Idea laundering and wokeism

Pic credit: The Wall Street Journal 

“One would think that in today’s woke society, breaking the stigma would be easy. It is unfor-tunate that the notion of “wokeness” appears to favor only specific groups or beliefs, rather than promoting equality and inclusivity for all” 

– Jackie Barker

Peter Boghossian’s 2019 piece in the Wall Street Journal; “‘Idea Laundering’ in Academia” intrigued me. He discussed and reviewed here how politically engaged academicians devel-op nonsensical jargon like cisgender, fat shaming, heteronormativity, intersectionality, patri-archy, rape culture and whiteness. These mostly unscientific ideas were then passed off as knowledge and allowed to percolate and then emerge in mainstream culture. The musings of ideologues, working in what’s come to be called “grievance studies” to convince people that their jargon adds something meaningful to public discourse. 

Boghossian says, that before long, there’s an extensive canon of academic work—ideas, prejudice, opinion and moral impulses—that has been laundered into “knowledge.” Students leave the academy believing they know things they do not know. They bring this “knowledge” to their places of employment where, over time, laundered ideas and the terminology that accompanies them become normative—giving them even more unearned legitimacy. 

The EEB (Ecology and Evolutionary Biology) Language Project, is founded by a collaboration of scientists from the US and Canada. They are now clamouring and claiming that certain terminology is not inclusive, and could be harmful. They have concluded that words like “male” and “female” should now be phased out in science because they can reinforce ideas that sex is binary, therefore researchers studying ecology and evolutionary biology must be encouraged to use alternate terms like “sperm-producing” or “egg-producing” or “XY/XX in-dividual” to avoid “emphasising hetero-normative views”. They also say that, one of the most famous scientific concepts of all time, the “survival of the fittest”, should no longer be used because it discriminates against people with disabilities. 

But exasperated critics are warning that when you abandon traditional terms for the sake of inclusivity it could leave science lacking precision, and cause confusion. Prof. Frank Furedi, from the University of Kent, has responded: “I think that when you characterise terms like male/female, mother/father as harmful you are abandoning science for ideological advoca-cy. Regardless of intent, the project of re-engineering language will cause confusion to many and the last thing that scientists need is a lack of clarity about the meaning of the words they use.” Sarah Knapton reports on these shocking conclusions in The Telegraph and readers of her article have aptly labelled these jokers as “woke scientists”.

Dr. Allyn Walker a former assistant professor at Virginia’s Dominion Uni, who identifies him-self as a trans individual, sparked outrage at his campus and was forced to resign when he attempted to destigmatise paedophilia and encourage people to refer to them as ‘Minor Attracted People’. He was asserting that they should not be ostracised for their urges – which Walker says cannot be helped. “From my perspective, there is no morality or immorality attached to attraction to anyone because no one can control who they’re attracted to at all,” Dr. Walker said. “In other words, it’s not who we’re attracted to that’s either OK or not OK. It’s our behaviours in responding to that attraction that are either OK or not OK.” 

Dr. Walker was discussing his book ‘A Long Dark Shadow: Minor-Attracted People and Their Pursuit of Dignity’, that included suggestions that paedophiles should also be provided with child-like sex dolls to satisfy their urges. Dr. Walker has since been hired by the John Hopkins Child Sex Abuse Center. It is important to note here that, our social structure has already provided support systems for the entire spectrum of such urges and behaviours (not only paedophilia) to be listened to and addressed in a non-judgmental manner by professionals and NGOs. Dr. Walker’s utopian views however, may be interesting and thought provoking to some.

Reports also say that Puffin Books, publishers of the works of Roald Dahl, have changed, re-written or removed hundreds of words in at least 10 of the 19 books he has written for chil-dren. This has been done in an effort to make these words more inclusive and less offensive and not perpetuate harmful stereotypes. While references to “mothers” and “fathers” have been updated to “parents” or “family”, characters are no longer described as “fat”. It seems that the late author’s estate had partnered with “Inclusive Minds”, an organisation that champions diversity and accessibility in children’s literature to make these changes. 

“There are millions, probably, of his books in second-hand editions in school libraries and classrooms,” Philip Pullman, author of the “His Dark Materials” trilogy, told the BBC. “What are you going to do about them? All those words are still there. You going to round up all the books and cross them out with a big black pen?” 

The Telegraph also reports extensively on this with graphic examples of the changes made and concludes: “When does harmless tweaking become over-meddling? How long before The Twits becomes The Twits of Theseus, unrecognisable from its original form? Which other children’s authors are in line for the big green pencil? The way publishing is going, the re-writing of Roald Dahl may only be the beginning.”

So I am now wondering if Enid Blyton will be next. In her “The Five Find-Outers” series Fred-erick Trotteville is affectionately referred to as “Fatty” and looked up to as the leader of the group by the other four members. While there are many references in most of her books to mischievous, and even mean-spirited children and adults, will her books have to be now san-itised and reissued? My mind then drifts to popular nursery rhymes that can also be in line for slashing; like Humpty Dumpty, Georgie Porgie Pudding and Pie, Ba Ba Black Sheep, Goosey Goosey Gander, Peter, Peter, Pumpkin Eater, Jack and Jill. 

In The Brothers Grimm’s “Hansel and Grethal”, Grethal finally pushes the wicked witch deep into the burning oven. In Grimm’s “Little Red Cap” after the wolf eats the grandmother and the little girl (by swallowing them whole) the huntsman slays the wolf, cuts open his body and recovers the grandma and girl intact! There are countless examples like this that make Puffin’s attack on Roald Dahl’s children’s books seem comical, farcical and absolutely ridicu-lous. 

I read an interesting book by Bruno Bettelhelm titled “The Uses of Enchantment, The mean-ing and Importance of Fairy Tales”. The back cover has this piece: “By revealing the true content of such stories he shows how children may make use of them to cope with their baffling emotions, whether they be feelings of smallness and helplessness or the anxieties the child feels about strangers and the mysteries of the outside world. Taking the best-known stories in turn, he demonstrates how they work, consciously or unconsciously, to support and free the child”. Puffin and Dahl’s estate should read this Penguin book.

“Woke” has come into popular use recently, meaning ‘aware of and being sensitive to issues of political correctness’ and holding onto and expressing opinions considered correct by So-cial Justice Warriors and also (conflictingly) as, someone who is acting superior by preten-tiously claiming to have a very deep understanding and empathy for social issues than eve-ryone else around them. 

Does ‘Woke Culture’ evolve and revolve around victimhood where everyone wants to be a victim? Do some even invent crimes to suit a devious agenda? Actual victims surely deserve our empathy and compassion, but in Woke Culture people (who may not deserve it) see this as an incentive and may pretend to be victims. It is also normal for everybody to want to achieve heroic feats and be a hero but, when people involved in Woke Culture want atten-tion, they may invent a few demons or dragons and slay them (on social media) and portray themselves as “heroes”. What ensues is that, the slayed are at the receiving end of a “Cancel Culture” – more often than not inflicted by the very same people and organisations that scream hoarsely about discrimination, harassment and marginalisation. Dehumanising the opponent is key. Your membership to the group and adherence to the code decides your val-ue, not the merit of your actions. Members will always be backed, whoever they may be.

While visiting an overseas university recently I was confused by the manner in which the stairway leading up to the entrance was painted. The left section was painted in rainbow colours, the centre was a dull grey and the right section painted in pink. I inquired from a student what this was all about and what section can I use. She replied stating that the left side is for LGBQIA+ people and the right side was for Transexuals. She looked at me quizzi-cally and inquired what I was. I replied saying that I am a biological XY male married to a biological XX female. She promptly said, “Then use the centre section”. It is evident that woke culture has also invaded universities. The bulletin board was filled with notices urging students to sign up for “Queers in Science” (whatever it meant), “Protest against Tran-sphobes”, “Fight the Right”, etc. There was also a “Gender Neutral” toilet that baffled me, and I finally left the uni – fumbling, stumbling and struggling with my identity. New genders, new sexual orientations, new pronouns, new disadvantages seem to be spawning every day. And now, (like green washing) we even hear of brands involved in pink washing too.

Finally, a mischievous friend copied and sent me a twitter post of a Sri Lankan “journalist” (living overseas) sporting a doctorate and a very impressive profile, which went like this: “Anyone from Global South’s surfeit of countries, & contexts with a democratic deficit will understand this dynamic instinctively - and even predicted it. Authoritarians require apparat-chiks, and the latter feed off the former.” I wondered, what the heck does he mean by this? Who is his target audience? Certainly not curious and inquiring simpletons like me. 

(The writer is the CEO of a corporate entity and enjoys offering perspectives and thoughts on social issues in the hope that it will inspire change and not controversy.)