The author defines political correctness and wokeness as "an aggressively performative focus on social justice." This means the emphasis is on outward displays of adherence to social justice principles rather than genuine action, fueled by a kind of moralistic priggishness.
The essay traces the origins of modern political correctness to the 1980s, viewing it as a more aggressive second wave following earlier forms of political correctness. It highlights the role of universities as a breeding ground for this ideology.
Universities became pivotal in the spread of political correctness. The author argues that the shift from protest to punishment occurred as 1960s radicals attained tenure and positions of authority, enabling them to enforce their ideologies within universities. This created an environment where students were encouraged to attack professors holding opposing views.
The article explores how the initial phase of political correctness evolved. The superficial and ever-changing rules created a situation where adherence to orthodoxy became a substitute for actual virtue. This allowed bad actors to exploit the system for their own gain.
The author analyzes the significant role of social media in the rise of cancel culture. The inherent tendency of social media toward outrage, combined with the ease of mobilizing cancel mobs through group chats, created a perfect storm for spreading wokeness.
The article describes wokeness as a "mind-virus," highlighting its ability to rapidly spread by defining ever-changing types of impropriety. This constant shifting of rules creates fear and uncertainty, making people more susceptible to accusations of wrongdoing.
The author notes that wokeness has begun a retreat, citing examples such as corporate rejection, universities reaffirming free speech, and consumer backlash. The article proposes treating wokeness like religion, applying similar rules of engagement to prevent future outbreaks.
The article recognizes that prigs and aggressively conventional-minded individuals will always exist. The key is to prevent them from aligning behind a single ideology. This requires developing "antibodies" against the concept of heresy itself.
Ask anything...