Post-modernism and its Effects : Woke

A characteristic of the advertising by IBM during the 1980s was to associate something old, such as a photograph of Charlie Chaplin, with something new such as a computer or at least a personal item. The Woke scene has a history that, it  could be argued but here is not the place, pre-dates Chaplin.  For some, the recent advent of Woke is to be located in social issues that were deemed community issues; social justice championed by the Social Justice Warriors (SJW) if one prefers. Find a YouTube presentation by Milo Yiannopoulos for the other side of the coin which endeavours to illustrate political correctness and the (superfluous) use of pronouns appended to correspondence being unnecessary to say the least. Presentations by Douglas Murray are rather more detailed.

PIC
The Woke phenomenon has mutated to a considerable degree from the sentiments of Marcus Garvey in 1923. Related is the title of a US soap opera (i.e. an extended melodrama series), namely, "The Good Wife". While the word spouse derives from the Latin 'sponsus' (i.e. to promise or, more accurately, to pledge) the word wife was generic until the end of the 17th century. The common expression of the time :"goodie Smith" was an abbreviation of good-wife Smith. Addressing the implicit question regarding the solidarity of wives in respect of their misdeeds (from Nixon to Clinton down which was the principal theme of the TV series) would take this article away from its principal objective: namely to examine the phenomenon of woke and the consequences to date.  

PIC
The Woke culture is underpinned by thee components of anti-empiricism. Those readers with some basic comprehension of British Empiricism1 gives one a taste but don't become too influenced by the sub-heading of Phenomenalism which wafts of metaphysics which A.J Ayer (mentioned in the first paragraph beneath the heading "Logical Empiricism" of the reference) put to rest in his small but philosophically discerning book "Language, Truth and Logic".  

A principal characteristic of Post-modernism (with its antecedents in post structuralism) makes claims to the effect that all science is illusionary to the extent that science has been developed from the perspective of the "here and now"; within a Western culture or perspective and with a different culture a different perspective WOULD (not may) present itself. Eco-Feminism had such a premise as a foundation(!) - which I will return to following.

That all knowledge is learned by the individual within the context or the structure of the society has its origins with Book VII of the Republic; the analogy of the cave and the attendant shadows on the wall which those confined (in the absence of any other knowledge) present as a "reality". To a large extent Locke, in the 1st Treatise, made a similar point. If a philosophy can be attributed to William James2 it is that of Pragmatism. For the Empiricists (Russell and Ayer etc) the debates on phenomenological matters ought to be confined to Sunday evenings because, interesting as they are, they don't take us very far (if anywhere at all). The same might be said for Post Structuralism. It may be interesting but it is far from original and only marginally useful.

PIC

The characteristic causes science to be real to the extent that one can claim with a considerable degree of confidence that the laws of  Newton, for reasonable gravitational fields and velocities under 20% of the speed of light, serve well enough ANYWHERE in the universe and similarly for Einstein were extreme gravitational fields occur or high velocities occur. Similarly for Bohr et. all at the quantum level.

Considering mathematics the dichotomy is : is the mathematical analysis "real" in any sense or is it just a case of "solving" socially perceived problems. Well E = mc2 has solved considerably more problems that the fellow who derived the equation could ever have imagined and in many different forms and contexts. The same goes for Newton with F = ma.  If a "new set" of tools was required for every similar or related problem the post-structuralists would have a point but it is an everyday experience that mathematics (science and engineering in general) solves problems that where hitherto un-encountered. That is the characteristic that makes "science" REAL!

Yet post-modernism is intent on emphasising the rejection of objective axioms and beliefs which constitute a scientific
perspective. There is a distrust of anything referred to as objective (verifiable) truth. Narratives such as Liberalism or even Communism are to be similarly distrusted. That is, from the basis of post-modernism, if one distrusts socialism than one is also obliged to distrust any other ideology such as Conservatism.

Post-modernism does identify, although the argument is by no means original (see the Introduction to the Manifesto1) that political  influence, governance and hence power is distributed unevenly (indeed unfairly) across any society which is a serious matter for the given society because it is the power-relations that construct social and individual identities. Those
who control the power (e.g. the capital stock of a country) control the social and civic inter-relations within the society also.  It is often overlooked that post-modernism has its own power relations in the promotion of identity for no other reason that feelings are being regarded as entities in themselves over facts that may be verified or reproduced. An example is the construction of eco-Feminism. 

PIC
As to eco-Feminism, which was a prominent sociological perspective for about 15 years from the early 1990s, a major assertion was that females "saw" or perceived the world differently to men. Ergo, males and females can (and could) never entirely agree on any matter because of this the inherent difference in perception. As an aside, for the eco-feminists,  the perception of the female is superior so at least a debate is avoided there. The question for the empiricism is how could the clam be ascertained or measured? If differences did exist how could the metric be distinguished from pure chance or capaciousness? To such questions post-modernism has no answer and ignores the question.

Classical education possessed a number of attributes. One was rote learning of fact. The middle schools in HK, Taiwan and the PRC along with Korea, Japan and largely Singapore have retained this model. It is very effective and was part of Western education for some centuries.  When a body of knowledge has been learned (at something like 15 or 16) then some conjecture might be useful. Asking a class of year six students what an 18th century explorer might have thought of cultural identity can offer so useful educational experience because for the life-experience of the student the question is meaningless. It ought to have been pointed out to the class that the explorer had a commission from the Admiralty, Parliament or the King to conduct explorations. 

The second advantage was that values such as valour, honesty, integrity were clear and well known and based on the philosophy of the Classical period where responsibility was emphasised. Nowadays, we live in a world where it is virtually an obligation to discard responsibility or at least claim the event as a "once off". 
This  state of affairs has occurred within the last 50 years. From, let's say Cromwell to the 1950s a grammar school or public/private school education served well enough with a trickle-down effect to the secondary-modern. Further, there was a time when Ministerial responsibility meant something. Nowadays the crime is being caught. 

What has changed? Post modernism is obliged to take the blame here. The foundation of post structuralism possesses some intuitive insights but the consequences are fairly dire inasmuch as the combination has morphed into cultural relativism where it can be asserted that no morality is intrinsically good or bad; it is just a matter of contending with fads. The social issues in India have been attributed to all manner of explanations but, interestingly the homicide of females its not too difference from France.  One explanation for the anti-science mentality (empiricism if one prefers) is that, as C.P. Snow pointed out in 1959, few in percentage terms comprehend science yet despite their ignorance they have no desire to be disenfranchised from debates on global issues.

As to the "truths" that classical education contains we can point to the Renaissance and The Enlightenment. Post Modernism  does not hold the moral ground on any social innovation. Universal suffrage (indeed the abolition of slavery)  occurred with reference to the classics with some Christian doctrine mixed in1. Extending this line we can point to phenomena such as men on the moon and smart phones. At this juncture post-structuralism and post-modernism begins to look "thin".

There is a line beyond which philosophical idiocy collapses or descends into junk science. Foucault's repudiation of empiricism undermines his own theories. For example, Foucault's "Historical Psychiatry" is not in the least verifiable; it is not susceptible to case studies and in addition to all the anxieties encountered when examining modern cognitive science (there is far from a firm consensus on mental disorders - which rather compromises the undertaking at the outset) to attempt to locate such disorders within a historical perspective, with no recourse to quantification, his History of Madness (1961) amounts to pure fantasy.

Foucault's analysis and critique of Cartesian and Kantian ideas that have effected (pervaded?) the contemporary intellectual scene, particularly in Europe, are all very well but the "model" upon which the criticism is based cannot be considered in any way as superior to the models of the rationalists Descartes and Kant. In fact to assert that ALL human activity is predicated, fundamentally, on the existence of (recognised - or believed authority) is a tad reductionist for anyone. Even allowing for intrinsic desires (to various degrees by individuals) to dominate the assertion (via 'deconstruction') takes us no further (indeed it is regressive to) "I think therefore ...". As has been pointed out: the merits of empiricism are not even considered.

Now, let's consider Nietzsche for a moment and his book "Will to Power" in particulate. Nietzsche was NOT claiming that (1) people are megalomaniacs or (2) have in insatiable quest for power; a few may be so inclined but not the population as a whole. Nietzsche was attempting to identify what it is (and what it means) to refer to "power" per se. In other words, in the context of the late 19th century (taking into account the Franco-Prussian war) what does one mean by "power" from the perspective of voters (Germany recently unified) and the elected government.

Yet the Post-modernists reject out of hand the very style of discourse that Nietzsche appeals too because (for the Post-modernist) to place historical events into categories is naive because there is (1) no objectivity and hence (2) truth and therefore (3) everything is culturally relative (Nietzsche is just a privileged Prussian white male - and that is very bad for business) and (4) worst of all he is inflicting his morals (5) which are artificial and relative in any case onto his audience.

The very values of The Enlightenment (truth, valour, justice etc) are not so much rejected but are asserted not to exist in the first place; at best they are merely social constructs. The Post-modernist obsession with language, and hence "deconstruction" also affects the Fine Arts and, more importantly, how Fine Arts are taught. Not surprisingly, the 19th and mid 20th century commentaries that accompanied a Reynolds or a Renoir are dismissed as cultural deception at best and cultural perversion at worst (and taught accordingly). Examples in the museums in Europe abound for the tourists. A cultural phobia has appeared in regard to Western civilisation and it is (now) regarded as "smart" to undermine "perceived privilege".

Consider the art of the landscape painters (Reynols, Turner etc) and that of the Impressionists. Then contrast those schools with Dadaism; from the beginning of the 20th century. The entire point of Dadaism was to be original; "form" was not considered so long as the product was original. There is any amount of affection that has endeavoured to emulate Dadaism in some form or other but could be best described as "early sheltered workshop". 

==
By way of a conclusion its suffices to observe that Empiricism is based upon observation and measurement. Science and the scientific method are synonymous. Foucault (as the most prominent post-modernist) rejects science and any kind of measurement. Foucault makes statements that cannot be verified. Metaphysics does the same thing. The latter philosophies, with their rejection of empiricism and history, are responsible for the social problems on Facebook, Instragram and other social media.

To say that societies are governed by authority (Foucault) is no more useful than to claim that mammals breath air. Foucault wrote a book Discipline and Punish.  Bentham wrote on social behaviour and prison reform too. The reader is invited to ascertain which claims are the more useful.  The theories of the post modernists cannot be tested and for that reason alone  post-modernism is discredited on its own terms. The post-modernismists make a point of not having their theories tested or verified.

I don't claim that the above is the last word. It needs tidying up here and there but it does suffice, I trust, to extending the implications of what it means to "convert" to post-structuralism at the expense of Pragmatism or Empiricism.

=========================
<a href="https://www.hulu.com/series/woke-034909c6-8c46-4cad-8d0d-062574a9e5f1" class="redactor-autoparser-object">https://www.hulu.com/series/wo...</a>

<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/03/wokeness-definition-social-justice-racism/673416/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20230317&utm_term=The%20Atlantic%20Daily" class="redactor-autoparser-object">https://www.theatlantic.com/id...</a>

<a href="https://www.vox.com/culture/21437879/stay-woke-wokeness-history-origin-evolution-controversy" class="redactor-autoparser-object">https://www.vox.com/culture/21...</a>

<a href="https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/10/01/how-to-understand-global-spread-of-political-polarization-pub-79893" class="redactor-autoparser-object">https://carnegieendowment.org/...</a>

<figure class="redactor-component" data-redactor-type="video" tabindex="-1" contenteditable="false"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Fw3jl0Tckh8" allowfullscreen="" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0"></iframe></figure>  # Critical Race Theory