Counter-Enlightenment, Anti-Woke

The ‘Anti-Woke’ bandwagon has been picking up speed in stirring up anger and resentment against ideas that annoy reactionaries. Exposing prejudices, follies, exploitation has always irritated manipulators who fear that the more others know about what they are really up to, the less they could continue to take advantage of them. To retain their oppressive power and sense of superiority, they resort to weapons of mass deception.

 

In so doing, they are carrying forward the dishonourable tradition of the Counter-Enlightenment, which emerged to attack the thinkers who from late 17^th through the rest of the 18^th century, explained why better ways of understanding the world and improving people’s lives could be attained through empirical investigation, objective reasoning, and cooperative deliberations. They argued that knowledge could be more reliably advanced through scientific research than tying it to the teachings of priests and theologians; women should be given the same opportunities as men; no one should be treated as a slave; punishment should fit the crime; the power to rule should be shared more widely. 

 

These and many other ideas characterised the enlightening outlook that became increasingly influential. By late 18^th and early 19^th century, they had provoked reactions that came to be known as the Counter-Enlightenment. People who had their self-importance wrapped up in the status quo detested attempts to get people to see more clearly what was going on around them. These reactionaries championed darkness over light. Their impact spread through the 19^th century. Church leaders must be heeded over scientific findings. Darwin’s theory of natural selection was condemned and many schools were forbidden from teaching it. Calls for equality for women and men were mockingly rejected. In the US, the southern states fought a war when they thought they might not otherwise be able to retain their system of slavery indefinitely. In France, antisemitism rose to new heights as reactionaries rallied to back the false charge and wrongful imprisonment of the Jewish army officer, Captain Dreyfus. Harsh punishment for the poor was trumpeted alongside leniency for the rich. Attempts to extend the right to vote were repeatedly blocked.

 

By the 20^th century, these Counter-Enlightenment tendencies were hardening into fascism, religious fundamentalism, white supremacism, irrationalism, and misogynist politics. As the 21^st century dawned, theocratic politics, anti-science in relation to the environment and public health, defence of institutional racism, and anti-international cooperation, were added to the mix. Peel away the ‘Anti-Woke’ label, it is this pernicious cocktail that is being served up.

 

It is understandable that when one’s journey to visit a sick relative is held up for hours by protestors against fossil fuels on the motorway, or when one is criticised for reading to one’s child an innocuous story by an author who decades ago made an insensitive remark, one might be drawn to the rhetoric of the Anti-Woke brigade. But it is quite a different matter to give one’s political support to scoundrels who are determined to keep the public from realising that their agenda is to advance their own selfish interests at the expense of everyone else’s wellbeing.

The Theft of Political Clothes

From time to time, we hear one political party fretting about another party stealing their clothes. If people want their ideas and policies adopted, isn’t it a good thing that even their opponents are coming round to promoting them? On the surface, that might seem so. But more often than not, such ‘borrowing’ of ideas is not to be welcome at all. Here are four reasons to be wary.

First of all, the sheer incompetence of the other side can give any policy they adopt a bad name and end up discrediting it completely. After thirteen years of mismanaging public services, failing to build desperately needed homes despite repeated announcements of new initiatives, mishandling everything from the economy to policing, it is understandable that a Tory government picking up a new policy may well be followed by the most muddled, disorganised execution of that policy, creating the impression that the policy itself is inherently undeliverable. The Tory policy commitment to Net Zero is a prime example.

Secondly, when it comes to policies with major funding implications, one has to watch for the half-hearted mimics. One party may want to close the funding gap for the health service, or provide what is necessary to reduce flooding. But the other side could come out to say that they are tackling the funding shortfalls in headline terms, when in fact they are not making available even half of what is actually needed, then the public – hearing figures about so many millions, or billions being added to current budgets – might think the financial challenge is met, and come to believe that one must not “throw any more money at the problem”.

Thirdly, we have the time-wasting tokenistic gesture of adopting a well thought out policy so that the party which had formulated that policy is not viewed by voters as the one with a distinctly good offer. In reality, once people no longer associate that policy with the party that sincerely seeks to implement it, the copycat brigade would put it on the backburner, or hand it to a small team with neither the staffing nor financial support for its development. The policy will never see the light of day, and many would have forgotten whose idea it was anyway.

Last but not least, there is the tactic of cynical undermining. This works by one party welcoming a policy idea which it does not want those who devised it to get a chance to secure its implementation. Having ‘adopted’ the policy, the manipulators would proceed to give it ‘special attention’ – by setting up a commission, a review team, etc. to determine how it should be taken forward. After months and years, lots of obstacles would be identified, and recommendations would be drafted and then discarded. The process would eventually achieve its aim of associating that policy with numerous insurmountable problems.

Next time we hear progressive reformists complaining about reactionary parties stealing their clothes, we should not blame them. Rather, we ought to help raise awareness about the lack of honour amongst those thieves.

Crimes Against Democracy

Since 2010, democracy in the UK has suffered from numerous attempts by Conservative-led governments to undermine it. In 2014, the method for electoral registration was changed despite warnings that it would cause hundreds of thousands of potential voters – especially youngsters and those in poor, transient households – to drop off the register. That was exactly what happened. To put off even more people from getting electorally involved, the Conservatives brought in the Elections Act 2022 which required photo identification for anyone wanting to vote in person, knowing that young people and those on lower income are less likely to have a passport or driving licence.

The 2022 Act also put an end to the Electoral Commission’s independent status that had hitherto enabled it to challenge the government. Henceforth, the commission would be placed under the supervision of a government minister. It’s unlikely that it would in future publicly castigate a Tory government for breaching electoral funding rules as it had done in the past.

All this and more have been taking place with no major public outcry – not because people are content to have their democratic influence diminished, but because they are not aware of what is being done and what impact it could have. If only people had generally acquired an early interest and understanding in how politics works, gone on to listen out for what implications various policy proposals might have, and followed through to use their vote to steer power towards where it would make the most positive difference.

For that to happen, we need extensive, high quality political education. What we get from the Conservative government, however, is guidance to schools instructing them to refrain from teaching anything which could be regarded as breaching ‘political impartiality’. And is political impartiality to be determined by an independent body guided by non-partisan experts? No, what is or is not an issue that is too ‘contested’ to teach is to be judged by the Conservative Secretary of State for Education, advised by advisors aligned with the interest of the Conservative Party.

Climate change apparently can be talked about at school, but not the ideas concerning what could be done about it, since that might involve policy suggestions that the government would contest. Similarly, race inequality can be mentioned, but not ideas about what are the causes and what might remedy it, since that might also involve explanations the government would contest. In short, anything the government does not agree with, and thus is inclined to contest as mistaken would be classified as unsuitable to teach at school. Political education would then be reduced to passing on information that the government is happy to endorse, but it would be cut off at any point it raises awareness of any fact, arrangement or practice that the government prefers to keep opaque. 

But isn’t it impossible to teach politics without getting tangled up with party politics? On this, there are two important points to note. First, scientists, engineers, doctors, economists, historians, etc all develop expertise in their fields and pass on their findings and criticisms to others who seek to learn from them – regardless of whether or not the government of the day find it inconvenient to hear those ideas and thus wish to contest them. Secondly, apart from facts and analyses relating directly to political processes, there are many skills that political education would inculcate – critical reasoning, assessing the reliability of claims made on different media platforms, conflict resolution, consensus building, fact checking, group development, empathic listening, etc. Some politicians may be against the teaching of such skills – as that would make it so much more difficult to deceive and manipulate people – but anyone who cares about democracy would welcome their cultivation.

--

You can find out more about the reforms needed to strengthen democracy in Time to Save Democracy (by Henry Tam): https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/time-to-save-democracy

For more on why and how we should provide more effective political education, see this collection - Who’s Afraid of Political Education (ed. by Henry Tam): https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/whos-afraid-of-political-education

[this is a shortened version of an article I wrote for Policy Press’ Transforming Society]

Čapek’s Empathy Test

2023 marks the centenary of the first staging of Karel Čapek’s revolutionary play, R.U.R. in England – at the St. Martin’s Theatre, West End.

‘R.U.R.’ stands for ‘Rossum’s Universal Robots’, and the play (originally written in 1920) was about a company by the name of Rossum making human-like robots (what are more commonly called ‘androids’ these days) to carry out laborious work all over the world (wherever there are buyers for their service), and discovering later that the robots would come to think for themselves and decide to eliminate humankind to secure their own freedom.

Čapek’s play is both an allegorical indictment of how the rich and powerful in society treat those forced to do the most unrewarding work, and a call to find empathy with others regardless of how we have been conditioned to perceive them.

Pioneering the sci-fi device of representing the downtrodden as human-like robots, Čapek warned us about the consequence of callous disregard of those who we command to work for us, and urged us to embrace them as our equals before it’s too late. He thus set the ultimate test for humanity – our capacity for empathy.

In Čapek’s footsteps, others have continued to develop his Empathy Test in a variety of ways. Philip K. Dick, in his novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, gave us androids rebelling against their masters only to be hunted down mercilessly (the androids were made by an organisation called ‘Rosen’, a likely echo of ‘Rossum’). In the film adaptation – Blade Runner – the legitimacy of the culling of the androids (renamed ‘replicants’) was not only questioned, but where humanity truly resided became a focal concern.

These issues were further elaborated in three outstanding TV sci-fi series (in the 2000s and 2010s): the reimagined Battlestar Galactica, with the Cylons waging an apocalyptic war against their human creators, who were so blinded by their hatred for their ‘non-human’ enemies, they could not recognise their own role in sowing the seeds of disaster; Humans (adapted from a Swedish drama), with the Synths gaining self-awareness and not wanting to be treated as servile entities, but the human establishment viewing them exclusively as a problem to be eradicated; and Westworld, with the Hosts rejecting the roles assigned to them, and the humans reacting with the utmost resolve to terminate such insubordination.

Weaving through the plots are recurring themes about what it is to be human, whose dignity we must respect, how can we appreciate the feelings of others if we assume they have none, why everyone should be given a chance to lead a meaningful life without having to carry out work they are forced to do to survive.

Čapek raised these vital questions a century ago. Some may think that with robotics and AI technology advancing faster than ever, it is now particularly urgent to come up with answers. But for Čapek and those of us who appreciate his central ideas, the need for answers became urgent when – way back in the 1900s – modern industrialism gave the business elite the power to turn workers everywhere into robot-like beings – workers left with no time to think for themselves, having to do what they are ordered to do without question, using up their time and energy for little in return, and viewed disdainfully as dispensable parts of the corporate machinery.

None of us wants to be treated like that. All of us will at some point declare – enough is enough. 

--

[Note: Čapek wanted to coin a term to refer to the human-like beings made by the company in his play, and he credited his brother for coming up with a Czech word that literally meant ‘forced labour’ – ‘roboti’. Thus the term ‘robot’ as we understand it today enter the English language, and the nightmare of mismanaging the technology of robotics began.]

The Newcomer Paradox

Social capital research has often found that when an area experiences an influx of new people, there tends to be a drop in the general levels of trust. This may suggest that people are unsettled by the arrival of strangers, and the uncertainty of what to make of them leads many to wish that they could be left as they were previously. Some have indeed interpreted this as why there is always going to be resistance to immigration.

However, other studies have found that the less static a community is – i.e., it receives newcomers who in time become part of that community – the more at ease it is about who live amongst them. Notably, in the EU Referendum in the UK in 2016, there was a clear correlation between areas with a higher proportion of migrant population and areas that voted to stay in the EU. That was not down to the migrant votes in those areas tipping the balance, but the UK born citizens in those areas being better disposed towards living in a multicultural society.

So, do having more newcomers in an area make current residents more, or less trusting, relaxed, open-minded about the idea of newcomers? The answer depends on how those newcomers are brought in. If the process is well managed and explained, with current residents given the understanding of why people are coming and how it would enhance rather than diminish their overall wellbeing (through the contributions they make as workers and neighbours), and everyone supported in getting to know one another through social events – then the likelihood is that people will soon overcome the initial sense of unfamiliarity, appreciate others as fellow residents, discover what they have in common, and value what they gain from new experiences.

By contrast, if the process is chaotic, with a sudden surge of newcomers arriving with accommodation, transport, and other issues disrupted with no plan for normality, or worse, if negative propaganda is layered on top to present the arrival of kind, thoughtful people as an existential threat posed by ‘aliens’ who should be shunned, then initial distrust can easily be escalated to fear, anger and even hate.

Anyone who has had direct experience – usually in cosmopolitan cities, or learnt through historical accounts, of areas developing over time with newcomers joining the native population, would know that as diverse elements come together to form new connections, more powerful networks and richer relationships would emerge.

Unfortunately, although natural human tendencies are to move from cautious welcoming of strangers to embracing new social bonds, those tendencies can be severely undermined by people who want to further their political ambitions by radicalising the natives against scapegoated newcomers. Indeed, it has become one of the standard formulas of right-wing demagoguery – pump out media reports of every conceivable problem that can be linked to refugees, immigrants, aliens with the wrong faith, etc; blame bad news on the people who “shouldn’t be allowed here”; announce proposals using language that would help dehumanise those who are to be detained, demeaned, deported.

The vast majority of people are not racist. But many can be manipulated by racist con-politicians. Instead of playing into the hands of those con-politicians and alienate people with the ‘racist’ label, we should help them engage with others as fellow human beings. It is telling that many of those who might be superficially taken in by the racist rhetoric of demagogues, are often the first to say categorically that whatever negative terms are used about all those newcomers, they do not apply to the ones they have come to know well – the ones they know, regardless of their colour, religion, country of origin, are good people.

Ur-Fascism & the Nationalistic Right

There are two notable fascist behavioural traits: one is the readiness to deny that one is a fascist because one does not share every single characteristic of a follower of Hitler or Mussolini; the other is the propensity to accuse one’s enemies of being like fascists when they do not resemble fascists at all.

We can see how easily such talk can deflect from the need to warn society of political leaders who will use demagogic appeals to secure enough power to carry out their oppressive designs. To cut through the obfuscation, we would do well to remind ourselves of Umberto Eco’s concept of ‘Ur-Fascism’, which he put forward back in 1995 to describe what is the essence of fascist political culture. ‘Ur’ is the German prefix for ‘archetypal’. In other words, Eco wants to draw out, not the many different aspects of different fascist leaders, but the core features of the fascist archetype. He listed 14 of them:

1.    The cult of tradition

2.    Rejection of all that the Enlightenment stands for

3.    Distrust of the intellectual world

4.    Hostility to the critical spirit in discussions

5.    Intolerance of difference 

6.    Appeal to anger and frustration

7.    Group identity defined through common enemies

8.    Hatred of those to be defeated 

9.    The Armageddon complex of absolute confrontation

10.Contempt for the weak

11.The glorification of heroic death

12.Disdain for women and non-standard sexuality 

13.The Leader embodies the Divine/General Will

14.A restriction of the vocabulary for expression

A glance down that list will show that the nationalistic, anti-liberal stance of the likes of Trump, Putin, Bolsonaro, along with backers of far right parties across Europe, and many self-styled National Conservatives in the US and the UK, all thrive on those 14 features:

1.    Celebrating the chauvinistic ‘good old days’

2.    Despising open-mindedness and evidence-based discourse

3.    Dismissing experts and scholars

4.    Snarling and mocking instead of discussing issues

5.    Demonising immigrants, minorities, and people with different faiths 

6.    Stirring up rage at every opportunity

7.    Uniting followers against anyone targeted as the ‘enemies’

8.    Weaponising hate through all communication channels 

9.    Glorifying the refusal to compromise

10.Cutting support for the vulnerable

11.Championing sacrifices for some great cause (though not sacrificing themselves)

12.Displaying anti-feminist views and rejecting non-standard sexuality 

13.Positioning the leader as one who can do no wrong 

14.Attacking concerns with racism, climate change, fairness as ‘woke’ or whatever term designating ideas that should be silenced.

Eco’s warning should be heeded more than ever:

Ur-Fascism is still around us, sometimes in plain clothes. It would be so much easier, for us, if there appeared on the world scene somebody saying, `I want to reopen Auschwitz, I want the Black Shirts to parade again in the Italian squares.' Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances - every day, in every part of the world. (Eco, 1995)

--

Eco, U. `Ur-Fascism', in The New York Review of Books, June 22, 1995.

 

From Here to Community: a communitarian timeline

Terms such as ‘liberal’, ‘conservative’, ‘socialist’, ‘libertarian’, ‘nationalist’, ‘green’ are often used, but not always in line with the thinking of ardent advocates who embrace those labels themselves.  Furthermore, the advocates with a shared label can nonetheless hold quite different views as to what is actually covered by that label.  The same is true of the label ‘communitarian’.  While the term has become more widely used in political writings, less attention has been given to what it is meant to convey by its core advocates.  What is set out below is a brief timeline indicating who have been most closely associated with that label, and when their distinctive ideas emerged. 

Owenite & Cooperative Advocates of Communitarian Experiments (early/mid-19^th century)

Robert Owen (1771-1858) pioneered new ways to enable people to live and work together in cooperative communities.  He set out his ideas in A New View of Society (1813) and other publications, and experimented with socio-economic projects at New Lanark (Britain) and New Harmony (the US).  His distinctive experiments in promoting mutual respect, sharing out resources fairly, and providing education and social security for all, led some commentators to coin the term ‘communitarian’ to refer to what he was putting forward in theory and practice.  Many who were inspired by Owen went on to experiment further in devising democratic and inclusive forms of community relations – e.g., the Rochdale Pioneers (1844) paved the way for the cooperative movement.

 

Thinkers who Developed Communitarian Approaches to Political Philosophy and Social Reforms (late 19^th/early 20^th century)

After the term ‘communitarian’ was revived in the 1980s/1990s (see the next two sections), a number of experts on late 19^th/early 20^th century thinkers observed that some of these ought to be recognised as key communitarian theorists.  The most notable figures in this context are Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), John Dewey (1859-1952), and the New Liberals [such as L. T. Hobhouse (1864-1929) and John Hobson (1858-1940)] (as explained by Mark Cladis, Alan Ryan, and David Weinstein respectively).  A similar case can be made for Leon Bourgeois (1851-1925) who, like Durkheim, developed the notion of solidarity to map out an alternative to callous laissez faire and rigid collectivism); and Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933) whose writings on the importance of advancing cooperative community relations guided thinking on organisation as Dewey’s did for education. [It should be noted that Ferdinand Tönnies is often superficially read as a communitarian who argued for Gemeinschaft (traditional hierarchical community) against Gesellschaft (loose association of self-interested individuals).  Tönnies was in fact criticised by Durkheim who set out a genuinely cogent communitarian conception of community that is neither Gemeinschaft nor Gesellschaft.]

The Communitarian Critics of John Rawls (1980s)

In the 1970s the most prominent defence of social justice and liberal support for the disadvantaged was that put forward by John Rawls in Theory of Justice (1972). However, Rawls’ arguments relied on ideas which abstracted individuals and their moral understanding from all connections with the wider community. This led to a series of criticisms that emerged in the 1980s: Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue (1981) and Whose Justice? Which Responsibility? (1988); Michael Sandel Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982); Michael Walzer Spheres of Justice (1983) and Interpretation and Social Criticism (1987); and Charles Taylor Philosophical Papers (1985) and Sources of the Self(1989).  The critics of Rawls came to be referred in academic circles as ‘communitarians’.  None of them subscribes to conservative politics, and all of them are critical of right-wing libertarianism espoused by the likes of Robert Nozick.

The Proponents of Communitarian Ideas (late 20^th/early 21^st century)

In contrast to the communitarian critics of Rawls who are ambivalent about the describing their own ideas as ‘communitarian’, from around 1990 on, a range of British and American writers argued explicitly for what they termed as ‘communitarian’ positions.  Both David Miller and David Marquand put forward ideas for the communitarian reorientation of socialism towards a cooperative vision of society.

 Jonathan Bowell, who counted Durkheim as one of his key influences, expounded what he termed ‘democratic communitarianism’, a term Robert Bellah was to welcome and adopt himself in his writings on social development.  Elinor Ostrom argued for a communitarian approach to local government.  To ensure there was no mistaking his political stance, Charles Derber set out his ideas on ‘left communitarianism’.  Philip Selznick, steeped in Dewey’s philosophy, developed in detail what he called ‘liberal communitarian’ thinking, a term which would also be used by a student of his, Amitai Etzioni, who went on to establish the Communitarian Network. Reflecting these related currents, Henry Tam set out the core arguments in Communitarianism: a new agenda for politics and citizenship (1998), and traced their historical development in The Evolution of Communitarian Ideas (2019).

--

Note

Thinkers who have been most closely associated with the coining of the term ‘communitarian’ (the Owenites and cooperative pioneers during the 19^th century) and its revival in the 1980s (the often cited ‘communitarian critics of Rawls’); as well as theorists who explicitly refer to their ideas as ‘communitarian’ (all those mentioned in the section on late 20^th/early 21^st century) and the key figures who influenced them (Dewey, Durkheim, etc), are without exception antipathic towards both oppressive traditional hierarchies and atomistic free-for-all individualism.  No notable conservative writer has presented their own ideas as ‘communitarian’.  While some commentators like to refer to non-liberal East Asian societies as ‘communitarian’, that is not based on any intellectual or theoretical usage that is actually connected with that term.  There are progressives who want to distance themselves from communitarian thoughts because they are misconceived as ‘illiberal’ or right-wing.  In fact, communitarians are the amongst the most progressive of liberal, social democratic, and cooperative advocates.