What do you think?
Rate this book
Left Is Not Woke
If you're woke, you're left. If you're left, you're woke. We blur the terms, assuming that if you're one you must be the other. That, Susan Neiman argues, is a dangerous mistake.
The intellectual roots and resources of wokeism conflict with ideas that have guided the left for more than 200 years: a commitment to universalism, a firm distinction between justice and power, and a belief in the possibility of progress. Without these ideas, Neiman argues, they will continue to undermine their own goals and drift, inexorably and unintentionally, towards the right. In the long run, they risk becoming what they despise.
One of the world's leading philosophical voices, Neiman makes this case by tracing the malign influence of two titans of twentieth-century thought, Michel Foucault and Carl Schmitt, whose work undermined ideas of justice and progress and portrayed social life as an eternal struggle of us against them. A generation schooled with these voices in their heads, raised in a broader culture shaped by the ruthless ideas of neoliberalism and evolutionary psychology, has set about changing the world. It's time they thought again.
The intellectual roots and resources of wokeism conflict with ideas that have guided the left for more than 200 years: a commitment to universalism, a firm distinction between justice and power, and a belief in the possibility of progress. Without these ideas, Neiman argues, they will continue to undermine their own goals and drift, inexorably and unintentionally, towards the right. In the long run, they risk becoming what they despise.
One of the world's leading philosophical voices, Neiman makes this case by tracing the malign influence of two titans of twentieth-century thought, Michel Foucault and Carl Schmitt, whose work undermined ideas of justice and progress and portrayed social life as an eternal struggle of us against them. A generation schooled with these voices in their heads, raised in a broader culture shaped by the ruthless ideas of neoliberalism and evolutionary psychology, has set about changing the world. It's time they thought again.
ebook
First published March 20, 2023
About the author
Susan Neiman
22 books180 followersSusan Neiman is an American moral philosopher and essayist, her main interests are in the history of philosophy and morality, and the philosophy of politics and religion.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews
July 11, 2023
As someone who would describe himself as both left and woke (a viewpoint I post publicly with a healthy dose of unease), I really wanted to read this book to see what the supposed irreconcilability in myself was all about.
My expecting position remained unfulfilled, however, as the book is essentially about only one of the key words in its title: left. Woke, with only a small number of scattered mentions, is an epiphenomenon, a passing thought the author sometimes activates in the background. I agree that a thorough understanding of left is essential in trying to ground the main thesis of the book, but the writer leaves it almost entirely to the reader to give form to her principal argument. Why, for example, is woke tribalistic? How, exactly, does woke relate to the power-justice debate? As a reader, the book gives you the tools to scantily answer these questions but nowhere is the matter unearthed in detail, which is something I expect from a writer who qualifies her own style as clear and distinct in the beginning of the book. Perhaps it’s been too long since I read a book of philosophy and have unlearned its abstract character…
Despite the lack of explicit rendition of her own argument, the book does provide interesting information on what it means to be left (hence, three stars) and gives compelling arguments to save the enlightenment thinkers from a too one-sided, eurocentric reading which definitely sparked my interest. From that perspective I do recommend it. However, don’t expect a thought-provoking read on woke.
My expecting position remained unfulfilled, however, as the book is essentially about only one of the key words in its title: left. Woke, with only a small number of scattered mentions, is an epiphenomenon, a passing thought the author sometimes activates in the background. I agree that a thorough understanding of left is essential in trying to ground the main thesis of the book, but the writer leaves it almost entirely to the reader to give form to her principal argument. Why, for example, is woke tribalistic? How, exactly, does woke relate to the power-justice debate? As a reader, the book gives you the tools to scantily answer these questions but nowhere is the matter unearthed in detail, which is something I expect from a writer who qualifies her own style as clear and distinct in the beginning of the book. Perhaps it’s been too long since I read a book of philosophy and have unlearned its abstract character…
Despite the lack of explicit rendition of her own argument, the book does provide interesting information on what it means to be left (hence, three stars) and gives compelling arguments to save the enlightenment thinkers from a too one-sided, eurocentric reading which definitely sparked my interest. From that perspective I do recommend it. However, don’t expect a thought-provoking read on woke.
August 28, 2023
Gerade bei Büchern, deren Kernthese uns intuitiv zusagen, ist Vorsicht geboten, denn sie verleiten uns oftmals zu einem zu positiven Vor-Urteil. Im Bewusstsein dessen habe ich „Links ist nicht woke“ aufmerksam gelesen – und wurde enttäuscht.
Doch zunächst zur Autorin: Susan Neiman ist eine US-Amerikanische Philosophen, die bereits seit einiger Zeit in Deutschland lebt. Glaubwürdig bekennt sie sich zur politischen Linken und zu Black Live Matters, wodurch deutlich wird, dass sie im Unterschied zu so manch anderer Linke (Auge, Sarah Wagenknecht) nicht nur ökonomisch links, sondern auch progressiv ist. Von dieser Position aus kommend formuliert Neiman in „Links ist nicht woke“ eine grundlegende Kritik an dem woken Denken. Während das linke Denken von Universalismus geprägt sei, sei das woke Denken vielmehr tribalistisch und relativistisch. Diese Unterscheidung bringt Neiman gut rüber, auch wenn wir das schon in anderen Büchern ähnlich gelesen haben, wie bspw. in Francis Fukuyamans „Identität“.
Hieran anschließend arbeitet Neiman heraus, was die theoretischen Grundlagen und Einflüsse der woken Linken seien – und hier beginnt es holprig zu werden. Überraschenderweise führt sie hierbei zunächst Carl Schmitt an, der ja nun bekanntlich ein rechter Denker ist. Ihre Begründung: Nach Schmitt sind Werte ausschließlich ein Ausdruck von Interessen; genau dieselbe Kritik, mit der die woke Linke versucht, das Denken der Aufklärung zu diskreditieren. Nun würde ich dieser Beobachtung zwar nicht widersprechen, doch Carl Schmitt damit zu einem Meisterdenker der woken Linken zu machen, ist dann doch etwas grotesk. Schmitt war vor allem ein nicht-normativer Denker, hatte also stets die Brille des zynischen, kaltblütigen Macht-Theoretikers auf. Das ist eine gänzlich andere Perspektive als die einer hoch-normativen woken Linken. Zwar gibt es durchaus linke Theoretiker, die Schmitt rezipieren und in ihr Werk integrieren. Das bekannteste Stück dieser Art ist vermutlich Chantal Mouffes „Über das Politische“. Doch Werke wie diese kommen primär aus der traditionellen, nicht aus der woken Linken. Ob Neiman diese Hintergründe nicht kannte oder man den Verweis auf Schmitt eher als inner-linker Diffarmierungsversuch verstehen muss, das weiß ich nicht.
Noch weniger plausibel fand ich den Verweis auf die Evolutionspsychologie, die laut Nieman einen angeblich starken Einfluss auf das woke Denken hätte. Meines Erachtens ist genau das Gegenteil richtig; nämlich, dass sich das woke Denken durch die völlige Abwesenheit solcher wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse „auszeichnet“. Es ist ein Kernelement dieser Weltanschauung, dass letztlich alles als gesellschaftlich konstruiert angesehen wird. Dementsprechend werden evolutionspsychologische oder biologische Fakten (bspw. im Hinblick auf die Geschlechterrollen oder das Paarungsverhalten von Menschen) von ihnen negiert, nicht „reproduziert“.
Auch eine Kritik an Michel Foucaults darf hier natürlich nicht fehlen. Auch wenn ich hier definitiv eine Schnittstelle sehe, so hatte ich insgesamt den Eindruck, dass sie für ihre Kritik eher ein Zerrbild Foucaults heranzieht. Diese verkürzte Sichtweise auf den Postmodernismus hatte Daniel-Pascal Zorn auch schon in „Die Krise des Absoluten“ kritisch angemerkt.
Eine linke Kritik am Denken halte ich weiterhin für wichtig. Doch eine solche Kritik müsste ganz anders, muss theoretisch fundierter ausfallen als jene von Neiman. „Links ist nicht woke“ ist leider ein Schuss in den Ofen – auch weil es kein sonderlich gut geschriebenes Buch ist.
Review bei Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CwejMOtNHkA
Doch zunächst zur Autorin: Susan Neiman ist eine US-Amerikanische Philosophen, die bereits seit einiger Zeit in Deutschland lebt. Glaubwürdig bekennt sie sich zur politischen Linken und zu Black Live Matters, wodurch deutlich wird, dass sie im Unterschied zu so manch anderer Linke (Auge, Sarah Wagenknecht) nicht nur ökonomisch links, sondern auch progressiv ist. Von dieser Position aus kommend formuliert Neiman in „Links ist nicht woke“ eine grundlegende Kritik an dem woken Denken. Während das linke Denken von Universalismus geprägt sei, sei das woke Denken vielmehr tribalistisch und relativistisch. Diese Unterscheidung bringt Neiman gut rüber, auch wenn wir das schon in anderen Büchern ähnlich gelesen haben, wie bspw. in Francis Fukuyamans „Identität“.
Hieran anschließend arbeitet Neiman heraus, was die theoretischen Grundlagen und Einflüsse der woken Linken seien – und hier beginnt es holprig zu werden. Überraschenderweise führt sie hierbei zunächst Carl Schmitt an, der ja nun bekanntlich ein rechter Denker ist. Ihre Begründung: Nach Schmitt sind Werte ausschließlich ein Ausdruck von Interessen; genau dieselbe Kritik, mit der die woke Linke versucht, das Denken der Aufklärung zu diskreditieren. Nun würde ich dieser Beobachtung zwar nicht widersprechen, doch Carl Schmitt damit zu einem Meisterdenker der woken Linken zu machen, ist dann doch etwas grotesk. Schmitt war vor allem ein nicht-normativer Denker, hatte also stets die Brille des zynischen, kaltblütigen Macht-Theoretikers auf. Das ist eine gänzlich andere Perspektive als die einer hoch-normativen woken Linken. Zwar gibt es durchaus linke Theoretiker, die Schmitt rezipieren und in ihr Werk integrieren. Das bekannteste Stück dieser Art ist vermutlich Chantal Mouffes „Über das Politische“. Doch Werke wie diese kommen primär aus der traditionellen, nicht aus der woken Linken. Ob Neiman diese Hintergründe nicht kannte oder man den Verweis auf Schmitt eher als inner-linker Diffarmierungsversuch verstehen muss, das weiß ich nicht.
Noch weniger plausibel fand ich den Verweis auf die Evolutionspsychologie, die laut Nieman einen angeblich starken Einfluss auf das woke Denken hätte. Meines Erachtens ist genau das Gegenteil richtig; nämlich, dass sich das woke Denken durch die völlige Abwesenheit solcher wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse „auszeichnet“. Es ist ein Kernelement dieser Weltanschauung, dass letztlich alles als gesellschaftlich konstruiert angesehen wird. Dementsprechend werden evolutionspsychologische oder biologische Fakten (bspw. im Hinblick auf die Geschlechterrollen oder das Paarungsverhalten von Menschen) von ihnen negiert, nicht „reproduziert“.
Auch eine Kritik an Michel Foucaults darf hier natürlich nicht fehlen. Auch wenn ich hier definitiv eine Schnittstelle sehe, so hatte ich insgesamt den Eindruck, dass sie für ihre Kritik eher ein Zerrbild Foucaults heranzieht. Diese verkürzte Sichtweise auf den Postmodernismus hatte Daniel-Pascal Zorn auch schon in „Die Krise des Absoluten“ kritisch angemerkt.
Eine linke Kritik am Denken halte ich weiterhin für wichtig. Doch eine solche Kritik müsste ganz anders, muss theoretisch fundierter ausfallen als jene von Neiman. „Links ist nicht woke“ ist leider ein Schuss in den Ofen – auch weil es kein sonderlich gut geschriebenes Buch ist.
Review bei Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CwejMOtNHkA
April 11, 2023
The title could give the impression that this is a polemic against the woke radicals which it is not. Instead it's a deep discussion of what it means to be progressive in today's world. It's an argument for believing in the possibility of change, and why any change that is not reactionary must reach for universal values. I found her critique of Foucault and Carl Schmitt important and effective. It's rather sad though that there is a need to talk to progressives about the latter, who was a Nazi philosopher. I'm less impressed by her critique of Evolutionary psychology, which ignores the work of the evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson and the theory of group selection, which can hardly be blamed for neoliberalism.
July 10, 2023
This title caught my eye because I identify as "left" and am never sure what "woke" is or what is my relation to "woke-ness." I distrust the term because of how it's been caricatured and weaponized by the reactionary right. But I also distrust the "woke." So I was hoping this book would clarify a definition of "woke" and its relationship to "the left."
Unfortunately, it didn't.
I appreciated the author's definition of "liberalism/the left," which she defines with 3 traits or attitudes: Universalism, commitment to Justice, and Optimism about the future potential and past achievements of social progress. For "the left" she adds a 4th trait, commitment to Human RIGHTS (as opposed to "liberal's" willingness to grant benefits.) OK, I'm on board with all 4 of those.
But then she defines "woke" as the opposite of these 3 attitudes: Tribalism (aka "identity politics") replacing Universalism, cynical belief in Power replacing commitment to Justice, Pessimism/Cynicism/Nihilism replacing Optimism. She doesn't offer any examples of "woke" discourse or action, and she admits that "the woke" don't explicitly claim these attitudes - but claims they act upon them. I think her "woke" is a paranoid fantasy based on right-wing and middle-aged-liberal fears of finding themselves (ourselves) on the wrong side of social change.
Here is an analysis of the moral panic about "woke" that I find useful:
https://michaelhobbes.substack.com/p/...
and another
https://michaelhobbes.substack.com/p/...
A red flag for me: Neiman attributes the belief in Power and the Pessimism/Nihilism to Foucault, based on the first few pages of "Discipline and Punish". It irritates me how "Foucault" has become a bogeyman - not that Foucault is beyond criticism, but when you name-drop "Foucault" as a one-word shortcut to invalidate a claim, idea, or analysis, I lose trust in you.
I also find it a bad sign that several (male) reviewers spontaneously suggested that her model is useful to understand how "liberal" feminism is being hijacked by "woke" transgender activists - MASSIVE red flag.
This one's a dud.
Unfortunately, it didn't.
I appreciated the author's definition of "liberalism/the left," which she defines with 3 traits or attitudes: Universalism, commitment to Justice, and Optimism about the future potential and past achievements of social progress. For "the left" she adds a 4th trait, commitment to Human RIGHTS (as opposed to "liberal's" willingness to grant benefits.) OK, I'm on board with all 4 of those.
But then she defines "woke" as the opposite of these 3 attitudes: Tribalism (aka "identity politics") replacing Universalism, cynical belief in Power replacing commitment to Justice, Pessimism/Cynicism/Nihilism replacing Optimism. She doesn't offer any examples of "woke" discourse or action, and she admits that "the woke" don't explicitly claim these attitudes - but claims they act upon them. I think her "woke" is a paranoid fantasy based on right-wing and middle-aged-liberal fears of finding themselves (ourselves) on the wrong side of social change.
Here is an analysis of the moral panic about "woke" that I find useful:
https://michaelhobbes.substack.com/p/...
and another
https://michaelhobbes.substack.com/p/...
A red flag for me: Neiman attributes the belief in Power and the Pessimism/Nihilism to Foucault, based on the first few pages of "Discipline and Punish". It irritates me how "Foucault" has become a bogeyman - not that Foucault is beyond criticism, but when you name-drop "Foucault" as a one-word shortcut to invalidate a claim, idea, or analysis, I lose trust in you.
I also find it a bad sign that several (male) reviewers spontaneously suggested that her model is useful to understand how "liberal" feminism is being hijacked by "woke" transgender activists - MASSIVE red flag.
This one's a dud.
May 29, 2023
I feel the title of this book is like click bait - there is very little here that clearly questions “wokeness”. Disappointing in that regard. The book lacks a clear logical through-line, so it comes across as choppy and disorganized. Like, what’s the point? Still, there are passages, even pages, that are clear and direct, and enlightening. These latter bits saved the book from the 2-star pile, but just.
November 5, 2023
It’s difficult to say this book is simply one or two things simply the breadth and scope the author takes on here is so impressive. In short though, she critiques “woke” theory not from the right or dismissively but rather from the left and from a place where she sees worthy ideals but disastrously misguided application.
As a fellow leftist (a word which we are both proud of but has been poisoned in modern discourse) she believes that the ideals of being a progressive, as well as the Enlightenment itself, are crystallized in three important philosophical ideas.
The first being a commitment to Universalism.
By that she means that when we fight for justice, we fight for justice for all. As groups seem to break off into tribes now where the input of other tribes is occasionally allowed as at best a temporary “ally” and at worst treated with suspicion as being part of a systemic problem with nothing to offer.
It is a dramatic and worrying shift from even 60 years ago during the Civil Rights movement where a multitude of races and genders worked for the greater good.
Secondly, the firm commitment and distinction between justice and power. This is of course is intrinsically linked to Universalism in that as she writes:
“Without Universalism, there is no argument against racism, merely a bunch of tribes jockeying for power”
When justice ceases to become about an equal playing field for all rather than just upending the current power structure to place your tribe on top, there is no incentive for any kind of cooperative effort or real change.
Finally, is the belief in the possibility of progress. This is perhaps the most important idea of all in that when you get to a point where you believe that things have always been bad and will continue to be so, you not only stop trying to change it, you begin to inherently distrust everyone you suspect of sustaining the status quo.
As the author writes, yes some Enlightenment thinkers wrote racist things. Most of them also had no time for women as anything in society other than wives and mothers.
Yet they also were fiercely critical of colonialism, ardent defenders of individual liberty, and insistent on reason and doubt rather than religious superstition.
No they were not fully actualized human beings. Neither are we. But to dismiss them as having nothing useful to offer us simply because they were white men not only shows a profound lack of an ability to see the totality of something but a distressing disinterest in learning from people different from us.
Furthermore, things are undoubtedly better than they were even 20 years ago. Things were better than they were 20 years before that.
Yes the change can at times be incremental and maddeningly slow. We sometimes also take steps back. But to deny that we have made progress does a disservice to those who fought for it.
There is so much more here but I believe these three tenants she lays out are the basis of a healthy democratic society. One that has yes, not always lived up to its own rhetoric to be sure. But if we simply stop there, throw up our hands, and say things have always been awful so I’m just going to head to this corner while you stay in yours, we are for more gone as I society than I fear.
As a fellow leftist (a word which we are both proud of but has been poisoned in modern discourse) she believes that the ideals of being a progressive, as well as the Enlightenment itself, are crystallized in three important philosophical ideas.
The first being a commitment to Universalism.
By that she means that when we fight for justice, we fight for justice for all. As groups seem to break off into tribes now where the input of other tribes is occasionally allowed as at best a temporary “ally” and at worst treated with suspicion as being part of a systemic problem with nothing to offer.
It is a dramatic and worrying shift from even 60 years ago during the Civil Rights movement where a multitude of races and genders worked for the greater good.
Secondly, the firm commitment and distinction between justice and power. This is of course is intrinsically linked to Universalism in that as she writes:
“Without Universalism, there is no argument against racism, merely a bunch of tribes jockeying for power”
When justice ceases to become about an equal playing field for all rather than just upending the current power structure to place your tribe on top, there is no incentive for any kind of cooperative effort or real change.
Finally, is the belief in the possibility of progress. This is perhaps the most important idea of all in that when you get to a point where you believe that things have always been bad and will continue to be so, you not only stop trying to change it, you begin to inherently distrust everyone you suspect of sustaining the status quo.
As the author writes, yes some Enlightenment thinkers wrote racist things. Most of them also had no time for women as anything in society other than wives and mothers.
Yet they also were fiercely critical of colonialism, ardent defenders of individual liberty, and insistent on reason and doubt rather than religious superstition.
No they were not fully actualized human beings. Neither are we. But to dismiss them as having nothing useful to offer us simply because they were white men not only shows a profound lack of an ability to see the totality of something but a distressing disinterest in learning from people different from us.
Furthermore, things are undoubtedly better than they were even 20 years ago. Things were better than they were 20 years before that.
Yes the change can at times be incremental and maddeningly slow. We sometimes also take steps back. But to deny that we have made progress does a disservice to those who fought for it.
There is so much more here but I believe these three tenants she lays out are the basis of a healthy democratic society. One that has yes, not always lived up to its own rhetoric to be sure. But if we simply stop there, throw up our hands, and say things have always been awful so I’m just going to head to this corner while you stay in yours, we are for more gone as I society than I fear.
September 30, 2023
This ain't it. Foucault mal wieder als Gespenst der Postmoderne, was weder Foucault, noch der Postmoderne gerecht wird. Der Woke-Begriff bleibt weiter sehr undefiniert und nicht ausdifferenziert, man weiß gar nicht so Recht gegen was für eine Konzeption sie sich hier richtet. Ihr Plädoyer für Fortschritt und Universalismus ist zwar nicht viel entgegenzusetzen, bleibt aber doch recht blass, kann man Woke doch sehr gut mit diesen Aspekten konsolidieren . Und das obwohl Woke zum Kulturkampfbegriff geworden ist und sich auch in kapitalistische Logiken eingebettet hat.
April 25, 2023
Ietwat misleidende titel, hoewel de kritiek op het tribale karakter van het niet gedefinieerde ‘woke’ fors is, is het vooral een pleidooi voor Verlichtingsdenkers en een kritiek op Foucault.
December 25, 2023
Als je een kritiek op de relatie tussen woke en links verwacht zou ik een ander boek lezen. Als je een pleidooi voor de verlichting, en een pittige kritiek op foucault wilt lezen, zit je goed. Haar ideeën zijn interessant maar niet heel erg uitgewerkt.
Al bij al doet het voor mij niet wat het belooft op de cover noch de achterflap.
Al bij al doet het voor mij niet wat het belooft op de cover noch de achterflap.
March 18, 2024
Tengo pocas cosas buenas para decir de este libro. Lo trataré de resumir igualmente.
El problema principal es que este libro es engañoso. Su titulo e introducción da a entender una crítica que busca separar a la izquierda de un fantasma que persigue a la gente en internet (particularmente en Estados Unidos) en los últimos dos años: lo "woke". Les aviso que aquí van a salir sin entender muy bien que es lo Woke.
En ningún momento se termina por entender bien que es o que significa ser Woke. La única conexión real y directa se hace en el primer capitulo a la hablar de Tribalismo frente a Universalismo. La autora entiende tribalismo como el intento usar las políticas identitarias como fijadores de la totalidad de la identidad política de las personas afectadas, llevando a que la discusión temática sea separatista, lo que para ella es problemática porque se ha censurado a los filósofos de la ilustración.
De aquí en adelante es una defensa a la Ilustración, nunca sabemos quién es es Woke, qué movimiento, qué partido, qué políticos, qué leyes o políticas han sido Woke. Lo siguiente es discutir sobre la diferencia entre Poder y Justicia. La discusión me parece interesantísima e incluso la apoyo. Foucault tiene muchos problemas al no tener marco normativo y no adjudicar a las ideas de moralidad. Pero de ahí a hacer una conexión con Schmitt, Heidegger y culpar a los males de la izquierda en leerlos y seguir sus ideas para hacerse "Woke" se pierde todo el peso de la discusión. Por lo demás, ¿Quién lee a esos autores? Realmente tienen una influencia. Mira que la opción de mencionar a Mouffe, Laclau y compañía estaba ahí. Pero lo único que hace es mencionar a Fanon y decir "incluso él era universalista y buscaba la justicia". ¿Entonces quién es Woke, quién comete el error? Mi hipótesis es que nuevamente, es pelea contra internet.
Tiene otros problemas como rotear bastante a los lectores. En un momento incluso dice que todos los que leen a Foucault tienen el problema de no entenderlo. Cosa que se puede compartir, pero no puede ser tu argumento para decir que los "Woke" deben leer de nuevo a Kant y a Rousseau. Poco más me queda por decir. Es como una columna de diario, pero larga. Igualmente, generalista, de poco aporte, y con evidente conocimiento desperdiciado.
El problema principal es que este libro es engañoso. Su titulo e introducción da a entender una crítica que busca separar a la izquierda de un fantasma que persigue a la gente en internet (particularmente en Estados Unidos) en los últimos dos años: lo "woke". Les aviso que aquí van a salir sin entender muy bien que es lo Woke.
En ningún momento se termina por entender bien que es o que significa ser Woke. La única conexión real y directa se hace en el primer capitulo a la hablar de Tribalismo frente a Universalismo. La autora entiende tribalismo como el intento usar las políticas identitarias como fijadores de la totalidad de la identidad política de las personas afectadas, llevando a que la discusión temática sea separatista, lo que para ella es problemática porque se ha censurado a los filósofos de la ilustración.
De aquí en adelante es una defensa a la Ilustración, nunca sabemos quién es es Woke, qué movimiento, qué partido, qué políticos, qué leyes o políticas han sido Woke. Lo siguiente es discutir sobre la diferencia entre Poder y Justicia. La discusión me parece interesantísima e incluso la apoyo. Foucault tiene muchos problemas al no tener marco normativo y no adjudicar a las ideas de moralidad. Pero de ahí a hacer una conexión con Schmitt, Heidegger y culpar a los males de la izquierda en leerlos y seguir sus ideas para hacerse "Woke" se pierde todo el peso de la discusión. Por lo demás, ¿Quién lee a esos autores? Realmente tienen una influencia. Mira que la opción de mencionar a Mouffe, Laclau y compañía estaba ahí. Pero lo único que hace es mencionar a Fanon y decir "incluso él era universalista y buscaba la justicia". ¿Entonces quién es Woke, quién comete el error? Mi hipótesis es que nuevamente, es pelea contra internet.
Tiene otros problemas como rotear bastante a los lectores. En un momento incluso dice que todos los que leen a Foucault tienen el problema de no entenderlo. Cosa que se puede compartir, pero no puede ser tu argumento para decir que los "Woke" deben leer de nuevo a Kant y a Rousseau. Poco más me queda por decir. Es como una columna de diario, pero larga. Igualmente, generalista, de poco aporte, y con evidente conocimiento desperdiciado.
July 20, 2023
Zeker een erg stimulerend en prikkelend boek. Susan Neiman gaat in op de achterliggende filosofische ideeën van de ideologieën van vandaag de dag. Deze uiteenzetting van verschillende ideeën is erg interessant en relevant in het hedendaagse politieke veld. Toch mist er wel meer een terugkoppeling van de abstracte ideeën naar de wereld van nu, de sociologie:). Ondanks de titel focust het boek meer op het verdedigen van de ideeën van de verlichting en het bekritiseren van Foucault.
July 15, 2023
Praise Susan Neiman for calling bullshit on destructive and depressive notions about what one must believe to be a progressive thinker. With an impressive blend of eloquence and clarity, she unpacks the intellectual trajectories that stifled our thinking and offers better paths forward.
December 18, 2023
I can’t even begin to describe how angry this book made me.
March 7, 2024
3,5 van de 5 sterren.
Het boek gaat dus niet over woke. Het gebruikt slechts woke als een anekdote om links universalisme te illustreren en onderbouwen. Het is ook niet echt een aanval op woke. Het is een filosofisch boek met als doel om een breder publiek aan te spreken. Staan goede punten in. Ben het niet overal mee eens en heb bij sommige dingen mijn vraagtekens, maar dat is ook een van de dingen die de auteur benoemd: dingen in twijfel mogen trekken.
Het boek gaat dus niet over woke. Het gebruikt slechts woke als een anekdote om links universalisme te illustreren en onderbouwen. Het is ook niet echt een aanval op woke. Het is een filosofisch boek met als doel om een breder publiek aan te spreken. Staan goede punten in. Ben het niet overal mee eens en heb bij sommige dingen mijn vraagtekens, maar dat is ook een van de dingen die de auteur benoemd: dingen in twijfel mogen trekken.
March 27, 2024
The title is deceiving, since the book mainly describes the left, with woke being more of an epiphenomenon. However, it was very informative and I enjoyed the different views and opinions!
February 28, 2024
Short, sweet, and to the point. Serving as a critique of both Foucaldian leftism and neoliberalism, this is a fairly concise exposition on the legacy of the Enlightenment and why liberalism of the traditional variety doesn't have to be a dirty word.
August 8, 2023
Left is Not Work (2023) by Susan Neiman compares the Universalist Left with the critical theory and identity theory driven left. Neiman is a moral philosopher.
There is a very good interview with Neiman about the book on Andrew Sullivan’s podcast.
First Neiman addresses Universalism and Tribalism and points out how the woke left is making tribal arguments which some of the far right also echo. This is contrast to the unversalist left that has emphasized the unity of humanity.
Neiman then makes the point that the woke left’s position on justice and power echos older claims that Justice is just the enforcement of the powerful. Neiman looks at Foucault and how he was not interested in prison reform and his views ignore the decline of torture and the improvements in prisons due to the prison reform movement.
Then there is a chapter on Progress and Doom where Neiman discusses the claim of Foucault and others that there has been no progress and just how the philosophers of the Enlightenment saw the potential for progress and through their arguments did indeed make progress themselves and helped others to do so. Neiman points out how in her own lifetime attitudes have changed and improved greatly.
Neiman doesn’t just criticise the woke. She also attacks evolutionary psychology and the ill defined neoliberalism. She acknowledges that there are big challenges to overcome but makes the point that the universalist left is best positioned to make progress. Alas she goes on too much in some of these critiques and professes anger at loud music in restaurants and what she perceives to be the excessive choice in washing powder available in the US.
Left is Not Woke is a good, short book and Neiman makes her points well. It is refreshing to see someone criticise woke beliefs from a left wing perspective.
There is a very good interview with Neiman about the book on Andrew Sullivan’s podcast.
First Neiman addresses Universalism and Tribalism and points out how the woke left is making tribal arguments which some of the far right also echo. This is contrast to the unversalist left that has emphasized the unity of humanity.
Neiman then makes the point that the woke left’s position on justice and power echos older claims that Justice is just the enforcement of the powerful. Neiman looks at Foucault and how he was not interested in prison reform and his views ignore the decline of torture and the improvements in prisons due to the prison reform movement.
Then there is a chapter on Progress and Doom where Neiman discusses the claim of Foucault and others that there has been no progress and just how the philosophers of the Enlightenment saw the potential for progress and through their arguments did indeed make progress themselves and helped others to do so. Neiman points out how in her own lifetime attitudes have changed and improved greatly.
Neiman doesn’t just criticise the woke. She also attacks evolutionary psychology and the ill defined neoliberalism. She acknowledges that there are big challenges to overcome but makes the point that the universalist left is best positioned to make progress. Alas she goes on too much in some of these critiques and professes anger at loud music in restaurants and what she perceives to be the excessive choice in washing powder available in the US.
Left is Not Woke is a good, short book and Neiman makes her points well. It is refreshing to see someone criticise woke beliefs from a left wing perspective.
June 7, 2023
The title is misleading in that the book is arguing for what the left should be, and the fact that woke is not a part of that is more the consequence of the previous reasoning. She is quite thorough on certain topics, though sometimes dismissive of subjects she doesn’t agree with, without the solid reasoning one could expect (for example her critique of evolutionary psychology). I did like most of the reading experience overall.
On a side note, for someone that is arguing against tribalism, she is quite firm in her unidimensional usage of the political spectrum and the idea that only the left vies for a better world, as opposed to “the racist right”, in her own words. One might argue that she did not intend to use such words as strongly as seems but this view is quite pervasive in the rest of the book, and she herself argues that the literal meaning of words is vital to understanding someone’s convictions when she critiques Foucault and Schmitt. It sometimes felt like a drawn out pat on the back for her own convictions, and the left as a whole.
On a side note, for someone that is arguing against tribalism, she is quite firm in her unidimensional usage of the political spectrum and the idea that only the left vies for a better world, as opposed to “the racist right”, in her own words. One might argue that she did not intend to use such words as strongly as seems but this view is quite pervasive in the rest of the book, and she herself argues that the literal meaning of words is vital to understanding someone’s convictions when she critiques Foucault and Schmitt. It sometimes felt like a drawn out pat on the back for her own convictions, and the left as a whole.
October 9, 2023
I would appreciate clearer formulation of the ideas and more on point chapters. Woke itself is quite in the background of the discussion. Instead author is focusing a lot on the “left” itself. Interesting reading, but as for someone who never studied philosophy was sometimes pretty difficult to go through (a lot of googling of cited philosophers included 😅).
I would recommend this book for someone who has some experience with reading philosophical pieces. I can confirm that this is not the most difficult one, but for “normal” reader (whatever that means) it requires more focus.
I was really looking forward on her conclusion, but it feels like she didn’t grab it that deeply as she could have. It almost feels like not finished, but maybe my critique would be dismissed by someone with bigger experience in philosophy. 😊
I would recommend this book for someone who has some experience with reading philosophical pieces. I can confirm that this is not the most difficult one, but for “normal” reader (whatever that means) it requires more focus.
I was really looking forward on her conclusion, but it feels like she didn’t grab it that deeply as she could have. It almost feels like not finished, but maybe my critique would be dismissed by someone with bigger experience in philosophy. 😊
June 3, 2023
Disappointed.
After reading the author’s ‘Moral Clarity’, I was looking forward to this book, but was left disappointed. It doesn’t really say much about the ‘woke-ism’ it is trying to distance from the left and seems to be just a short defense of the Enlightenment and a critique of Foucault. I was looking for a more substantial delineation between left vs woke and the negative aspects of wokeness that may spoil any positives.
Seems more appropriate to have been essays in another book rather than a stand-alone book.
After reading the author’s ‘Moral Clarity’, I was looking forward to this book, but was left disappointed. It doesn’t really say much about the ‘woke-ism’ it is trying to distance from the left and seems to be just a short defense of the Enlightenment and a critique of Foucault. I was looking for a more substantial delineation between left vs woke and the negative aspects of wokeness that may spoil any positives.
Seems more appropriate to have been essays in another book rather than a stand-alone book.
November 1, 2023
Duidelijk betoog. Wel ietwat versimpeld, daarbij haalt de auteur de ene na de andere bron aan zonder context te geven, en vaak ook nog eens extreem kort.
January 12, 2024
La izquierda no es woke es un libro que recurre a lo filosofico y a lo historico. Es un libro que toda persona que le guste la politica pueda leerlo. Va dejar mucho que hablar este libro porque será el eje del futuro de la izquierda en el mundo. Un libro contingente y muy ameno que cualquier lector de izquierda pueda leerlo.
August 20, 2023
De titel van het boek lijkt misleidend, omdat het boek voor het grootste deel een kritiek op alle verschillende werken van Foucault lijkt, maar dit wordt in de conclusie wel mooi samen gebracht. Op dat moment werd me ook pas duidelijk wat de drie grootste verschillen zijn tussen links en de woke beweging. Het is ook niet anti-woke, maar een goede analyse van de verschillen die wel ver de geschiedenis van filosofie ingaat. Daarbij moet ik zeggen dat de uitleg van links veel dieper gaat en de analyse over de woke-beweging redelijk aan de oppervlakte blijft.
Ik wou dat ik het boek in het Engels had gelezen, want de vertaling vond ik onnodig lastig (zeg ik als bestuurskundige/politicologe).
Ik wou dat ik het boek in het Engels had gelezen, want de vertaling vond ik onnodig lastig (zeg ik als bestuurskundige/politicologe).
August 20, 2023
Great Book. Necessary in this era. Strange, she herself is a social democrat and writing this.
August 10, 2023
Reading the title (and having zero knowledge of the author or her previous works), I assumed this book would be either a historical exploration of or personal polemic against the political left. However, it was neither. 😊 In this very short read, the author uses (intense) philosophical discourse to delineate what she calls “true liberalism” from “woke liberalism”. She delicately and intentionally presents observations of today’s political left before assessing the consequences of the left’s current trajectory. In conclusion, she, of course, provides a sophisticated plan for course correction.
By now you should have already realized that this book was way too smart for me! I’d be lying if I said I didn’t struggle on every 👏🏾 single 👏🏾 chapter 👏🏾!! What’s even more hilarious is that the author self-proclaims to write “clearly, without jargon, in the interest of teaching the widest number of readers.” Widest number clearly didn’t mean me!😂 😂
If you, like me, find philosophy overwhelming, give this book a fun attempt. And if you, unlike me, are desperately seeking your a philosophical exploration of today’s political parties, definitely give this thrill a try.
All jokes aside, I believe anyone can learn at least one thing from this read - no matter what side of the aisle you’re standing on.
Now get to the library to celebrate National Library Week!
#readmorebooks #supportyourlocallibrary #returnyourlibrarybooks #nationallibrarywee
By now you should have already realized that this book was way too smart for me! I’d be lying if I said I didn’t struggle on every 👏🏾 single 👏🏾 chapter 👏🏾!! What’s even more hilarious is that the author self-proclaims to write “clearly, without jargon, in the interest of teaching the widest number of readers.” Widest number clearly didn’t mean me!😂 😂
If you, like me, find philosophy overwhelming, give this book a fun attempt. And if you, unlike me, are desperately seeking your a philosophical exploration of today’s political parties, definitely give this thrill a try.
All jokes aside, I believe anyone can learn at least one thing from this read - no matter what side of the aisle you’re standing on.
Now get to the library to celebrate National Library Week!
#readmorebooks #supportyourlocallibrary #returnyourlibrarybooks #nationallibrarywee
December 31, 2023
My in-laws gifted this to me for Festivus, saying it was “a good book”. I spun the book around to show the thinness of its spine, and retorted “It’s a really short book.” Neiman wrote Learning From The Germans: Race and the Memory of Evil from 2019, another book my in-laws bought for me (I wonder what they’re trying to tell me, retired teachers as they are). 143 pages at a 14-point font size typically reserved for “young adult” books, this is essentially a hard-bound essay with five sections, including an Intro and Conclusion. Neiman, a moral philosophy scholar, for whatever reasons, penned this polemic in what the Los Angels Review of Books’ Samuel Clowes Huneke slaps as a “cringe-inducing screed” with no clear thesis, no clear definitions for either “Left” or “woke”, and no solid purpose except to complain about her life’s work bound to Enlightenment’s white men (https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/c...). This is a junior-high five-paragraph-essay issue. Having read it in under two hours, I have to agree with Huneke on some points. It is a messy diatribe, but then again I’ve been out of these “philosophy circles” for quite some time. A simple sentence declaring her thesis, and then defining the terms of what her said thesis entails, would have been hugely helpful and easily averted such low-hanging targets to snipe at. Ultimately, I wonder if her question of “Why did Foucault become the philosopher of the Left?” is her overarching theme here. Again, I don’t exist in the trenches of any Leftist group, so I have no idea what they’re actually reading. Most likely bs fantasy books about dragon-sex.
Neiman’s biggest goof is to lump all the messy, disorganized, and Left-leaning factions (Occupy Wall Street, MeToo, BLM, We Call BS, Standing Rock, etc., etc.) into an abstract whole to slur and slander, seemingly simply because her precious Enlightenment philosophers have apparently been dethroned by Michel Foucault and his ilk of the 60s and 70s (nevermind third-wave feminism and new historicism in the 90s), with Neiman’s desired universalism being supplanted by identity- and issues-based tribalism that everyone’s news feeds are clogged with now. True enough. The Left is certainly weakened by factionalism and this has been an historical issue, while the Right just gloms on to power, greed and grift, racism, sexism, and xenophobia, exploitation, oppression, and brutality. I don’t know what Neiman’s tailored media feeds include, nor what the professors and scholars in her social circles are discussing, but this essay serpentines between Left and Right so interchangeably it’s tough to parse what she’s directing her ire exactly at. In the Conclusion, it may be all summarized thusly:
”The woke yearn for progress as much as I do, and many of those who reject the idea of progress get up every morning to work for social change. They do not realize how heavily they are weighed down by the theoretical views they hold; largely, I believe, because those views are framed so obscurely” (p. 140).
First off, I would hazard to guess that most people go about their lives without any philosophical framework, any theoretical views, clearly articulated. Heck, we’re on autopilot some 60% of the time as it is, programmed in many ways. Secondly, anyone who gets up every day to work for social change has clearly not given up on the hope for progress, though they could easily give in to pessimism that change doesn’t happen quickly enough, and the fierce backlash (i.e., White-lash) against progressive change is quite real at all levels of society. Neiman illustrates how things have—in a Big Picture way—gotten better over the past 60 years, but then highlights all the current horrors, chronic injustices, and tribalistic warring that continue today.
Neiman wants us (the Left) to shed the Foucaltian focus on power-dynamics and embrace her beloved Enlightenment philosophers who preached the gospel on Universalism. Not an easy sell when the cult of the GOP (and other Right-wing nationalists around the globe) are exclusively focused on flag-waving tribalism, historical white-washing, power, and oppression of everyone they don’t like. Kum-bae-yah.
The Left is fighting for true equality, basic universal human rights, accountability, transparency, actual social justice, and the future of the planet, but it is horribly disorganized, plagued by corporate interests and market-based hypocrites, and facing serious opposition by an ever-growing idiocracy with nothing better to do than lash out at everything they don’t like, or don’t understand, or simply fear. Communists, satanists, scientists, scholars, and tidal waves of drag queens crashing over the horizon to transform everyone into pancake-makeup and melon-brazier clowns. The only party choice we have in this corrupt two-party system, is too bovine and selfish, the American people too distracted, or too apathetic. Navel-gazing philosophers will not save us, and Neiman knows this.
Enlightenment-defined universalism is of course a noble tenet to subscribe to, and such things promote empathy for all others. Equality should be equality for all, everywhere on Earth. Suffering for some should be assistance from the rest (Palestinians are people too). War crimes are war crimes and all warmongering should be criminally prosecuted with every possible asset available. Everyone is a human being deserving of fair treatment, kindness, and humanism. The global system should be designed and reinforced to give everyone a solid quality of life and safety, purpose and contentment. I know, peace on Earth and all that magical jazz. However, the 25-year-old single parent of two, who barely made it out of high school, now working 12-hour shifts at the Tesla battery plant and being exposed to caustic chemicals every day does not care about academic discussions on Voltaire or Foucault, Niebuhr or Debs. She hopefully cares about collective bargaining, free quality healthcare, not getting pulled over late at night by a cop because her braided hair is clearly Black, living wages with solid work-life balances, worker-share allotments and board-seat representatives, free child care, affordable housing, and a financially safe retirement plan. Universalism is the foundation from which all the identity- and issues-based tribalism should be standing upon, locked arm-in-arm with one another to create a wall of willpower for drastic, system, dynamic changes. Until that happens, change will continuously be a slow slog up a steep and bloody hill, battling all the way.
Neiman’s biggest goof is to lump all the messy, disorganized, and Left-leaning factions (Occupy Wall Street, MeToo, BLM, We Call BS, Standing Rock, etc., etc.) into an abstract whole to slur and slander, seemingly simply because her precious Enlightenment philosophers have apparently been dethroned by Michel Foucault and his ilk of the 60s and 70s (nevermind third-wave feminism and new historicism in the 90s), with Neiman’s desired universalism being supplanted by identity- and issues-based tribalism that everyone’s news feeds are clogged with now. True enough. The Left is certainly weakened by factionalism and this has been an historical issue, while the Right just gloms on to power, greed and grift, racism, sexism, and xenophobia, exploitation, oppression, and brutality. I don’t know what Neiman’s tailored media feeds include, nor what the professors and scholars in her social circles are discussing, but this essay serpentines between Left and Right so interchangeably it’s tough to parse what she’s directing her ire exactly at. In the Conclusion, it may be all summarized thusly:
”The woke yearn for progress as much as I do, and many of those who reject the idea of progress get up every morning to work for social change. They do not realize how heavily they are weighed down by the theoretical views they hold; largely, I believe, because those views are framed so obscurely” (p. 140).
First off, I would hazard to guess that most people go about their lives without any philosophical framework, any theoretical views, clearly articulated. Heck, we’re on autopilot some 60% of the time as it is, programmed in many ways. Secondly, anyone who gets up every day to work for social change has clearly not given up on the hope for progress, though they could easily give in to pessimism that change doesn’t happen quickly enough, and the fierce backlash (i.e., White-lash) against progressive change is quite real at all levels of society. Neiman illustrates how things have—in a Big Picture way—gotten better over the past 60 years, but then highlights all the current horrors, chronic injustices, and tribalistic warring that continue today.
Neiman wants us (the Left) to shed the Foucaltian focus on power-dynamics and embrace her beloved Enlightenment philosophers who preached the gospel on Universalism. Not an easy sell when the cult of the GOP (and other Right-wing nationalists around the globe) are exclusively focused on flag-waving tribalism, historical white-washing, power, and oppression of everyone they don’t like. Kum-bae-yah.
The Left is fighting for true equality, basic universal human rights, accountability, transparency, actual social justice, and the future of the planet, but it is horribly disorganized, plagued by corporate interests and market-based hypocrites, and facing serious opposition by an ever-growing idiocracy with nothing better to do than lash out at everything they don’t like, or don’t understand, or simply fear. Communists, satanists, scientists, scholars, and tidal waves of drag queens crashing over the horizon to transform everyone into pancake-makeup and melon-brazier clowns. The only party choice we have in this corrupt two-party system, is too bovine and selfish, the American people too distracted, or too apathetic. Navel-gazing philosophers will not save us, and Neiman knows this.
Enlightenment-defined universalism is of course a noble tenet to subscribe to, and such things promote empathy for all others. Equality should be equality for all, everywhere on Earth. Suffering for some should be assistance from the rest (Palestinians are people too). War crimes are war crimes and all warmongering should be criminally prosecuted with every possible asset available. Everyone is a human being deserving of fair treatment, kindness, and humanism. The global system should be designed and reinforced to give everyone a solid quality of life and safety, purpose and contentment. I know, peace on Earth and all that magical jazz. However, the 25-year-old single parent of two, who barely made it out of high school, now working 12-hour shifts at the Tesla battery plant and being exposed to caustic chemicals every day does not care about academic discussions on Voltaire or Foucault, Niebuhr or Debs. She hopefully cares about collective bargaining, free quality healthcare, not getting pulled over late at night by a cop because her braided hair is clearly Black, living wages with solid work-life balances, worker-share allotments and board-seat representatives, free child care, affordable housing, and a financially safe retirement plan. Universalism is the foundation from which all the identity- and issues-based tribalism should be standing upon, locked arm-in-arm with one another to create a wall of willpower for drastic, system, dynamic changes. Until that happens, change will continuously be a slow slog up a steep and bloody hill, battling all the way.
November 1, 2023
Is it necessary for someone on the political left to also be woke? And is it self-evident that being anti-woke is the same as being on the political right? Judging by the way many activists and intellectuals are positioning themselves, it seems that there are only two possible positions: Either one is woke and left, or anti-woke and right. The moral philosopher Susan Neiman does not accept this. Her book "Left is Not Woke" is an impassioned defense of Enlightenment ideals over the ideas that, in her analysis, powers the woke agenda. And those Enlightenment ideals are not the ideals of the right.
A very loud and divisive debate surrounds the term "woke". Politicians such as the American right-wing presidential candidate and one-time Trump sycophant Ron DeSantis use it as a rhetorical weapon against anyone to the left of him. In his usage, any liberal is woke, and therefore an adversary. But there is also a debate among liberals and others who consider themselves on the left about the the ideas usually considered to be "woke". This debate is independent of the fulminations of the Trump crowd.
In Neiman's view, woke has become a politics of symbols instead of social change. Its relentless focus on marginalization, inequalities and historical crimes leads it to the conclusion that politics, in the common sense, is impossible, and that some very ill-defined and vague revolution is needed. A political agenda for justice and progress, as commonly understood, is derided as hopelessly naive.
Neiman considers herself a leftist, not a liberal, so her arguments differ in some ways from those of Yascha Mounk in his recent "The Identity Trap" (which I have reviewed). But there are also important similarities. One such is the explicit affirmation of "universalism over tribalism, a firm distinction between justice and power, and a belief in the possibility of progress." Both writers are champions of universalism, and both argue that one of the main problems with wokeness is that it embraces tribalism.
Another difference between Neiman and Mounk is that Mounk's text is rather dryly analytical and a little too much like an academic lecture. Neiman is an academic, to be sure, but her text is much more passionate and therefore has more life than Mounk's, although it is less well structured. Neiman is on a mission. There is a barely contained rage at the betrayal she feels the woke movement has committed against the Enlightenment ideals. So even if the levels of difficulty of the two texts are about similar, Neiman's is an easier read, because there is a force in it that sweeps one along.
Neiman adds one very important aspect to the analysis of the intellectual roots of wokeness. Not only does she investigate Michel Foucault's standpoints and arguments, and finds them in the final analysis anti-political and cynical. She also has a look at how the thinking of two Nazi intellectuals, the philosopher Martin Heidegger and the legal theorist Carl Schmitt, has influenced the debate. I criticized Mounk's book for not doing this, so I am very pleased that Neiman digs into the topic. The anti-liberalism of Heidegger and Schmitt has impressed some on the left, and some of their arguments have been taken up in the leftist discourse. This has influenced the woke movement, especially the contemptuous attitude towards ideas such as justice and progress, which Heidegger and Schmitt considered as hypocrisy and sham ideals.
Neiman's text also contains a discussion of evolutionary psychology. I must confess that I am slightly baffled by this. It is not clear why she feels this has a place in the current discussion. She does make good points about how some have taken arguments from evolutionary psychology to make reactionary political points. She ties evolutionary psychology to the argument that we are inherently tribal, and that its view of human nature is cynical in the same way as Foucault's is. I am not convinced.
A great aspect of Neiman's text is her passionate defense of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment has been accused of hypocritically talking about human rights, while at the same time condoning and even furthering racist notions of the West being inherently superior to the colonized peoples of the New World and the South. Refreshingly, Neiman will have none of it. She points out that several of the major Enlightenment writers found inspiration in the different ways of living discovered in other parts of the world. This became part of their critique of the Western societies they lived in. She writes: "Enlightenment thinkers invented the critique of Eurocentrism and were the first to attack colonialism, on the basis of universalist ideas." The Enlightenment ideals have affected Western societies, but not all that happened in the West, or came out of it, can be blamed on those ideals. Other philosophies and forces were also at play. To say that Enlightenment equals the West and all its actions is just stupid.
The influence and effects of woke thinking is very different in countries such as the US, Great Britain and Sweden, partly due to the differing impact the ideas have had in academic environments. In the US, the use of so-called DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) statements as a tool for selection of students and academic staff at colleges and universities has become widespread. This amounts to a selection by political affiliation. As a way to shut out non-woke persons from academia, this is clearly very bad news for an open society. Such statements have, as far as I am aware, not seen the light of day in Sweden except possibly in a few isolated cases, and I believe there is little danger that they will become any more common. Of course, fads from the US do tend to make their way into Sweden at one point or another, so one never knows. Neiman's analysis is important even if woke ideas have not yet had the level of negative effects that they have had in some areas of the US society.
In summary, Susan Neiman's book adds a very important perspective to the debate. As a liberal, I do not agree with every point, but her analysis is hard-hitting in many ways, and it deserves to be widely read. It would be nice if its message could come across so that the simplistic equations of left=woke and anti-woke=right could be seen for what they are: false.
A very loud and divisive debate surrounds the term "woke". Politicians such as the American right-wing presidential candidate and one-time Trump sycophant Ron DeSantis use it as a rhetorical weapon against anyone to the left of him. In his usage, any liberal is woke, and therefore an adversary. But there is also a debate among liberals and others who consider themselves on the left about the the ideas usually considered to be "woke". This debate is independent of the fulminations of the Trump crowd.
In Neiman's view, woke has become a politics of symbols instead of social change. Its relentless focus on marginalization, inequalities and historical crimes leads it to the conclusion that politics, in the common sense, is impossible, and that some very ill-defined and vague revolution is needed. A political agenda for justice and progress, as commonly understood, is derided as hopelessly naive.
Neiman considers herself a leftist, not a liberal, so her arguments differ in some ways from those of Yascha Mounk in his recent "The Identity Trap" (which I have reviewed). But there are also important similarities. One such is the explicit affirmation of "universalism over tribalism, a firm distinction between justice and power, and a belief in the possibility of progress." Both writers are champions of universalism, and both argue that one of the main problems with wokeness is that it embraces tribalism.
Another difference between Neiman and Mounk is that Mounk's text is rather dryly analytical and a little too much like an academic lecture. Neiman is an academic, to be sure, but her text is much more passionate and therefore has more life than Mounk's, although it is less well structured. Neiman is on a mission. There is a barely contained rage at the betrayal she feels the woke movement has committed against the Enlightenment ideals. So even if the levels of difficulty of the two texts are about similar, Neiman's is an easier read, because there is a force in it that sweeps one along.
Neiman adds one very important aspect to the analysis of the intellectual roots of wokeness. Not only does she investigate Michel Foucault's standpoints and arguments, and finds them in the final analysis anti-political and cynical. She also has a look at how the thinking of two Nazi intellectuals, the philosopher Martin Heidegger and the legal theorist Carl Schmitt, has influenced the debate. I criticized Mounk's book for not doing this, so I am very pleased that Neiman digs into the topic. The anti-liberalism of Heidegger and Schmitt has impressed some on the left, and some of their arguments have been taken up in the leftist discourse. This has influenced the woke movement, especially the contemptuous attitude towards ideas such as justice and progress, which Heidegger and Schmitt considered as hypocrisy and sham ideals.
Neiman's text also contains a discussion of evolutionary psychology. I must confess that I am slightly baffled by this. It is not clear why she feels this has a place in the current discussion. She does make good points about how some have taken arguments from evolutionary psychology to make reactionary political points. She ties evolutionary psychology to the argument that we are inherently tribal, and that its view of human nature is cynical in the same way as Foucault's is. I am not convinced.
A great aspect of Neiman's text is her passionate defense of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment has been accused of hypocritically talking about human rights, while at the same time condoning and even furthering racist notions of the West being inherently superior to the colonized peoples of the New World and the South. Refreshingly, Neiman will have none of it. She points out that several of the major Enlightenment writers found inspiration in the different ways of living discovered in other parts of the world. This became part of their critique of the Western societies they lived in. She writes: "Enlightenment thinkers invented the critique of Eurocentrism and were the first to attack colonialism, on the basis of universalist ideas." The Enlightenment ideals have affected Western societies, but not all that happened in the West, or came out of it, can be blamed on those ideals. Other philosophies and forces were also at play. To say that Enlightenment equals the West and all its actions is just stupid.
The influence and effects of woke thinking is very different in countries such as the US, Great Britain and Sweden, partly due to the differing impact the ideas have had in academic environments. In the US, the use of so-called DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) statements as a tool for selection of students and academic staff at colleges and universities has become widespread. This amounts to a selection by political affiliation. As a way to shut out non-woke persons from academia, this is clearly very bad news for an open society. Such statements have, as far as I am aware, not seen the light of day in Sweden except possibly in a few isolated cases, and I believe there is little danger that they will become any more common. Of course, fads from the US do tend to make their way into Sweden at one point or another, so one never knows. Neiman's analysis is important even if woke ideas have not yet had the level of negative effects that they have had in some areas of the US society.
In summary, Susan Neiman's book adds a very important perspective to the debate. As a liberal, I do not agree with every point, but her analysis is hard-hitting in many ways, and it deserves to be widely read. It would be nice if its message could come across so that the simplistic equations of left=woke and anti-woke=right could be seen for what they are: false.
August 9, 2023
Titel is misleidend, maar interessant boek over de verlichtingsdenkers
May 9, 2023
Neiman ontleed woke, door uitleg te geven aan waar de huidige ideologie zijn inspiratie uit heeft gehaald. En de fundamenten waarop het is gebouwd bloot te leggen.
Waarin ze kritisch uithaalt naar de ‘godfather van woke’, Michel Foucault. Als je woke wilt begrijpen en de manier waarop het de wereld definieert. Moet je terug gaan naar de kern en dus de geschiedenis.
De titel vind ik juist wel sterk, want het prikkelt en zet aan tot denken. Waarin ze ook zegt, links is niet woke omdat woke neigt naar fascistisch en totalitair denken. En zij beweert met haar boek dat dat juist geen kenmerken zijn van links. Om of echt links te zijn, hoor je dat juist te verwerpen.
Haar boek is scherp en uiterst kritisch, en in deze tijden juist erg relevant.
Waarin ze kritisch uithaalt naar de ‘godfather van woke’, Michel Foucault. Als je woke wilt begrijpen en de manier waarop het de wereld definieert. Moet je terug gaan naar de kern en dus de geschiedenis.
De titel vind ik juist wel sterk, want het prikkelt en zet aan tot denken. Waarin ze ook zegt, links is niet woke omdat woke neigt naar fascistisch en totalitair denken. En zij beweert met haar boek dat dat juist geen kenmerken zijn van links. Om of echt links te zijn, hoor je dat juist te verwerpen.
Haar boek is scherp en uiterst kritisch, en in deze tijden juist erg relevant.
July 2, 2023
It took me a while to get past the title (which remains opaque) - missing a "the"? as in: No, you're misreading the Left when you think it's "woke." Ultimately, the argument is that being a leftist is not compatible, at some level, with being "woke." I adore Neiman's work, although I think that she accepts the right's definition of "woke" more than the left's. But, that said, she provides some useful correctives to a progressive trend to bow down to Foucault (who she find says more about power than about justice), and to write off the Enlightenment without delving deeply into philosophers and writers from Rousseau to Kant. A good, short read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews