What does it mean to be “woke”? This is a complicated topic, made worse by the fact that “woke” is widely used, by people of various persuasions, without any real understanding or agreement on what the word means. I don’t have a quick or easy answer but I will dip my toes into the topic with this review of Neiman’s recent book and I intend to post a review of Mounk’s The Identity Trap sometime within the next few weeks.
Neiman’s Left Is Not Woke is very interesting and well-written. Her basic perspective is an enlightenment-informed universal socialism. This basically means that she writes from a perspective that supports democratic socialism and is inspired by the enlightenment to defend the moral value of all people on the basis of some universal idea(s) of justice. Neiman criticizes what she terms woke liberalism/leftism for being a more limiting form of identity/tribal politics, and stresses, rightly I believe, that much of liberalism today tends to reduce the complexity of identity to just race/gender, and also fetishizes victimhood (which is a long-standing problem among those left of center).
As Neiman asks, “If the demands of minorities are not seen as human rights but as the rights of particular groups, what prevents a majority from insisting on its own?” (26). Indeed, many have argued persuasively that much of the appeal of Trumpism today connects to its role as a form of white identity politics. But as Neiman rightly observes, “without universalism, there is no argument against racism, merely a bunch of tribes jockeying for power.” (108).
Neiman traces much of this unproductive thinking on the left to the influence of French philosopher Michel Foucault, for in much of his writing he seems to argue (or imply) that progress is impossible, and she critiques German legal theorist Carl Schmitt for his influence, in reducing all politics and claims of justice to mere power contestation (Foucault also seems to do this).
“Unlike those of conservatives, Foucault’s histories do not begin with a golden age from which we steadily decline. There are simply brutal forms of subjugation which are replaced by more refined ones.” This is how Neiman characterizes Foucault’s complex studies of power in various institutions and practices. “After reading even a little of this [Foucault’s text], it’s hard to avoid concluding that any attempt to improve things will only make them worse.” (Both quotes from p. 96.)
Are these fair critiques of Foucault? Well, to put it simply, Foucault is a complex and difficult thinker and scholars, citizens, and pundits have been arguing over the meaning and import of his work for decades. There is no single and accepted way to read or understand Foucault’s rich body of work. Let me just hazard a few thoughts.
Foucault, in so far as he claims that some new systems of government, norms, institutions, etc, are not improvements on older ones, could be advancing arguments consistent with a left perspective. Indeed, I think his critique of prisons and disciplinary power is very insightful. (See his remarkable book Discipline and Punish and my related article). However, in so far as he says or implies that any genuine progress is impossible, I disagree and Foucault is not advancing a leftist position in such cases. When Foucault does so he comes across as a nihilist rather than a leftist. And this nihilist Foucault must be rejected.
Sometimes Foucault comes across as an anarchist, i.e. he is deeply skeptical of all forms of institutional power, hierarchy, and statism. There is great power in this, found in his critiques of prisons and asylums. The problem with Foucault as an anarchist is not his anarchism—many great leftists have been anarchists or influenced by classic anti-authoritarian texts, but rather that it tends toward nihilism and lacks the positive vision of a better future found in the works of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Bookchin, Graeber, Chomsky, and others.
Neiman contrasts Foucault with the great enlightenment thinker Rousseau, who saw problems with the liberal enlightenment but attempted to devise solutions, unlike Foucault. Here is Neiman: “But it may be the hardest question to answer, in politics or in theory: how can the chains be broken without doing more damage than the chains themselves? At least Rousseau tried.” From p. 99, original italics. (Neiman’s quotation is referencing Rousseau’s famous opening lines in The Social Contract regarding humanity’s “chains.”)
“Most woke activists reject universalism, and stand by discourses of power, but they’re unlikely to deny they seek progress. It would be easier to believe them if they were willing to acknowledge what some forms of progress had achieved in the past.” (108).
This latter quote from Neiman makes me think of Maher’s book A World Without Police which suggests that the south effectively won the Civil War, which is an absurd claim. And when those on the left claim or imply that progress is impossible, or has never happened, they are making conservative arguments. We must reject these claims. As Neiman reminds us, progress is possible. Not guaranteed. Possible.
Neiman’s perspective can perhaps be summed up best as saying that in scholarly discourse, activist circles, and mainstream discussions, too much of the liberal and left world has become obsessed with a form of politics that reduces everything to identity, focuses on group interests rather than universal justice, and is skeptical about claims that progress towards justice has been made in the past or indeed could be made in the future. As she summarizes, “I explained I was writing about progressive abandonment of three principles essential to the left: commitments to universalism, a hard distinction between justice and power, and the possibility of progress.” (142).
I am sympathetic to the broad points of Neiman's argument, although she needs to identify more specific writers who embody the ideas she rejects. For a more negative review, see the essay by Samuel Clowes Huneke in the Los Angeles Review of Books.