trees as resource to be stewarded. He's the Sierra Club to Billy's Exxon. Garrulous Natty speaks what in the novel's terms is a dying red-face myth of the tree as, like all of nature, a rights-bearing creature -- a person, as our legal discourse would have it. Temple thinks that he and Natty agree and that Billy is the odd man out, but Natty insists that he lives beyond where Temple is capable of traveling because Temple, like Billy, within a world of possessive individualism in which trees' lives matter, but not for themselves. Today, Natty represents an old but new again theory of nature lost in the disenchantments of enlightenment that birthed instrumental reason. Are they all the same maple tree? (This works for most anything including history, which isn't the events themselves but, as Hayden White said, their emplotment into a meaning.)
And Speaking of Trees, Richard Powers, The Overstory.
That's not to say that I sign on to everything "woke," largely because, I suppose, I'm more postmodern than they are, certainly more resistant to bad totalities (all of them so far; progress made possible Clinton Tankersley's recent essay on environmental depredation) and metanarratives. I find negation no more leads to nihilistic despair than a lack of faith in God does. That negativity is an important part of activism simply because good intentions left unchecked tend unerringly to the other place. What your recital od Pluckrose and Lindsay does for me, and it is no small thing, is reassure me that I needn't look closer. So thanks very much for that.
I look forward to your treatment of Mounck. From shorter excerpts laying out his genealogical theory, he seems to have a better handle. What a respondent in the Chronicle of Higher Ed missed in suggesting that the work Mounck critiques was of a piece with the processes described by Perry Anderson in Imagined Communities is that the nation-state *in theory* embraced difference under the identity of citizen, this work tends to divide citizens by ascribed or elected identities. Of course, in practice, the normative citizen was and, in many ways, still is, a white, cis-gendered, property-owning male, but while that is the impetus for much of "woke" counter-discourse, my utmost concern is for erosion of what small amount of civic unity still exists, since the nation-state, that social and textual construct, is the ultimate guarantor of rights. Yes, the courts remain (in theory) a venue of recourse, but would that be a democratic solution if the court were some third force distant from all parties rather than an office of a government of, by, and for the people?
But have you been to Cooperstown and seen Glimmer Lake?
Indeed I have seen Glimmerglass. Went to a summer seminar for department chairs hosted at the Otesaga Hotel, at the foot of the lake.. Lovely long weekend in early June. Wow!
We’ve seen it, too. Beautiful. Cardiff Giant not as impressive
In that case, I'm glad I went to the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum to see the NY and San Francisco Giants.
We visited baseball hall of fame, too. Much more interesting and impressive than Mr Cardiff
Thanks, Kevin.
The affirmation of objectivity does not preclude interpretive or perceptual diversity. If postmodernism only affirmed, for instance that the nude body is perceived differently by the anatomist, the artist, and the lover, who would object? Such platitudes would hardly have provoked the furor elicited by postmodernist critique. No, the true postmodernist spirit is shown in such works as Donna Haraway's Primate Visions, which is an attempt to erase the distinction between fiction and scientific fact. Then there is W.J.T. Mitchell's The Last Dinosaur Book, which attempts to deconstruct the distinction between dinosaurs as cultural icons and as objects of scientific inquiry. The quality of argument in these works is so poor as to descend into the merely fatuous. The most remarkable thing about them is that they were published by two highly respectable academic publishers, Routledge and The University of Chicago Press. Scientific objects, like primates or dinosaurs, certainly may be and should be stimuli to imagination and interpretation. But there are limits. If imagination contradicts fact--like the fundamentalists who imagine dinosaurs on the Ark with Noah--then it is wrong. Full stop.
Negativity is not bad per se. Bad things should be negated. However, consistent negativity is close to the definition of nihilism. Negation that is not in the name of something better leaves us with nothing but spite, like Dostoevsky's Underground Man. Living for spite makes you miserable, and if someone wants to be miserable, it is their perfect right. I would just ask that they go be miserable somewhere else.
Yes, I recall our disagreement about Mitchell's book, which I quite enjoyed. I don't see the boundary between icon and object of scientific inquiry as so impermeable; I found Thomas Laquer's Making Sex quite convincing in its history of medicine. And all of the medical theories were propounded by people who would have said they were looking objectively. I'm afraid I've never been a Haraway fan. Again, as so often, we'll disagree.
Something can certainly be both a scientific object and a cultural icon, just as a piece of colored cloth can be a flag symbolizing national identity. Mitchell so conflates the icon and the object that he seems to lose track of the fact that a dinosaur was an animal.
Sorry, folks., I am a terrible proofreader. I say that Pluckrose and Lindsay identify six theses of postmodernism and give four. Sorry. It was four. Sheesh.
I'm sure it read like six!
And, folks, *I'm* the editor/proofreader in chief in this here enterprise, so mea much more culpa than Dr Parsons.
[part 2 of 2]
I would also like to address your attempt to make it seem as though language is unimportant or insignificant in the cause of equality. You stated, "Because of their emphasis on the near-omnipotence of language, Theorists see oppression as pervasively encoded in language. They do not mean just the invidious stereotypes built into language." Then you listed several common English phrases with discriminatory origins, appearing to long for the days when you could still use them without being called out for your discriminatory language. You then continued, "According to Theory, even the most seemingly innocuous discourse can be an oppressive imposition by a dominant group." Frankly, I am having trouble believing that "someone deeply imbued with scientific/rationalist/realist assumptions" (as I believe I am as well) such as yourself cannot fathom how the use of language -- whether termed "a common vocabulary" or "propaganda" or "marketing" -- can and does have real-world impacts, for better or worse, on the cause of equality.
Or is there some other reason for why we Whites no longer use the N-word?
I would also like to address your discussion of "cancel culture." I completely agree that it has gone too far. We need space in relationships, in families, and in society for forgiveness. Everyone errs from time to time. Everyone gets heated and says and does things that they later regret. Every human deserves the dignity of not being reduced to nothing more than your worst mistakes. For example, if someone is found to have behaved badly and they take sincere steps to make amends (see, e.g., James Gunn and Kevin Hart), then you (partner, family member, fellow citizen) need to nod with respect and move on. On the other hand, if someone is found to have behaved badly and they take no sincere steps to make amends (see, e.g., Harvey Weinstein and Andrew Tate), then I am 100% onboard with their complete and utter cancellation.
Finally, I would like to comment on this:
"Activists seek to undermine the whole conceptual scheme that classifies people according to such categories as able/disabled or thin/fat. 'Disabilities' are, in fact, to be accepted and even celebrated; the 'disabled' are actually 'differently abled.' The autistic should celebrate their difference from the 'neurotypical.'...Is a disability something to celebrate? In my experience, definitely not. Losing my hearing has been a major hassle and has no upside. Being hearing-impaired is something that has happened to me; it is no part of who I am and does not constitute an identity I would wish to embrace."
I will set aside the "fat studies" issue because that is a total red herring, in my view, and will focus just on the disability part.
I would like to offer you a different perspective, from a fellow "disabled." I actually have never once described myself as "disabled" until now, and still don't want to own up to it, because it is just who I am and I would not change it even if I was given the option. I want to learn how to better manage it, but I don't want to make it go away because there are many benefits that come with my disability. If a genie popped up and offered me a wish to "cure" my disability, then would politely decline, as without it I would stop being me. I probably wouldn't be as funny without my disability. I would certainly not be sitting here obsessively replying to your post. I would not be the passionate lover of art and serial nonprofit founder and volunteer. I would not have deep, beautiful relationships with my fellow disabled. I would not have my same level of grit and perseverance in the face of adversity. So, yes, my disability is something to be celebrated, but that does require a degree of acceptance on my part, which has taken time.
What's my disability, you say?
I am autistic.
Dr. Parsons, there are many advantages that come with your disability as well, if you will take the time to look and consider them. I do not know you, but I will venture to say (forgive me for my bluntness--that is an autistic trait) that I think you may need to work on the acceptance part first before you will be able to see the good in your disability (don't get angry, please, I know that this is hard to hear, especially from a complete stranger, just my speculation based on your writing above). If you would sincerely like to interrogate that part of yourself, I recommend the tome (I "read" the audiobook, which is 40 hours and 37 minutes long, and is read by the author) "Far From the Tree: Parents, Children and the Search for Identity" by Andrew Solomon, a deeply moving and insightful look at many "conditions," from being gay to being deaf to being autistic, and many others (each chapter covers a different state of being, drawing on personal case studies and scientific research); you may come away with a whole new outlook on your own and others' "disability." (No judgment either way! Apologies for being overly forthright with my opinions on this very personal topic.)
To sum up where you got it right, I think that you are correct to critique the left for pushing too hard on some human and civil rights issues (I find so much of their zeal to be incredibly counter-productive -- for example, literally stopping the production of a cohesive left because certain zealots require every single human-to-human introduction to begin with a pronoun request and disclosure.) I am teaching my four (4) kids to be kind, respectful, and loving to all people, including trans people, but I am not teaching them to say, "My name is Clinton, he him his" every time they meet someone and they should not be made to feel illiberal or socially deviant for not doing so.
To sum up where I think you got it wrong, it is mainly your assertion that social justice aims for absolute equality. It does not. I also am of the opinion that cancel culture has gone too far, but I do think that it is good for unrepentant bad actors to face consequences for their actions.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts, if you do end up reading this tardy comment to your thought-provoking essay. Thank you very much.
[part 1]
Hi Dr. Parsons. I am just now reading your piece and I have thoughts.
First, thank you for having the courage to even write about this topic. Public discourse in this arena is way too frothy and prone to societal "cancellation," as you alluded to in your piece. I commend you for that.
Second, I learned a lot about postmodernism, and its critiques, so thank you for that as well. I do not feel a need to pick sides in this, though, as I see it as a false choice -- postmodernism and liberalism (or whatever you are arguing is the superior school of thought) all have much to offer and either need not be dismissed out of hand.
Overall, I will say that my experience reading this essay was quite the rollercoaster. I am a proud proponent of social justice and you say that social justice is bad because it comes from postmodernism, which is bad (I am oversimplifying here with "bad," but you catch my drift).
But before you, or anyone else, attempts to label me with the right wing epithet of "social justice warrior" or "SJW," I would like to inform you that you, too, sir are a proponent of social justice. Furthermore, your attempt to categorically discredit all of social justice by essentially framing it as "fruit of the poisonous tree," a descendant of wackadoodle postmodernism philosophies, falls short, in my never humble opinion.
I have often struggled to find a satisfying definition of social justice, as I understand it. Now, I have a great one and it is from Dr. Keith Parsons, Professor of Philosophy and Humanities, Emeritus, University of Houston-Clear Lake. For me, promoting social justice is:
"...to effect broad societal changes that empower and include those historically powerless and excluded. These changes involve revisions of law, custom, representation, and attitude. Concomitantly, the over-privileges enjoyed by some must be curtailed. The goal is equality, not absolute equality in every respect, but in essential respects: equality of rights, equality of opportunity, equality before the law, and equality of respect and dignity. 'Equal rights for all; special privileges for none.' "
This is social justice, my friend! Recall Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech (colloquially called, "the race speech"; https://www.npr.org/2008/03/18/88478467/transcript-barack-obamas-speech-on-race):
"For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances — for better health care and better schools and better jobs — to the larger aspirations of all Americans: the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who has been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for our own lives — by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny."
To equate absolute equality with the aims of social justice, as you seem to have done, is a gross mischaracterization and a straw man argument because no credible social justice activist is arguing for absolute equality. Show me one (1) extreme left "SJW" absolutist and I will introduce you to ninety-nine (99) hardworking, fair-minded social justice activists who are fighting for Obama's vision with not a single shred of delusional desire for absolute equality. My friend, nobody is saying, as right wingers like to imply, things like "The population is 50% women so women should have exactly 50% representation in every single aspect of society, and if they don't then that is sexism." No! Not even close. The goal is exactly what you said: equality, not absolute equality.
For me, social justice is about having a more perfect union as a global humanity, not some autocratic, neo-communistic obsession with exact proportionate distribution of everything everywhere all at once.
I would wager that you and I, if we were to have a one-on-one chat (which I would thoroughly enjoy and appreciate, in actual fact), would see pretty close to eye-to-eye on the many ways that the left has overplayed the so-called "woke agenda" (as right wingers term it; a term that I find to be mostly a slur that tends to curtail meaningful dialog rather than encourage it). For example, I believe that transgender people exist and they have always existed, I believe in trans rights, and I will flight for trans rights, BUT I don't believe that it is the human rights issue of our day and time -- that is, unequivocally, the issue of Climate Changed (that "d" is not a typo--we are already in it, so let's face it for what it is). This is not the hill to die on for the cause of liberalism and societal progress, and continuing to push it hard in academia and society has already caused (and continues to cause) a right wing / independent backlash that is harmful to much more important causes. As you say, the left should be "leading the fight against Trump"; I would only quibble that I would have preferred something like, "leading the fight against Trump because he rejects Climate Changed, the most dire threat that humankind has ever faced."