In late 2014, the journalist and sociologist Musa al-Gharbi fell victim to what would soon become known as cancel culture. A controversial article soon led to a Twitter spat, which then prompted a media outlet to draw attention to his views. Soon enough, after a barrage of demands to his employers at the University of Arizona, al-Gharbi was sacked.
Over the subsequent decade, the basic outline of this story has become all too familiar. But contrary to the widespread notion that cancellation is a Left-wing phenomenon, those who successfully demanded al-Gharbi’s dismissal were conservatives. They had taken umbrage at his argument that the United States bore heavy responsibility for destabilising the Middle East, and thereby enabling the rise of ISIS. The main impetus for his firing came from Fox News, which pilloried him as an anti-American jihadist.
Some who’ve fallen victim to similar campaigns have built careers on denouncing their cancelers’ intolerance. Al-Gharbi took a different and arguably more interesting path: he sought to engage more extensively with right-of-centre audiences, writing a number of articles for conservative publications. As he explained later: “If I’m trying to convince people not to bomb Syria, then I should be writing to people who do want to bomb Syria.”
In the intervening years, al-Gharbi has gone on to become an advocate of viewpoint diversity in universities, as well as an outspoken critic of the liberal media’s ideological monoculture. His new book, We Have Never Been Woke, is a culmination of these efforts: a systematic critique of the dogmas that took hold in progressive culture over the past decade, and an examination of the institutional contexts in which they arose. Not, of course, that he’s alone here. Books scrutinising identity politics and Left-wing ideological intolerance have proliferated in recent years. But al-Gharbi avoids denunciation in favour of sober, rigorous analysis. For this and other reasons, I suspect it is the only book on the subject that will still be worth reading in a decade.
Al-Gharbi’s cancellation squeezed him out of further work and study at Arizona, but he was later accepted into the doctoral programme in sociology at Columbia University, then as now a hotbed of social-justice activism. (As much ink was spilled on the performance art project of Columbia student Emma Sulkowicz in 2014 as on the university’s “tentifada” earlier this year.) His arrival there, in 2016, afforded him a front-row seat for the “Great Awokening” — which kicked off in the final years of the Obama administration and crescendoed after Donald Trump’s election.
An older student, who hailed from a small-town Arizona military family, al-Gharbi sold shoes at a department store in between losing his job at Arizona and making it to the Ivy League. He arrived at Columbia as an outsider suddenly confronted the customs, taboos, and beliefs of an unfamiliar culture. What he discovered was a tribe that treated social — especially racial — justice as sacred, yet one that remained oddly blind to the apparent injustices in its own immediate surroundings.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeSounds like an interesting discussion of what “woke” is, in the sense of how does it arise and sustain itself. But it seems to me that this is a less intersting question than how it functions in the wider marketplace of ideas – which is as brush with which to tar all those who wish to ask a certain sort of question.
“Woke” is a phenomenon of the ostensible left but it has corollaries on the right in the form of “MAGA extremist” etc.
Certain criticisms of power typically come from the left – “do we need to have all these wars?” “how come the rich keep getting richer when the lives of the poor (and brown) people seem to be getting worse?” “Shouldn’t we be doing more to protect the environment?”
Certain other criticisms typically come from the right “What’s happening to free speech?” “Can we get real about immigration?” “Was Covid what it was made out to be?”
These should all be very legitimate questions. But power (as in Governments and establishments) are, to a very large extent, able to sidestep them by portraying them as the exclusive concern of the woke mob or MAGA wingnuts.
Only blue-haired wokeists would care about the plight of Palestinians and mentioning immigration at all in political circles marks you out as a Farragist blowhard. Dialogue concluded. Etc
But these left and right issues increasingly cross over. The anti-war movement in the US is left-wing at its grass roots but, at the political level there is cross over between right wing “isolationists” and the squad. Meanwhile, a concern with free speech is coded as rightwing but left concerns are at least as frequently censored, misportrayed or cancelled as rightwing ones. Sensible leftists know this.
Woke, rightwing extremist, Putinist sympathiser, antisemite. All of these things exist in the real world, but their primary function is as ad hominems to distract us from seeking answers to valid questions.
I do wish we could move on.
Nicely put.
I wonder what would happen if we simply banned that list of words (and others) at the end? (Yes, putting aside the free speech implications…) Then we’d actually have to say what it was we actually disagreed with and why, rather than simply labelling it as woke or fascist or whatever. It would be a good experiment. Even for a day.
“This is why the most common recent approach to understanding “wokeness” — tracing it to the ideas of particular thinkers — ultimately offers limited insights. In al-Gharbi’s telling, wokeness doesn’t spawn from people reading dense philosophical tracts.”
This part surely comes as no surprise at all to anyone who has tried arguing with someone adopting a Woke position on anything. What stands out, every time, is that the person in question possesses an almost spectacular amount of ignorance about pretty-much everything – their views exist, and can only exist, in an intellectual vacuum.
As to the conclusion, I tentatively agree with it but would also point out that others have reached similar observations before. One that I’m pretty sure I read in Unherd a while back was that Woke politics is an excellent moral alibi for the already-wealthy and powerful, because it imposes no new costs and burdens on the elites themselves. All the costs of Woke activism land squarely upon the common voter, taxpayer and consumer: the elites escape unscathed from its demands and inconveniences, hence why this form of luxury politics is not only popular on the statist side of the argument, but in the corporate world too.
The second was a clever observation from a Daily Telegraph columnist whose name I don’t recall, which was that Woke activism is nothing more than the modern form of the same old game whereby activism is merely the preparation stage of a professional career living off tax revenues: it’s a job creation scheme for people who don’t like the sort of work that produces things people actually want, and who prefer the sinecure lifestyle of a public sector cleric.
For sure. It’s a silly position from silly people.
The first, he says, happened from the late Twenties to mid-Thirties, when educated young Americans flocked to the Communist Party and other radical groups. The next happened in the Sixties, with the rise of the New Left. The third came in the Eighties and early Nineties: the era of political correctness. Our own awokening kicked off around 2015, peaked in 2020, and in al-Gharbi’s telling is now on the wane.
The difference is that in the Thirties and Sixties, the radicals were on the outside looking in. Today they’re firmly in charge.
Woke is just a way to apologise for unearned privilege while keeping it.
‘The next happened in the Sixties, with the rise of the New Left. ‘
Yes, the Sixties saw the rise of the civil rights movement in America.
This was based on the belief that what was holding back black people in America was racism, segregation and Jim Crow laws.
Get rid of segregation and the black/white gap will vanish.
So there was 60 years of civil rights advances leading to the result that today, leading schools in New York, such as Stuyvesant have 70% Asian students and 2% Black students.
And 60 years later, Jim Crow was rebranded as DEI and a new form of segregation where various minority groups, blacks among them, insisted on their exclusive spaces.
I think that rulers have always been tempted to combine the political and the religious. So that the rulers are not just powerful thugs, but good guys that care about “the people.” In the old days this manifested in the rulers mixing it up with the state religion, appointing bishops and stuff. In our day we see it in the Allyship narrative, that the rulers are really just the Allies of the Oppressed Peoples in their heroic fight against the White Oppressors. The Wokies of which we’ve heard tell are just the sergeants and soldiers in the glorious fight for justice.
“The “Democratic-voting professionals” who are the beneficiaries of this arrangement “conspicuously lament inequality” at every opportunity — while never really doing anything to remedy it. ”
This is a pretty silly comment. Doing something about inequality would require major changes in tax policy, fiscal policy, educational policy, and other large-scale social structures. The only non-politicians who are in a position to influence politicians to make these changes are rich and powerful people, usually from the worlds of business or finance, who of course have no interest in doing anything about equality. As you know — or should know — much academic research shows that the preferences of the lower 80 percent of the nation’s income distribution have zero effect on policy.
What would you suggest the “Democratic-voting professionals,” do, besides voting Democratic?
Stop referring to the Leftist media as “liberal media”. Liberalism never accepts censorship and is very open to discussing all issues.
The story of Musa Al-Gharbi resonates biblically. It is the parable of the shoe seller and the pharisees. The modern day priests and their establishment followers from whatever side have a blind spot to reality facilitating their comfortable pampered existence. Has it not always been thus?
To depict elite identity politics … as a fundamental threat to Western civilisation, is merely to flatter the radical pretensions of its adherents.
Its a subtle point Shullenberger makes in this review. Elite identity politics does appears to have become a threat to Western civilisation, because it’s adherents have gained sufficient power and influence to threaten the stability it should bring. That seems justification enough to do battle with them.
But so far the reaction from the right against it has not had any affect except to stiffen the spine of its adherents and “they end up reproducing many of the same tendencies, including proneness to ideological mania and cancel culture.”
sincerely held beliefs can simply serve a different purpose than the true believers realise.
I would suggest this should be applied to the right as well, or those who oppose the left so vehemently, as we often see here in posts. The refusal to engage with anyone who suggests a leftist writer might have a point, or sensible observation, is not helpful.
But al-Gharbi avoids denunciation in favour of sober, rigorous analysis.
I think that’s about all we have left after decades of futile, heated argument. Something that might be worth following here in comments.
It’s not that complex. Governments want to get elected and there’s only so much of other peoples money to go round so they have to sell some snake oil.
Anyone that doesn’t believe the snake oil is excommunicated.
Do you mean government is behind elite identity politics?
Of course, wedge issues are all the rage.
I’m not sure that addresses my question.
Most of the heat in this whole “woke” thing is simply because of Trump. Hating him and his “followers” is the first and most significant motivation in the public-facing lives of all of my once-liberal, now progressive friends and family. They just won’t shut up about it.
So in their minds George Floyd’s murder was all about “fascist MAGA cops” and trans rights is all about the “Trump patriarchy” and #metoo is all about Trump grabbing some woman’s private bits. I know it doesn’t make sense but then we humans have always been rather muddled, soup-brained, goofy-footed…
Except “woke” is worldwide. Though the US is a big exporter of pathological ideas.
I’d say “widespread”, not worldwide. It’s the “western” nations that are infected. The “global majority” very much not!
Fair point, but ever so slightly hypocritical.
I’m not sure what you mean by hypocritical.
Interesting essay. Thanks
This essay redeems a lot of the echo chamber offal that has been taking up too much space here lately.
Great book review. I’m sold. The only place where I quibble is the labeling of “Symbolic Capital.” I would label it “Social Capital” not because what they’re doing isn’t symbolic but because “Social” is the actual symbol. Social implies a business interest must be community not profit driven. But that’s absurd. Businesses don’t exist primarily to serve a social purpose unless you expand the meaning of “social” which the (woke) critical constructivists do.
Its really an isomorphic, burearatic “privilege extinguishing” hierarchy…with exceptions for Nepotism. In other words…its arbitrary.
He’s exactly right. Arbitrary governance is a default throughout human history so the woke movement is not new. It just took the form of performative social justice activism that looked different from past experience.
Insightful comment.
It seems over-optimistic, at least on this (UK) side of the Atlantic, to think that Woke peaked in 2020.
*removed
I sort of agree, insofar as, while the ideology peaked in 2020, its capture of the institutions has been enduringly successful. Although normal people are beginning to treat the woke scum with the contempt they richly deserve, and the corporate world has begun to wake up from its woke fever dream, nevertheless we are going to be suffering the effects of woke entrenchment in academia, the civil service, policing, local government etc etc for years to come.
Very interesting. And a good example of why we should not be abandoning marxist style analysis, but should be turning it, with open eyes, on the world we inhabit.
The “Democratic-voting professionals” who are the beneficiaries of this arrangement “conspicuously lament inequality” at every opportunity — while never really doing anything to remedy it.
On the contrary, those beneficiaries work diligently to maintain this arrangement. They have no genuine interest in a remedy. Are you kidding? If not for their favored pets and mascots within this oppressed community or that marginalized group, they themselves would be societal outcasts.
“after George Floyd’s murder” is an overdose of Fentanyl actually murder though?
Anyone working at a university sees the racial double standards of the critical social justice warriors. Whist on the one hand paying for Critical Race Theory training for its staff and de-colonising its curriculum look then at the ethnic origin of the people who collect the parking tickets and clean the lavatories. People it happily pays the minimum wage to on zero hours contracts, free from the obligation of pension rights or sick pay.
This stuff is fascinating to me. The thing that really kills me about the woke movement, is that on its surface, at least initially, (to an average bloke like me), some of the ideas are good. Am I against racism and police brutality? You betcha! But then, as the power and narcissism build, these ideas morph into something much more dangerous, and not even representative of the original point of the movement. The people demanding the end of the racism become racist themselves, but toward white people instead, many of whom aren’t racist in the least. The people demanding the end of police violence become violent toward not just the police, but oftentimes (especially in the case of riots), violent toward whomever and whatever happens to be in their line of vision.
I do agree with al-Gharbi when he says that this stuff peaked in 2020, and is now on the wane. These spikes happen, and slowly sanity creeps back in and we get a relative period of calm, which we desperately need.
The truth suffers more from its defence than it’s denial? Or at least as much? Equally then…
Not necessarily, sometimes it just gets worse eg Mao’s China, Stalin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany. There’s no rule that says societies must just return to a ‘sane’ centrist median. Furthermore, if anything, western tolerant democratic norms are the historical and global exception and by busting to pieces our historical inheritance we are likely to lose those ‘sane norms’.
I’d not agree that “woke” is “on the wane”. In the UK, woke actually runs the country. In the US, wait till Kamala gets elected. In the EU, the Commission actively works to destabilise and remove non-woke national governments.
‘To depict elite identity politics as a vehicle for the establishment of communism, or as a fundamental threat to Western civilisation, is merely to flatter the radical pretensions of its adherents.’ True enough. But the real malign effects lie in the corrosion and weakening of the West’s moral, intellectual, and democratic ‘fibre’. Faced with determined, ruthless, and better organised oppositions – China, Islam, Russian imperialist expansion, – feeble minded, eternally bickering, sclerotic, ‘feelings rather than facts’ obsessed western democracies are ripe for exploitation.
“..al-Gharbi declines to offer concrete solutions.. ”
Well as regards the moral & linguistic word-salad morass of wokeism, that sounds quite a sensible decision
Tho the Teamsters & the Mafia had a few concrete solutions of their own I believe
I haven’t read the book, but this review leaves me with the impression that this is just another tiresome tome where an intellectual fits history to his theses rather than understanding the history. I can see how symbolic elites may be in danger now, thanks to society creating an overabundance of them. But I don’t see how these elites were endangered in the Thirties and Sixties. The Great Depression was real and affected everyone. Capitalism’s failure drove people to the Communist party, not a sense among liberal intellectuals that they were endangered. The Civil Rights struggle and the Vietnam war were real protest movements and after the New Deal and WWII liberal elites were in the ascendency. The creation of conservative think tanks was not a result of conservatives being pushed out of universities but a way for conservatives to plot a return to political power which they achieved with the election of Reagan in 1980.
For that matter other than an increased competition for jobs social justice liberals are firmly in charge in most cultural institutions today and aren’t in that much danger. Woke identity politics represents a generational change and will take a generation or two to go away. I am starting to think that its critics are spending too much time huffing and puffing at a brick house. Life is too short.
Whenever a species is over abundant its main competition tends to be itself. And the competitions get real weird. Think mating rituals, colourful feathers and intricate vocalizations.
Probably for the benefit of the whole species there should be a culling.
Nice piece. Thanks
This author has fallen in love with the big words. It makes his writing almost unreadable, aside from his many biases, which shine forth clearly in each sentence that he writes.