This issue has been very painful for me. Working in the arts, the majority of people I’ve known in my life either strongly support CSJ, pretend it’s not as dangerous as it is, or know how bad it is but are too afraid to speak up - possibly because they saw what was happening to me. I’ve had to let many of these relationships go because it became intolerable to constantly discuss abstract CSJ ideals with them while trying to get them to see how these ideas, when they are implemented, hurt people like me - the “friend” sitting right in front of them. These conversations became so frustrating I once said to a long term friend in a restaurant, “Pedagogy of the Oppressed is the foundational text of the graduate program you work in. If you teach “oppressor/oppressed” ideology you must know who oppressors are. Who in the restaurant is an oppressor? Is it him? Or her?” Not surprisingly, that didn’t work. Nothing seems to. It was hard to accept that I either needed to find a way to tolerate what became intolerable or walk away for my own well-being.
😔 Yes, I’ve known a lot of people to feel like that. It’s very, very difficult. One man I was speaking to was utterly broken because his young CSJ employees expected him to be totally OK with rampant anti-semitism even though he was Jewish. They didn’t even seem to realise they were doing it and it wasn’t ambiguous or an edge-case. He said “I’m very fond of these young people and I thought they were fond of me.” Awful. I’m sorry the same kind of thing has happened to you.
Thanks Helen I appreciate it. That’s terrible about the young employees. I expect this kind of behavior from Gen Z-they’ve been taught this stuff and they legitimately don’t know any better. My conflicts have mainly been with Gen Xers (who should know better) and Baby Boomers who think CSJ is Civil Rights 2.0. Although one did say, “You know that book you turned me on to, The Coddling of the American Mind? It’s all really coming true isn’t it? I was active in the Civil Rights movement but his isn’t quite like that. It’s so mean.” On some level they get it but mostly they think any criticism of CSJ is bigotry.
"Critical Social Justice" is the most precise term for the political/theoretical framework underlying 'woke' that was coined by scholar-activists themselves - Robin DiAngelo and Ozlem Sensoy, in particular. I've used that term in my writing and tried to popularise it because it has very specific criteria & so can be kept stable as a concept rather than sliding about to mean 'anything vaguely left-wing or progressive." It's useful for engaging seriously with the theoretical framework in a neutral, descriptive sense because its not derogatory and is used by activists themselves and you can just point to Sensoy and DiAngelo while using 'woke' makes activists say "What is woke? Nobody can define it. It's just about being alert to issues of social justice/a term from Black American history. It's a right-wing dogwhistle" etc."
I still do use it in my writing, but 'woke' has become so well-established now, I use that too for ease of communication. If you search "Critical Social Justice", it will often say that James Lindsay and I created the term, but we didn't. We just chose it as the most clearly defined of the terms used by the activists themselves.
I'm a member of a Meetup group which does have several Trump voters in it, but there's really only one Trumpy person who I outright dislike and try to avoid (though I do still try to be civil). I remember how in the middle of a beanbag tossing game, yelled "Go, Trump!" out of nowhere. She also had a tendency to appear very confident while being utterly wrong. I think that illustrates what you mean by strategic shunning versus just finding someone repulsive.
Excellent ways of making distinctions between personal and political. Thank you!
I have a quick and simple test of seeing if someone is ideologically captured. Ask them to list four policies or positions they disagree with, coming from the party or the politician they support. Then ask them to list four policies or positions they agree with, coming from the party or the politician they oppose. If they are not capable of doing either, they are ideologically captured.
Yes. Although I suspect many people do not know so many specific policies and some of the policies they may disagree with from their own politicians may be because they are not radical enough. However, to answer the spirit of your question, I would say things like:
The Tories do better on freedom of speech issues and protecting academic freedom than the Labour party I am a member of.
They are also clearer on protecting women's spaces.
I don't agree with student loan forgiveness. I think it makes working people who have never been to university pay for people who have.
I think the left generally is inclined to put too much focus on social factors as the cause of all disparities (although I also think the right is inclined to neglect them too much and put too much significance of individual responsibility.)
I think the left is too inclined to confuse patriotism with xenophobia and we need a healthy love of country which conservatives do better (provided they don't actually stray into xenophobia.)
I think I’ve said this before in your comment section - I have been subject to strategic shunning and been told that the people were doing so, precisely because my viewpoints weren’t 100% like theirs. As you know, ultimately I moved to a different community (which is a whole other aspect of intolerance but now I’m ready for it!) (Do I sound like a broken record yet? Sometimes I find your writing to be like therapy Helen)
What I’m trying to do now, along with my spouse, is to model tolerance, pluralism, and relationship building with all different kinds of people to my gen z and Millennial-adjacent children. while also expressing my nuanced concerns about particular topics…(if directly asked!).
We also try to model having deep conversations about things like forage, bird watching, woodworking, cheese making. Stuff we can all go deep on. It’s like a little Petrie dish out here in flyover country.
In my case, it wasn't hard to know which was which. I had made some new girlfriends (they knew each other previously). We hung out a few times, had a lot of fun, had some deep conversations, so far so good. Constant group texts making plans. Then one day, on our way to a picnic/concert, the conversation shifted to the Covid pandemic, one gal expressing her opinion on the public policies, the vaccine, mandates, masking, etc., and wanting to know mine. (Spoiler alert: I was her polar opposite on the subjects) I told her I didn't want to talk about it because my beliefs on the subject had ruined a few prior friendships, and I didn't want the subject to interfere with our new friendship. But she insisted. So for a second, I thought maybe she would be genuinely interested and open to my thoughts. Needless to say, that was the last time I saw either of those two women. Not even a break-up text.
One issue I’ve been grappling with relates to your 2nd listed value:
- Wish to restrict anybody’s freedom to believe, speak, live as they see fit even though it harms nobody else nor denies them the same freedoms. (Individual autonomy)
I have a bit of a libertarian bend and generally subscribe to the “live and let live”. What I grapple with is that sometimes there are things which don’t harm me in the here and now, but if they get normalised they would harm society (by my reckoning) in the long run. For e.g., if someone holds beliefs I find abhorrent, I agree that unless they break a law they can think and believe what they want. But if they raise their children with those same beliefs and preach to others, they will eventually impact the society my family and offspring will one day live in. Where do we draw the line of giving people autonomy as their beliefs aren’t “harming” any one else? What if the harm is being planted in seeds that will bear fruit later? I don’t know the answer to this.
Hey, my response to this would be very lengthy so I think I’m going to write a piece about it! It will be about the messiness of liberalism and how difficult it is for us not to have neat answers or blanket rules that can fit everything and take things on a case by case basis and how this can feel particularly inadequate when it comes to children but why I think we need to push through and hold that freedom principle anyway!
I'm have a relationship with someone who vacillates between the 2. At times he's very likeable from the perspective of values, then at others - he can be the uncaring bully type. So far, I've been able to temper that and he genuinely seems to "come back".
I see people behaving that way alot on X of course, but also more and more IRL. I wonder:
Why is it that some slide so easily into that mindset to start with, whether or not they become stuck in it, while others are more naturally resistant?
Why do some people realize they are being intolerant bullies and work to change, and others remain confident they are nothing of the sort and/or that the end justifies the means?
As ever, Helen, thanks for thinking through this common and sad pattern for many families. And as usual going several layers deeper than the average thinker! Doing that well of course means it's easy for a reader to work out the few things you've not covered. Without going into detail, two issues are relevant for our family and friends:
1. Having gradually reached a point of avoidance or of more actively drawing a line on the basis of your guidelines, an estrangement is likely to self-embed "forever". That might or might not matter. If it matters, how might one draw a line but also keep an option and eye open for if and when change happens?
2. When you're estranged from family members, as well as unconditional love (that you mentioned), there are unavoidable family ties and responsibilities that happen or need to be managed or at least explained by somebody to the rest of the family and network. More than just who is welcome at hospitalisation, family events, funerals etc, there's responsibilities and even legal things like Power of Attorney and Wills. Those can anyway be avoided and typically are then fraught for years. My own advice is: don't avoid tackling these issues steadily and carefully: and start doing that long before you need to get things sorted!
Indeed, yes. One cannot always cut off when one should and sometimes one can give up on a relationship too hastily in frustration and be unable to repair it. My first draft included a personal experience of the first one, but I cut it because it was too personal!
Yes! I caught that within ten minutes of publishing when doing a tweet thread for it so corrected, but of course it still went out in email. Thank you! I had to write a correction on the audio!
This issue has been very painful for me. Working in the arts, the majority of people I’ve known in my life either strongly support CSJ, pretend it’s not as dangerous as it is, or know how bad it is but are too afraid to speak up - possibly because they saw what was happening to me. I’ve had to let many of these relationships go because it became intolerable to constantly discuss abstract CSJ ideals with them while trying to get them to see how these ideas, when they are implemented, hurt people like me - the “friend” sitting right in front of them. These conversations became so frustrating I once said to a long term friend in a restaurant, “Pedagogy of the Oppressed is the foundational text of the graduate program you work in. If you teach “oppressor/oppressed” ideology you must know who oppressors are. Who in the restaurant is an oppressor? Is it him? Or her?” Not surprisingly, that didn’t work. Nothing seems to. It was hard to accept that I either needed to find a way to tolerate what became intolerable or walk away for my own well-being.
😔 Yes, I’ve known a lot of people to feel like that. It’s very, very difficult. One man I was speaking to was utterly broken because his young CSJ employees expected him to be totally OK with rampant anti-semitism even though he was Jewish. They didn’t even seem to realise they were doing it and it wasn’t ambiguous or an edge-case. He said “I’m very fond of these young people and I thought they were fond of me.” Awful. I’m sorry the same kind of thing has happened to you.
Thanks Helen I appreciate it. That’s terrible about the young employees. I expect this kind of behavior from Gen Z-they’ve been taught this stuff and they legitimately don’t know any better. My conflicts have mainly been with Gen Xers (who should know better) and Baby Boomers who think CSJ is Civil Rights 2.0. Although one did say, “You know that book you turned me on to, The Coddling of the American Mind? It’s all really coming true isn’t it? I was active in the Civil Rights movement but his isn’t quite like that. It’s so mean.” On some level they get it but mostly they think any criticism of CSJ is bigotry.
Ok, I need some help. I don’t mind showing how uninformed I am. What the hell is CSJ ? Even my AI can’t figure it out..
"Critical Social Justice" is the most precise term for the political/theoretical framework underlying 'woke' that was coined by scholar-activists themselves - Robin DiAngelo and Ozlem Sensoy, in particular. I've used that term in my writing and tried to popularise it because it has very specific criteria & so can be kept stable as a concept rather than sliding about to mean 'anything vaguely left-wing or progressive." It's useful for engaging seriously with the theoretical framework in a neutral, descriptive sense because its not derogatory and is used by activists themselves and you can just point to Sensoy and DiAngelo while using 'woke' makes activists say "What is woke? Nobody can define it. It's just about being alert to issues of social justice/a term from Black American history. It's a right-wing dogwhistle" etc."
I still do use it in my writing, but 'woke' has become so well-established now, I use that too for ease of communication. If you search "Critical Social Justice", it will often say that James Lindsay and I created the term, but we didn't. We just chose it as the most clearly defined of the terms used by the activists themselves.
I knew I could count on you for the correct answer. Thank you. And tell your lovely cat “ hello” from me.
I'm a member of a Meetup group which does have several Trump voters in it, but there's really only one Trumpy person who I outright dislike and try to avoid (though I do still try to be civil). I remember how in the middle of a beanbag tossing game, yelled "Go, Trump!" out of nowhere. She also had a tendency to appear very confident while being utterly wrong. I think that illustrates what you mean by strategic shunning versus just finding someone repulsive.
Excellent ways of making distinctions between personal and political. Thank you!
I have a quick and simple test of seeing if someone is ideologically captured. Ask them to list four policies or positions they disagree with, coming from the party or the politician they support. Then ask them to list four policies or positions they agree with, coming from the party or the politician they oppose. If they are not capable of doing either, they are ideologically captured.
Would you agree with that?
Yes. Although I suspect many people do not know so many specific policies and some of the policies they may disagree with from their own politicians may be because they are not radical enough. However, to answer the spirit of your question, I would say things like:
The Tories do better on freedom of speech issues and protecting academic freedom than the Labour party I am a member of.
They are also clearer on protecting women's spaces.
I don't agree with student loan forgiveness. I think it makes working people who have never been to university pay for people who have.
I think the left generally is inclined to put too much focus on social factors as the cause of all disparities (although I also think the right is inclined to neglect them too much and put too much significance of individual responsibility.)
I think the left is too inclined to confuse patriotism with xenophobia and we need a healthy love of country which conservatives do better (provided they don't actually stray into xenophobia.)
Thank you! A perfect example of an informed, balanced position.
And the folks who "do not know so many specific policies" are entitled to their *feelings*, but they can't be considered to have *opinions*.
I think I’ve said this before in your comment section - I have been subject to strategic shunning and been told that the people were doing so, precisely because my viewpoints weren’t 100% like theirs. As you know, ultimately I moved to a different community (which is a whole other aspect of intolerance but now I’m ready for it!) (Do I sound like a broken record yet? Sometimes I find your writing to be like therapy Helen)
What I’m trying to do now, along with my spouse, is to model tolerance, pluralism, and relationship building with all different kinds of people to my gen z and Millennial-adjacent children. while also expressing my nuanced concerns about particular topics…(if directly asked!).
We also try to model having deep conversations about things like forage, bird watching, woodworking, cheese making. Stuff we can all go deep on. It’s like a little Petrie dish out here in flyover country.
In my case, it wasn't hard to know which was which. I had made some new girlfriends (they knew each other previously). We hung out a few times, had a lot of fun, had some deep conversations, so far so good. Constant group texts making plans. Then one day, on our way to a picnic/concert, the conversation shifted to the Covid pandemic, one gal expressing her opinion on the public policies, the vaccine, mandates, masking, etc., and wanting to know mine. (Spoiler alert: I was her polar opposite on the subjects) I told her I didn't want to talk about it because my beliefs on the subject had ruined a few prior friendships, and I didn't want the subject to interfere with our new friendship. But she insisted. So for a second, I thought maybe she would be genuinely interested and open to my thoughts. Needless to say, that was the last time I saw either of those two women. Not even a break-up text.
Yeah, that’s pretty clear. I had a similar thing with Brexit. Fuck ‘em.
Couldn't agree more. lol
Very insightful article - thank you!
One issue I’ve been grappling with relates to your 2nd listed value:
- Wish to restrict anybody’s freedom to believe, speak, live as they see fit even though it harms nobody else nor denies them the same freedoms. (Individual autonomy)
I have a bit of a libertarian bend and generally subscribe to the “live and let live”. What I grapple with is that sometimes there are things which don’t harm me in the here and now, but if they get normalised they would harm society (by my reckoning) in the long run. For e.g., if someone holds beliefs I find abhorrent, I agree that unless they break a law they can think and believe what they want. But if they raise their children with those same beliefs and preach to others, they will eventually impact the society my family and offspring will one day live in. Where do we draw the line of giving people autonomy as their beliefs aren’t “harming” any one else? What if the harm is being planted in seeds that will bear fruit later? I don’t know the answer to this.
Hey, my response to this would be very lengthy so I think I’m going to write a piece about it! It will be about the messiness of liberalism and how difficult it is for us not to have neat answers or blanket rules that can fit everything and take things on a case by case basis and how this can feel particularly inadequate when it comes to children but why I think we need to push through and hold that freedom principle anyway!
Thank you for your response! And I can’t wait to read it!
It will be much less messy than my response!
I'm have a relationship with someone who vacillates between the 2. At times he's very likeable from the perspective of values, then at others - he can be the uncaring bully type. So far, I've been able to temper that and he genuinely seems to "come back".
I see people behaving that way alot on X of course, but also more and more IRL. I wonder:
Why is it that some slide so easily into that mindset to start with, whether or not they become stuck in it, while others are more naturally resistant?
Why do some people realize they are being intolerant bullies and work to change, and others remain confident they are nothing of the sort and/or that the end justifies the means?
As ever, Helen, thanks for thinking through this common and sad pattern for many families. And as usual going several layers deeper than the average thinker! Doing that well of course means it's easy for a reader to work out the few things you've not covered. Without going into detail, two issues are relevant for our family and friends:
1. Having gradually reached a point of avoidance or of more actively drawing a line on the basis of your guidelines, an estrangement is likely to self-embed "forever". That might or might not matter. If it matters, how might one draw a line but also keep an option and eye open for if and when change happens?
2. When you're estranged from family members, as well as unconditional love (that you mentioned), there are unavoidable family ties and responsibilities that happen or need to be managed or at least explained by somebody to the rest of the family and network. More than just who is welcome at hospitalisation, family events, funerals etc, there's responsibilities and even legal things like Power of Attorney and Wills. Those can anyway be avoided and typically are then fraught for years. My own advice is: don't avoid tackling these issues steadily and carefully: and start doing that long before you need to get things sorted!
Indeed, yes. One cannot always cut off when one should and sometimes one can give up on a relationship too hastily in frustration and be unable to repair it. My first draft included a personal experience of the first one, but I cut it because it was too personal!
#me too ;-)
Isn't the book you mention called The Certainty Trap - not The Identity Trap?
Yes! I caught that within ten minutes of publishing when doing a tweet thread for it so corrected, but of course it still went out in email. Thank you! I had to write a correction on the audio!
Hmm. I don't even know anymore.