Understanding The "Anti-Woke" Backlash Against Ally Louks' PhD Thesis

A flashpoint in the bubbling politics of resentment.

Photo by Sarah Brown on Unsplash

On the 27th of November, new English Literature PhD, Dr Ally Louks, made this post.

Dr. Louks’ thesis which offers "an intersectional and wide-ranging study of olfactory oppression by establishing the underlying logics that facilitate smell's application in creating and subverting gender, class, sexual, racial and species power structures” soon came to the attention of the ‘anti-woke.’ Things went rapidly downhill from there. From my observation, which was sporadic, it appeared that some fairly mundane derision about the concept of “olfactory oppression”, some hostile reactions to terms like ‘misogynoir’ and ‘queer’ and some negative opinions of the value of scholarship in the humanities snowballed into a mass pile-on that included vicious personal abuse and even rape threats.

It is common for papers with bizarre titles and abstracts within the realm of cultural studies, gender studies, queer theory, intersectional feminism, critical race theory, postcolonial studies, Fat Studies and Dis/Ability studies to be flagged up on X. I am often tagged into them with tongue-in-cheek requests to know if I have been up to my old tricks again. The comments typically range from humorous requests for translation to derisive dismissal to more serious comments about the declining expectations of academic rigour. They do not usually include papers in the realm of literary analysis, and they usually die down within a couple of days. So intense, prolific, hateful, personal, sustained and escalating were the attacks on Ally Louks that many critics of Critical Social Justice scholarship and activism felt the need to call for calm, reason, a sense of proportion and, above all, the end to vile personal attacks on a young woman. The biologist, Colin Wright, who had been intending to review the thesis critically, decided against doing so in the face of so much deranged hostility.

As somebody who has been very critical of postmodern-derived Theories and the state of scholarship within the humanities, I also felt the need to address the situation.

What was it about this particular thesis or this particular woman that led to such an intense and vicious anti-woke backlash?

First, I think I need to define who I am speaking about when I refer to the ‘anti-woke.’ I use this term broadly to describe a wide range of people who dedicate significant amounts of time to opposing the epistemology (way of determining what is true) and ethics of the Critical Social Justice (CSJ)or ‘Woke” Movement. The CSJ movement holds that all of society is permeated by systems of power and privilege like white supremacy, patriarchy, imperialism, hetero/cisnormativity, fatphobia and ableism, and that everybody is socialised into upholding them but most are not aware of it. It asserts that we need to be trained to see them, affirm our own complicity in them and commit to dismantling them using the methods of CSJ. It explicitly rejects the position that individuals vary greatly in their views, may or may not hold racist, sexist or homophobic ones and that they can evaluate ideas for themselves and oppose racism and other bigotries using their own ethical frameworks and must have the right to do so. It is suspicious of science, reason and liberal principles of individual liberty and universal human rights, regarding them as white, Western, male ways of thinking which serve the interests of white, Western men. (More here).

The ‘anti-woke’ are anybody who opposes that worldview and so they include me. However, they are a highly mixed bunch as will inevitably be the case when a group is defined by something they don’t believe in or oppose. Some (like me) will be on the left and oppose ‘woke’ because they think it a neoliberal movement whose focus on identity neglects the issues of socio-economic class that should define the left. Some (also me) oppose wokeness because of its rejection of science, reason and liberal principles of individual liberty and universal human rights, and believe that in order to make the world a better place, we must value what is true, arguments that make sense and individual autonomy. They can be found on the left or right.

Some of the anti-woke will oppose woke because they are specifically concerned about authoritarian ‘queer’ and trans activism and this will include a wide range of people and motivations. They include gender critical feminists focused on protecting women’s sex-based rights, people concerned the most basic facts of biology are being rejected, parents concerned their gender non-conforming, same-sex attracted or autistic child is being encouraged to interpret this as being trans, people who are gay, lesbian or bisexual and do not wish to be ‘queered’ or have their sexuality politicised at all and social conservatives opposed to sexual liberation and gender nonconformity in ways that range from moderate to extreme. Others will be specifically concerned about critical theories of race and range from heterodox black thinkers objecting to being constrained by the racial essentialism of these theories, to people of all races who believe liberal individualist and universalist approaches to anti-racism work better and are more ethical, to people primarily concerned that CSJ approaches to anti-racism just reverse anti-black racism to create anti-white racism, to unambiguous anti-black racists. Some may have had experiences which lead them to be particularly concerned about postcolonial theory, Fat Activism or Disability Activism.

Anti-woke activists on the right range from libertarians primarily concerned about the authoritarianism and the anti-capitalist rhetoric of CSJ, traditional conservatives who reject almost all left-wing thought on philosophical grounds including Critical Social Justice, right-wing populists who blend their criticism of CSJ with a distrust of academia and expertise more broadly and the far-right who regard anybody to the left of Mussolini as ‘woke.’

Given that the ‘anti-woke’ are this politically and ideologically diverse, does it really make sense to consider them a group and address them collectively? In most situations, no. However, when it comes to addressing the ways in which people are criticising Critical Social Justice scholarship and activism, I think it is important to point out that are more and less accurate and ethical ways to do so. I am far from alone in both seeing and being dismayed by the slide of so many formerly liberal, thoughtful and conscientious critics of wokeness into an illiberal, reactive, inconsistent and blinkered mode of ideological warfare. Trying to prevent any more from doing that and, ideally, bringing some of those who have back is a worthwhile endeavour.

What about Louks’ PhD thesis has been so triggering of rage among the least reasonable, ethical and charitable segments of the anti-woke? Comments reveal a lot of people referring to ‘buzzwords’ in her abstract that indicate that she will be using intersectional feminism, critical theories of race and queer theory in her analysis of literature. There is also a great deal of focus on the terms “the politics of smell’ and “olfactory oppression.” People are reading this as part of the 'Everything is racist/ sexist/transphobic/otherwise problematic' Critical Social Justice discourse that has brought us insights like ‘the countryside is racist,’ “gardening is racist,” “cycling is racist,” ‘discussing the problem of tribalism is imperialistic,” practicing yoga is colonialist,” “wearing hoop earrings is cultural appropriation,” the word ‘mother’ is transphobic” “being exclusively attracted to one sex is transphobic,” and “the word ‘transphobic’ is ableist.” Due to the CSJ drive to problematise absolutely everything and proliferate seemingly infinite microaggressions, the combination of terms associated with Critical Social Justice theories with an apparently new concept signified by “olfactory oppression” and ‘the politics of smell’ has made people believe that their ability to smell things is about to deemed inherently oppressive.

Is this true? I don’t think so. I have not read Louks thesis but her language in the abstract and on her X account (yes, I searched it for common CSJ terms) does not read as 'authoritarian activist.' Nor has she been responding to the abuse she has been receiving in a way that is suggestive of this. She has remained remarkably resilient and resolutely refused to regard herself as a victim, despite the intensity of the attempts to cause her distress.

My hunch (which could be wrong) is that it will be a highly theoretical, identity-focused exploration of references to smell in literature that few people will find useful, but some within English Literature might find interesting. I might even be one of them. I'm a weirdo who actually enjoys postmodern-derived theories as a thought experiment, mode of exploratory analysis or art form as long as they are not claimed to establish what is true about social reality sans any empirical research and then used for social engineering. It is when activist-scholars make simplistic, unfounded and biased truth claims that essentialise whole demographics & assert reductionist identity-based power dynamics running through all society that need addressing through language policing & forcibly dismantling people's unconscious bias that my tolerance evaporates. Nobody has read Dr. Louks’ thesis which is under embargo and so nobody has the grounds for accusing it of any such thing. I too, see signifiers of the discourses of the very theories of which I have been so critical. However, even if I am correct, the scope for usage of these is very wide and using such theories to analyse literature should not be banned and should certainly not result in vicious abuse and rape threats.

The problem within English Literature is not that scholars are allowed to do such analysis, it is that they are often not allowed to do anything else. At undergraduate, using one or more of these theories was a requirement for me to pass and so my undergrad thesis includes Lacanian psychoanalysis because I could, at least, point out comparisons with this and Augustinian theology. At Masters, I was penalised for my single attempt to bring evolutionary psychology into my discussion of sexual attraction (men’s and women’s work differently. This is not a social construct) and racism (the brain is not wired to attend to race. Racism is a social construct) in Othello. I left before doing my PhD when I realised I was desperately searching for a topic that would allow me to address medieval women’s religious writing and what it revealed about concepts of feminine knowledge without having to be entirely socially constructionist and pretend evolution stops at the neck. That was a problem and the communications I receive from academics and students today informs me that it continues to be a problem.

It is also not at all uncommon for scholars in English literature to pick subjects of niche interest. I suspect about 50 people in the world are likely to be interested in my thoughts on how Augustinian concepts of a masculine sapientia and feminine scientia manifested in early modern poetry and particularly the work of Aemilia Lanyer. However, as Louks remarked to one critic, “You are under no obligation to find it interesting.” Arguments can certainly be made about what kind of scholarship merits public funding but as I suspect few of Louks’ critics know anything about her funding, I do not believe this is the primary issue here.

The primary issue, I believe, is that there are some extremely angry and vengeful people among those who wish to see ‘woke’ consigned to the dustbin of bad ideas. Having now worked solidly on helping people not to be fired, failed, no-platformed, cancelled or otherwise penalised for holding views like ‘Not all white people are racist” and “Woman is a biological sex category” for over four years and not always having succeeded, I probably have more understanding of why people are angry than most. However, there are legitimate and illegitimate targets for rage and better and worse ways to express it and I would hope it would be clear to everyone that the mass spewing of vile abuse over a new PhD for having used words like ‘intersectional’ ‘oppression’ ‘misogynoir’ and ‘queer’ is a very bad way to address anything.

Why did this startling explosion of rage and venom ignite right now when there have been many much more clearly ‘woke’ papers in the much more actionable realm of cultural and identity studies flagged on X for years which did not receive this response? I think it is clear that this timing is related to the alarming rise of a deeply illiberal and malevolent faction on the right often referred to as the ‘woke right’. Emboldened by the election of Donald Trump last month and the revolutionary and vengeful language of Trump and Elon Musk, and driven by what Andrew Doyle referred to as ‘the politics of resentment’, this faction regards itself as on the brink of winning the culture war and being in a position to enact a mass purge of anyone it regards as wrongthinkers in an ultimate fight between good and evil. Note the language of the man who threatened Ally Louks with gang rape, “You…are the perfect example of everything wrong with modern society.”

Ultimately, this is not about Dr. Louks or her PhD thesis on the politics of smell. Her post simply came to the notice of a deeply illiberal and vengeful faction on the right at a time when it is ramping itself up for war and became a symbol of everything it hates and seeks to destroy. This is a symptom of a bubbling politics of resentment flaring up in a localised explosion. We would do well to remember that this is how the problems with the woke left first manifested too. An explosion on a university campus over a professor saying students should exercise their own judgement on halloween costumes. A storm on social media about a celebrity saying some forms of sexual assault are more severe than others. A knitting community combusting over someone being excited about going to India and saying it had felt as unattainable as going to Mars. And so on.

This faction of extremists is surely small, but we would do well not to underestimate its presence bubbling under the surface or ignore or minimise its explosions, especially if it believes itself to have the support of the President of the United States and the richest man in the world. Otherwise, we may have cause to entirely redefine our concept of Cancel Culture. Containing the woke right will require ethical conservatives not to make the same mistake so many on the liberal left did when Critical Social Justice began to gain prominence and dismiss it as a moral panic or a few bad actors with no real power until their power became impossible to ignore. It will also require all of the ethical ‘anti-woke’ who have been opposing wokeness for all the right reasons to recognise the rise of a right-wing form of wokeness, be consistently principled and fight that too.