quietlyradical

It seems that I’ve exchanged my television viewing habits for online programming. About six months ago I caught an episode of an online debate program called Surrounded. If you have never seen this program, it consists of one person with a particular point of view facing off against twenty or so other people with an opposing view. Participants from the larger group race each other to face off against the person at the front to debate a series of claims put forth by that person. In this particular episode, conservative pundit, Piers Morgan faced off against twenty liberal leaning participants. Morgan’s claims were as follows:

• Woke ideology is fascistic.
• There is no such thing as toxic masculinity.
• Gender-neutral pronouns are pointless.
• Cancel culture threatens free speech.

As a progressive, African American woman, educator, and student of history, I find these claims difficult to understand. Yet rather than dismiss conservatives as ignorant or hateful, I want to explore why many intelligent people sincerely believe them.

---

Claim 1 – “Woke Ideology Is Fascistic”

First, I think it is important to clearly define fascism and wokeism. When I hear MAGA supporters denouncing “ANTIFA” (which actually stands for anti-fascist”) as the bad guys it is fairly clear that they probably don’t understand what fascism actually is. To avoid charges of “fake news” and “liberal bias”, I have tried to select two of the most respected and non-controversial sources I could find in order to define fascism – The Encyclopedia Britannica and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

According to these venerated sources, fascist regimes share these defining features:

• Dictatorial Leadership
• Ultranationalism
• Militarism and Violence
• Suppression of Dissent
• State Control

The best modern-day example of a society that possesses all of these features would be North Korea. Kim Jong Un inherited power from his father Kim Jon Il in 2011 and holds complete dictatorial power thanks to an extreme cult of personality. North Koreans are taught that the Kim Family should be revered almost to the point of being worshipped as gods.

North Korean ultranationalism is a racialized and state-sanctioned ideology that views the Korean people as purest and most physically and morally perfect race in the world. Their propaganda teaches that Korean people are inherently virtuous but require absolute guidance from the Supreme Leader in order to avoid being corrupted by outsiders.

Militarism and violence in North Korea are evidenced through its principles of Songun and Ch’ongdae. Songun is a political doctrine which places the Korean People’s Arm ahead of all other domestic institutions and Ch’ongdae is a doctrine which preaches that armed confrontation is the only way that a society may be liberated.  

North Koreans also live under an oppressive system of state control. The media is heavily censored and there is a strict system of social classification which dictates a person’s access to housing, employment, education, and medical care. Travel is strictly limited and the state exercises complete control over a centralized economy. All dissent is suppressed using a combination of high-tech electronic surveillance and social pressure to conform. Non-conformity can result in citizens being sent to prison camps or perhaps even being put to death in public executions.

So, what is the definition of wokeism? Using the same sources for consistency’s sake, wokeism is defined as a progressive ideology which promotes:

• Awareness of Systemic Injustice
• Intersectional Advocacy
• Inclusive Practices

While there is no single nation that could be described as “woke”, there are several countries that embrace elements of what would meet the definition of wokeism. New Zealand, as well as many of the Nordic countries, such as Iceland, Sweden, and Norway are among the most politically progressive. However, I believe that Canada provides the best example of a “woke” country that can be most effectively contrasted with a fascist one like North Korea.

Canadian activists and advocacy groups are working to raise awareness of systemic injustice in Canada through a variety of means. Institutions like PubMed Central highlight how inequality and discrimination led to poorer health outcomes for Canadian indigenous communities. Initiatives such as Justice Canada are working to fight the overrepresentation of Black and Indigenous populations in Canada’s federal prison system and Canada.ca is providing ongoing structural plans to eradicate systemic racism and discrimination across federal program.

In the realm of intersectional advocacy, Canada addresses how overlapping identities – such as race, gender, ability, and migration status – compound experiences of discrimination. High rates of violence faced by Indigenous women, girls, LGBTQIA+ people, and women with disabilities are being combated through organizations such as the Federal Pathway and DAWN Canada in an effort to craft public policy and human rights services which will help to improve safety for members of these marginalized groups.

Finally, while the Trump Administration in the United States is busily rolling back Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, Canada fully embraces inclusive practices through workplace initiatives such as bias-free hiring assessments, diverse hiring panels and the 50-30 Challenge, which is a voluntary federal program where businesses commit to achieving 50% gender parity and 30% representation of underrepresented groups such as BIPOC, LGBTQIA+, and people with disabilities. Similar programs exist in the healthcare, education, and public services and policy sectors as well.

So, with clear examples of a fascistic society and one that embodies wokeness, I’d like to compare the two. While King Charles III of Great Britain is the constitutional monarch of Canada, his role is purely ceremonial. He has no power to govern, make laws, or control the military. This is in direct contrast to the absolute and unrestrained power of Kim Jong Un in North Korea. Canada’s federal government is a parliamentary democracy. Canadian citizens elect the members of parliament to represent them. Parliament also chooses the Prime Minister. If the members of parliament become dissatisfied with the Prime Minister’s leadership, they have the power to remove him or her through a vote of no confidence. The fascist regime of North Korea is a one-party state, and although “voting” is mandatory, North Korea citizens have no real choice. Elections are viewed as a demonstration of loyalty; citizens receive ballots with a single name which they place directly into the ballot box, unaltered. The Supreme People’s Assembly, North Korea’s version of a parliament has no real power and serves to simply rubber stamp whatever Kim Jong Un demands.

So, why do some conservatives insist on labeling “wokeism” as fascistic?

It seems that some conservatives feel that social pressure to conform to progressive language and beliefs represent limitations of their freedom. Many view activities such as diversity and inclusion training in the workplace, social media campaigns advocating for equal rights, and the public shaming of people who use hateful or bigoted language toward marginalized groups, which they refer to as “cancel culture,” to be coercive in nature. While I will concede that this is true to a certain extent, I would argue that it is a gross exaggeration to refer to this as fascism.

Americans have always used social pressure to enforce desirable behavior. For example, in many suburban neighborhoods, homeowners spend an inordinate amount of time and money making sure that their lawns are neatly mowed and weed free. However, if one neighbor decides to plant his entire lawn in wildflowers to create a butterfly sanctuary, he will likely face public shaming, ostracism, and complaints to the Homeowners Association, if there is one and to the city authorities, if there is not. My question for conservatives would be, “Why are you ok with shaming and ridiculing people for the relatively minor sin of having an overgrown lawn, but not with shaming people who harass women, use racial slurs, or mock the disabled or members of the LGBTQ+ community?”

Sometimes it seems that the conservatives who decry wokeness as fascism are really just angry that they have lost the ability to be hateful and despicable without any consequences. In North Korea, expressing opinions unpopular with the government could result in your being imprisoned, tortured, or even killed. The social sanctions imposed by wokeism have never been or will they ever be, that dire. No one is taking away your “right” to be racist, misogynistic, homophobic or xenophobic. However, if you are going to hold such disgusting views, you don’t have the right to expect that other people are going to silently condone such abhorrent behavior.

Claim 2 – “There Is No Such Thing as Toxic Masculinity”

Again, I think a large part of the problem with this claim in unclear definitions. Piers Morgan and other conservatives seem to believe that the term means that masculinity itself is toxic and that progressives want men to feel bad or wrong for simple being male. This is actually not the case. Toxic masculinity refers to the idea that there are societal expectations placed upon that are harmful, not only to women and society as a whole, but also to the men themselves. For example, teaching men that they should never show emotion nor ask for help because these characteristics are “unmanly” are toxic. Condoning and even encouraging the idea that men should solve every problem through dominance or aggression are detrimental not only to society at large but also to men themselves. This isn’t simply conjecture or “male bashing”; there are statistics based on scientific studies to back up these claims.  According to data from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Substance Abuses and Mental Health Services Administration, men are two to three times more likely to develop a substance abuse disorder than women. According to the World Health Organization, on a global basis the male suicide rate is roughly double that of women and in the United States men are roughly four times more likely to take their own lives than women. Men account for two-thirds of the world’s homeless population, and they commit 90% of the world’s homicides and 80% of the world’s violent crimes overall.

Conservatives seem to believe that references to “toxic masculinity” are an attack on men and that traditional masculine virtues such as courage, responsibility and protectiveness are being unfairly criticized. However, it isn’t positive male identity that is being attacked but rather the suggestion aggression, physical dominance, and lack of emotion are the hallmarks of what it means to be a man and that characteristics such as empathy, emotional intelligence, and self-care are inherently “feminine” and therefore, traits that “real men” should avoid. Eliminating “toxic masculinity” isn’t the same as eliminating men. It simply means that a man can be both strong and empathetic, confident and vulnerable, and that displaying a broad range of human emotions and behaviors doesn’t mean that a man is soft, weak, or gay.

Claim 3 – “Gender-Neutral Pronouns Are Pointless”

Having spent the second half of my working life as an English teacher, the way in which some conservatives seem to be so triggered by the use of gender-neutral pronouns is fascinating to me. The purpose of language is to facilitate communication. Words are designed to help us to understand and to be understood, and language has always evolved as society has changed. No one, except for perhaps members of the Amish, Quaker, and Mennonite communities, refers to each other using “thee” and “thou” anymore. In my lifetime I have witnessed the shift from “Negro” to “Black” to “African American.”  When I was a child, I recall terms like “crippled”, “handicapped”, “mentally retarded”, and “deaf and dumb” being replaced by “physically challenged”, “intellectually disabled”, and “hearing impaired.” So why is there such a kerfuffle when someone wants to share their preferred pronouns?

Using a person’s preferred pronouns is simply a way to respect their humanity. I remember going to high school in 1980 with a girl who had the misfortune of having been given the name “Gertrude” by her parents. No one blinked an eye when she would inform teachers during roll call on the first day of school each year that she preferred to be called “Trudy.”

Also, preferred pronouns can often be a helpful tool in avoiding embarrassing situations. Some years ago, the comedy program Saturday Night Live featured a regularly occurring skit featuring a character named “Pat.” Pat’s gender was unclear and the subtle and often no-so-subtle attempts to uncover Pat’s gender identity were always met with failure. Before I became an English teacher, I had a twenty-six-year career with a major insurance company and once, during a visit to one of our regional offices, my colleagues and I experienced our own “Pat” moment. We were a team of business analysts and computer programmers who traveled from the corporate offices to one of the regional field offices to run the pilot of a new computer system before it was launched companywide. There was a young associate assigned to our team to assist us with whatever we needed in setting up for our presentation to their management team. This was around 1996 or so, before preferred pronouns were a thing. I don’t remember the associate’s name, but I do recall that it was something like Chris or Tracy or Stacy, which could belong to a person of either gender. The person had rather longish hair and dressed in the standard business casual uniform of the day of khaki-colored Dockers and a short-sleeved polo shirt. We either referred to the person by name or defaulted to “they” since we didn’t know whether “he” or “she” was appropriate.  We never did figure out the person’s actual gender, but “they” were good at their job, polite, friendly, and provided us with all of the necessary tech support that we required, so, at the end of the day, their gender really made no difference at all.  However, clearly stated pronouns would have eliminated a tremendous amount of stress as we struggled with how to address the person, terrified of making a mistake and risking grave offense.

So, why to some conservatives view this so differently. First, there seems to be the rigid belief that biology should be the only valid consideration in determining how one should identify. Others seem to view requests regarding preferred pronoun usage as a type of social pressure which they view with resentment. Finally, I suspect that for some, changes in language reflect broader societal changes which they do not understand or support.

Claim 4   “Cancel Culture Is a Threat to Free Speech”

This claim seems clearly tied to claim 1 and once again I believe that the problem is one of definition. Many people seem to be under the impression that freedom of speech means that one has the right to say absolutely anything without any sort of repercussion or consequences. However, there is a major difference between government censorship and public criticism. Freedom of speech is meant to protect citizens from government punishment for views that do not align with the government’s official position. Freedom of speech does NOT mean that any hateful or offensive thing that comes out of our mouths cannot be criticized or challenged by other citizens who disagree with us.

Many conservatives seem to believe that cancel culture is wrong because people can lose jobs or have their reputations damaged as a result of expressing unpopular opinions and that even if the government is not involved, the threat of exposure on social media creates a climate of fear and pressures them to self-censor. However, is that necessarily a negative? People have always had to make choices about whether or not to self-censor. As a teenager I can recall many times when I disagreed with my parents. Sometimes the issue was important enough for me to voice my displeasure but other times the negative consequences that would have resulted from my expressing my true feelings served as a deterrent. The same thing was true in the workplace. I actually think there is some value in a system that causes all of us to stop and think, “Does this really need to be said out loud?” “Will voicing this unpopular opinion contribute to the greater good?” or “Is it simply a way for me to vent my frustration?” if it is the latter, then I would argue that keeping our negativity to ourselves in order to avoid the sanctions of cancel culture is actually a plus. It would be great if everyone was willing to stop and consider how negative speech might impact those around us; however, not everyone possesses that level of emotional intelligence. Cancel culture, however, forces people who lack empathy for others to consider how they themselves will be impacted. It may not change their negative views, but at least it can serve as a method of protecting the rest of us from being pelted with their hateful rhetoric.

From watching this episode of Surrounded I think that I was most startled by the stark differences between conservative and progressive priorities. My impression is that conservatives prioritize stability, tradition, and individual responsibility, while progressives prioritize equality, inclusion, social change, and protection of marginalized groups. I don’t know how we can begin to bridge the gap. I only hope that our democracy will survive long enough to enable us to try.