ChatGPT and I discuss "wokeism"

Question: What has become pejoratively called wokeism was inspired by various groups’ fight against inequality. To what extent is it responsible for the vehemence of current anti-liberal ideology among right wing conservatives? Is the negative label attached to efforts towards equality a direct backlash against social or cultural change or a strategy on the part of influential people with other aims?

Answer: 

This is a rich and nuanced question, and it touches on the intersection of cultural change, political ideology, and strategic narrative framing. Let’s break it down carefully.

⸻

1. Origins of “Wokeism” and Its Pejorative Turn

The term woke originally emerged from African American Vernacular English as an exhortation to “stay awake” to social injustice, particularly racial injustice. Over time, it broadened to encompass awareness of many forms of inequality: gender, sexual orientation, class, disability, colonial legacy, etc.

But in recent years, especially in right-wing discourse, wokeism has become a pejorative—a catch-all term for what critics see as overreaching political correctness, identity politics, or enforced conformity to progressive norms.

⸻

2. Cultural Change and Backlash

The backlash against “woke” movements is in many ways a direct response to rapid social and cultural change:

• Pace and Scope of Change: The last two decades have seen rapid shifts in norms surrounding race, gender, sexuality, and history (e.g. colonialism, statues, pronouns, curriculum reform). For many, these changes feel destabilizing.

• Perceived Moral Certainty: Some critics of progressive activism feel that it is moralizing, inflexible, or punitive—especially when it involves cancel culture or institutional mandates.

• Loss of Status: Groups that previously held unexamined cultural dominance (e.g., white, Christian, heterosexual, male) may experience equality as a loss, leading to resentment.

So yes, the negative labeling of efforts toward equality is partly a backlash against real social and cultural change—experienced as either threatening or imposed.

⸻

3. Strategic Political Weaponization

But it’s also more than just cultural discomfort. The term woke has been strategically weaponized by influential actors:

• Political Utility: By turning “woke” into a scapegoat, political figures can unify a base against a common enemy without having to address complex systemic issues (e.g., economic inequality, climate crisis).

• Deflection: Culture war rhetoric diverts attention from class-based economic concerns. Framing elites as “woke ideologues” shifts focus from corporate power or economic policy to moral panic.

• Media Amplification: Think tanks, media outlets, and political consultants on the right have deliberately cultivated narratives around wokeism—pushing examples (sometimes exaggerated or cherry-picked) to stir emotional reaction and rally votes.

• Anti-liberal Rebranding: In many cases, the critique of “woke” morphs into a critique of liberalism itself—especially liberal tolerance, pluralism, or procedural democracy. In this sense, anti-woke rhetoric becomes a gateway to more authoritarian, illiberal ideologies.

⸻

4. Responsibility for the Right-Wing Vehemence?

So to your core question: To what extent is “wokeism” responsible for the vehemence of current anti-liberal ideology among right-wing conservatives?

• Partial Catalyst: Progressive movements, especially when they become institutionally dominant (e.g. in academia, media, HR departments), have certainly triggered a reaction. So “wokeism” as practiced (or perceived) plays a partial role in fueling vehemence.

• Not the Root Cause: The deeper drivers are longer-standing: economic dislocation, loss of traditional identity anchors, globalization, and the decline of trust in institutions. Wokeism is a proximate trigger, not a root cause.

• Exploited by Strategists: The vehemence is amplified and channeled by political actors who see cultural resentment as an effective way to mobilize support. In this sense, the anti-woke fervor is a means to other ends—often reactionary nationalism, deregulation, or weakening liberal institutions.

⸻

5. A Broader Philosophical Reflection

Your question invites a philosophical insight: the conflict is not merely over content (equality vs tradition), but over how reality is interpreted, whose experience counts, and what counts as knowledge or virtue.

The word woke itself has become a site of contested meaning. One side uses it to describe ethical awareness; the other, to denote moral overreach or cultural tyranny. Both meanings reflect real experiences—but the divergence is weaponized rather than reconciled.

⸻

In Summary

• The vehemence of anti-liberal ideology is partly a backlash to rapid cultural change framed as “wokeism.”

• However, it is largely shaped and intensified by strategic political narratives used by influential figures.

• The label “woke” has become a proxy battle for deeper anxieties about identity, power, and belonging in a changing world.

Question 2: What are the aims of the influential people stoking the reaction against wokeism?

Answer 2:

The aims of influential people stoking the reaction against “wokeism” vary depending on their role—politicians, media figures, corporate actors, or ideological strategists—but there are common threads among them. Below is a breakdown of key aims, organized into political, economic, cultural, and strategic categories.

⸻

1. Political Power and Electoral Mobilization

Aim: To build and maintain political coalitions by mobilizing voters through culture war narratives.

• Rally the base: “Wokeism” is framed as a threat to traditional values, family, national identity, or freedom—creating a clear “enemy” to galvanize support.

• Simplify complex issues: Instead of addressing systemic problems (e.g. healthcare, inequality, education), politicians offer emotionally charged culture war flashpoints.

• Suppress dissent: Anti-woke rhetoric helps delegitimize critics or activists by painting them as irrational, dangerous, or elitist.

👉 Example: A politician opposing LGBTQ+ rights may claim to be fighting “woke indoctrination” rather than acknowledging a rights-based argument.

⸻

2. Economic Interests and Deregulation

Aim: To prevent or roll back progressive economic reforms under the guise of opposing “woke capitalism” or “identity politics.”

• Distract from inequality: Focus on race, gender, and culture wars instead of addressing the redistribution of wealth or corporate accountability.

• Protect capital: By framing climate regulation, diversity policies, or workers’ rights as “woke overreach,” corporate interests can resist reform.

• Weaken unions and social movements: “Woke” is used to discredit labor activism or solidarity politics, dividing working-class people along identity lines.

👉 Example: Billionaire-funded think tanks warning about “woke environmentalism” may do so to protect fossil fuel profits, not free speech.

⸻

3. Reassertion of Cultural and National Identity

Aim: To preserve or restore a dominant cultural narrative—often tied to race, religion, gender roles, or nationhood.

• Restore hierarchy: Anti-woke discourse often implicitly defends traditional power structures: patriarchal, nationalist, or racially dominant orders.

• Invoke nostalgia: “Make [country] great again” often implies a return to a time before progressive gains reshaped norms.

• Promote conformity: Reducing pluralism by stigmatizing difference (immigrants, trans people, minority histories) serves the goal of a homogeneous national myth.

👉 Example: Anti-“woke history” laws seek to prevent students from learning about systemic racism, replacing it with patriotic or sanitized versions of the past.

⸻

4. Institutional Capture and Illiberal Drift

Aim: To weaken liberal-democratic norms—like academic freedom, judicial independence, or media pluralism—under the pretense of fighting “woke overreach.”

• Control discourse: Replacing independent education or journalism with state-approved or ideologically aligned alternatives.

• Undermine liberalism: Anti-woke rhetoric is increasingly a mask for anti-liberal values: attacking pluralism, rights discourse, or minority protections.

• Erode checks and balances: Cultural panic becomes a justification to bypass democratic procedures (e.g., banning books, limiting protest rights, packing courts).

👉 Example: Leaders in Hungary or Florida invoking “anti-woke” agendas to reshape universities and restrict dissent reflect this aim.

⸻

5. Narrative Dominance and Psychological Warfare

Aim: To win the “meaning war”—to shape how people understand society, morality, and truth itself.

• Redefine morality: Frame empathy, equity, and social justice as weakness, decadence, or tyranny.

• Foster cynicism: Encourage the belief that truth is subjective, that nothing is trustworthy—except their own ideology.

• Create enemies: In-group solidarity often depends on a villain. “Woke elites,” “trans activists,” “DEI bureaucrats,” or “academic Marxists” serve as symbolic enemies.

👉 Example: Influencers who build entire platforms around “anti-woke” outrage depend on constant indignation to generate clicks, allegiance, and financial support.

⸻

Summary: Their Aims in One Line Each

Domain                         Aim

Political:    Win elections, suppress opposition, and consolidate power.

Economic:    Protect corporate interests and resist redistributive reforms.

Cultural:    Preserve dominant identity narratives and social hierarchies.

Institutional:    Dismantle liberal safeguards in the name of “freedom.”

Psychological/Strategic:    Control language, shape perception, and divide the public.

⸻

Final Reflection

The push against “wokeism” is not just reactive—it’s proactive and strategic. It cloaks elite interest in populist anger, channeling real frustrations about change, inequality, and belonging into divisive narratives that entrench the very power structures they claim to oppose.

The Yin and Yang of Politics

Have you noticed that almost every pundit and politician on the rise today is channelling machismo as some sort of answer to a huge problem, namely  _________________ ?

The interconnected Memes of this Machismo (Yang) Politics are

1. Lone Cowboy Individualism 
2. Military style Tribalism and Nationalism (zero sum competition)
3. Domination of Nature
4. A rugged outdoorsy manhood (rather than a cultured intellectualism)
5. The sense of being entitled not to have to edit one's own pronouncements or check one's own behaviours, or to receive more than to give care, regardless of effects on the wellbeing of others.

If you're Jordan Peterson or a supporter of his, the huge problem is Political Correctness and its extreme danger to freedom of speech. Any emphasis on equity evokes his fear that we are in a slide toward post-modern Marxist Maoist Totalitarianism. And he will threaten to sue you for using your freedom of speech to criticize him.

If you're a person who's lost his or her job, you might think that the huge problem is immigration and globalism. Or maybe you think government regulations that are meant to protect the environment and citizens are limiting local investments in new industry and reducing job growth. But did you consider that we are in an era of great technological change and that the mandate of corporations is to increase production efficiencies (where labour is considered another expense cutting into profits)?   In fact, more production is going on in the US now than in the past - but much of it is automated. The technology has changed so the economic system must adapt or leave people behind.

Meanwhile, economists believe that Free Trade improves the economy. It has also been shown that diversity improves outcomes for innovation. And without immigration, the average age of the citizenry will increase to the point that there are nearly as many retirees as working people (paying the taxes that pay for the old age benefits).  

The huge problem is that the technology has changed but the economic system has not changed. We produce more than we need, much of it disposable or wasted. We pollute the environment with producing it. Those that have jobs, many are what we know to be "bullsh*t" jobs that would not be necessary if large companies and governments were not piled high in unnecessary bureaucratic processes. All but a few jobs can be automated and will be in the future. What happens to wage labour and the relevance of "work ethic" then? 

And what of Yin politics?

The Memes of Feminine (Yin) Politics

1. Interconnectedness (individual human potential cannot be realized apart from society, culture, economics and technology)
2. Pluralism and Diversity (not a zero sum but a win-win)
3. Environmentalism, Sustainable Development
4. Resilience and the importance of ongoing learning

To be honest, I don't know if I'd really call the above Yin or feminine or feminist. The reason I did so is because they seem to be the memes disparaged or neglected by the resurgent patriarchy. 

I take it to be pretty self-evident that no one's potential can be realized apart from society, culture, economics and technology. Even so, neuro-palaeontology confirms it. We are immersed, regardless of whatever political system we live in.

Given the fact that we live in an ineluctably global economic system, we need to be more tolerant of diversity. Not so tolerant that we tolerate a lack of tolerance or abuse, though. 

We cannot continue to carry on producing in excess of what we need or that nature can give or absorb.

Exploratory curiosity and learning is what makes us human, gives us meaning and helps us to adapt. We are not adapting by insisting on a set idea of "human nature". Our flourishing and resilience, our strengths, lie in our creative responsiveness and adaptability. We change. Culture changes. Narrative that doesn't change becomes decrepit and toxic.

Numinous experience and instinct - the meaning of the meaning of life

Shinto sacralizes places where people have a sense of the awe of nature. 

Various pieces of music, e.g., Agnus Dei from Faure's Requiem or Vaughan Williams' Theme from Thomas Tallis, are evocative of an unearthly majesty. 

Abraham Maslow spoke of peak experiences - experiences that are not the result of biological need fulfillment (which include safety and belonging in his account) such as aesthetic experiences or spiritual experiences. 

Biological drivers he called extrinsic motivation, motivation by a lack or need. 

The drive that give rise to numinous experiences such as 

• scientific curiosity and discovery for its own sake rather than the prestige or big pharma payout, 
• the joy of creating or experiencing music or art or writing that is not politically motivated but just beautiful,
• The joy of understanding, learning or appreciating something new for no other reason. Apes experience this at waterfalls (Goodall).

this is intrinsic motivation. 

Is it conceivable to explain these numinous experiences 

• in naturalistic terms
• while conserving the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation ?

If not, is all naturalism essentially reductionist by design?

The constellations of philosophy?

Hypothesis:

The patterns of every socio-economic organization in history and the powers that maintain them are supported by a tacit ontology (myth/theory of what reality is) that underpins public discourse and the social narrative. This ontology serves to legitimate the social order in the same way as the ancient belief in the "divine right of kings" or "mandate of heaven". (Another metaphor that may work in place of the divine right of kings might be heavenly/stellar constellations. Ancient rites seem to have connected them.)

Philosophers are by trade apologists for or critics of the divine right of kings (i.e., the ontology that underpins the social narrative). It is changes in technology that occasion changes in the social narrative (and only indirectly philosophy) because technological change gives rise to the need for changes in the patterns of economic and thus social organization, which then calls forth a new narrative. Philosophers gain a following when they contribute to a sustaining narrative, or to one held onto by soon-to-be eclipsed powers (there's usually a lag...).

On Elitism

Ironically, populist movements in the US support the elite (creditor class, plutocrats, monopoly capitalists) and laws that increase their wealth and power, which are sold as contributing to greater individual freedom while increasing the class divide. Meanwhile the American Dream of individual freedom that began with the Age of Enlightenment has become a ridiculous caricature, as it is considered "elitist" to trust scientists and intellectuals, who are generally motivated by curiosity and concern for the public good more than self-interest.

It doesn't make sense to think of society or social institutions in terms of the original "social contract" among rational consenting individuals because, clearly, individuals maintain their identities in terms of their relationship to a real or idealized group, not by means of some inborn identity and a capacity for individual reasoning.  People are born into and conditioned into an existing culture, with its history, its images, and its language . Speech is always historically and culturally conditioned and most people welcome that conditioning, although they may tell you otherwise by way of some fantasy "lone cowboy" image of individualism or something along those lines, equally culturally conditioned.We are members of real or idealized tribes and in times of rapid change in technology, the precursor to a change in ideology, there is a culture lag. Today we see culture regression. In some years, this will pass, hopefully with less pain than in times past.

Politics is not about rational choices. It's about tribal allegiances and, in uncertain times, it's the ancient archetype of the alpha male tribal leader, perhaps updated to the archetype of a valiant king, that keeps the lines of power organized and most people aligned to the interests of the oligarchy that directs our economy, regardless of what government regulators may want to do about it. Although our contemporary stories still indicate some deformed attempts to escape some vestigial projection of feudalism, the instinct to submit to the "divine right of kings" across many domains of human endeavour doesn't seem to have abated much.

What is an economy? It is a combination of our technologies, how we are socially organized to make the best use of them (or not) to produce what we need (and much, much more) from nature, and the institutions and stories that sustain that arrangement, and the powers of those who dominate the economy, in whom our powers are vested. We, more often than not, work against our personal advantage (usually unwittingly) and instead maintain the structures that in turn maintain our investment in the powers that sanction the rules and rituals that organize our lives and public relationships. For example, mothers in certain countries make sure that their daughters are "circumcised" in order to ensure their marriageability.

Today though if you dare to dream that reason, morality, art and respect for evidence (science) will help see us through to a more just arrangement, you may be called "elitist". This label is vestige of the hatred of the privileges of the feudal lords. It has nothing to do with today's world. Populism is the vehicle that most acutely and continually sustains the elite today. The next question is, what does that mean for democracy, if the dream of the enlightenment has become something "elitist"?

Of course, it's much more complicated than dreamers of the enlightenment may care to think. There is a deep seated sense that enlightenment dreams represent a kind of hubris on the part of human beings, as if we could rationally organize ourselves or submit our wills to a rational economy (invisible hand, "free"enterprise) to best achieve our increasingly empty ends.  Of course we can't. The the complexity of the world would prevent our being able to do it - although frighteningly, the recent rediscovery of the complexity of nature doesn't prevent our ability to think it. 

What is the alternative? As many are voicing today, the solution is in being adaptive, in our responsiveness and resilience. Rather than fixed universal truths of "human nature" or visions of true science, the just beneficence of some "invisible hand" economics, or various ideological diseases that afflict us today, I think we should rediscover what it means to understand, in all its dimensions, with the proviso that human understanding is ever-provisional.

Today more than ever we need to understand our relationship to the world we burden with the polluting byproducts of our Promethean dreams and our unrelenting, culturally conditioned searches for a better life. We will never arrive at a perfect solution but we can find our way to a more harmonious one, I hope.

Why this blog?

This blog is called "Art of Objectivity" because I don't think objectivity has a formula or methodological foundation. When I first read the article (included in the sidebar) by Eugene Wigner, a physicist,  I was struck by his saying that it is not the application of some principle, template, formula or algorithm, but rather, "the skill and ingenuity" of an experimenter, which allows him or her to identify objects of study whose causes can be identified and reproduced.  I think this could be expanded (with some major caveats, to be introduced later) to say that human beings can learn to identify themes and recurring patterns, and with caution, use them to navigate their way in nature and in the world of politics, and they do so best, not by relying on some kind of "best practice" or pure unbiased methodology (whatever that would be) but by applying their care and concern, interest and curiosity, wisdom and intelligence to problem solving.  This is a dignified approach to learning.

With that in mind, I can explain why I'm writing this blog. I'm thinking aloud about the way we come to understand our relationship to nature. There have been countless stories about this over milennia and its countless civilizations.

The stories that we tell come to us from different dimensions of existence: myths and religions, the political sphere, the world of academics (both the sciences and humanities) and its tribal schisms, even today the world of image and advertising.

Anthropologists, psychoanalysts, analytical psychologists, philosophers, sociologists and historians all have commented on our ideas about ourselves in the world.  It seems to me, though, that we haven't really come to the right questions to ask, because we insulate ourselves in our anthropomorphic bubbles - those stories either scientific, religious or political, that continue to make some aspect of humanity the key to our eternal rightness and well-being in a world that we are supposed to transcend, one way or another. We believe we transcend nature because we're mostly rational beings (we're not, of course) or beings for whom nature itself was created (it wasn't) or beings who are enlightened, modern, no longer superstitious and "primitive" or primordial.

My take is that we're products of nature, we live in nature, we are hominids, mammals, vertebrates, etc., and we, like other animals, have instincts. To come to an understanding of our relationship to the world, we need to question and understand our deepest instincts about it.

I work from the hypothesis that human instincts unconsciously anchor the relationships between the available technology , the work we do gathering what we need from nature, our economic and social roles in the distribution of what we gather, and the power structures that emerge from that dynamic.  We have deeply embedded scripts around these relationships and these contribute to a profound sense of belonging. I would say these stories have a scent that connects and grounds us (well or ill.) Our instincts occur to us in ritual and symbology, ranging from the most solemn (e.g., rituals of birth, marriage, death) to the most power entrenching (i.e., attaining the throne) to the most rousing (e.g., sports), to the superficial (Tim Horton's vis a vis the Canadian national identity and other well-merchandised rituals of a consumer economy. )

So, in future entries, what I'm going to try to do is spell out our stories of our relation to nature and how they sustain our social and political roles. (This has implications for change management, as well.)