Toxic Aspects of Woke Culture #1: The Exclusivity of "Lived Experience"

I am going to comment in this and in several other posts about "woke" culture and some things I find problematic about it.  Like many words, the word "woke" has a complex history, but I am using it in the sense in which it is coming commonly to be used in modern American social-political discourse, where it basically refers to an ideology of social justice coming from the "far left" of the political spectrum (but which has entered more and more into the mainstream in recent years).  It's hard to describe in a nutshell, but if you've been paying attention to American culture and politics in recent years you'll recognize it from the descriptions in these posts.

In my opinion, woke ideology is a mixture of good and bad.  That's true of a lot of ideologies, but with woke culture the good and the bad are usually related.  There is typically some good and valuable point that is made, but then that point is taken to an extreme that turns it into something harmful and irrational while other, balancing concerns are pushed aside, ignored, or rejected.

These posts will be informal, just musings based on my own observations and experience.  And it should be remembered, of course, that I am commenting on general trends of a culture.  Not everyone who identifies or thinks of themself as "woke" or who promotes certain aspects of woke ideology necessarily embraces all the good or all the bad elements I will be calling attention to.

For the whole series, see here.

The Exclusivity of "Lived Experience"

Woke culture is big on putting priority on "lived experience."  As with many woke ideas, there is an element of reasonableness and truth in this emphasis, but the truth is exaggerated to an unreasonable degree and used to suppress other reasonable concerns.

The element of reasonableness here is that it is, of course, true that a person who has actually had some particular experience or been in some particular situation is in a unique position to understand and explain to others that experience or situation.  I am the foremost expert on my own life--or, at least, I would hope people would presume this to be the case unless contrary evidence were to present itself.  If I have been through some difficult experience--say, growing up as a racial minority in a particular country--I am very likely going to have a point of view with regard to that experience that provides a unique insight that others who have not had that experience may not have.

Thus comes the call to listen to people's "lived experiences," as woke people are always telling us to do.  And they are right to call us to this.  It is human nature to think we know everything, while at the same time missing important insights because we refuse to learn by listening to others, especially others who have an inside perspective we don't have.  Far too often in human history, ideas have been judged, cultures have been judged, decisions have been made, laws have been made, etc., by people who were outside the sphere of those who would be most affected by these judgments and decisions, and far too often such judgments and decisions have been seriously unjust and harmful because of that.  If those Americans who wielded most of the political power at various points in American history had listened to the voices of Native Americans, of slaves, of African Americans, of women, of gays and lesbians, of transgender people, etc., instead of ignoring them and thinking they knew everything important already, American history would have been very different and far more just.

So we need to hear this call to listen to people's "lived experiences."  We need to take the time to stop talking, to stop insisting on our own ideas and ways, and really listen to the experiences of people and the ideas that have been shaped by those experiences.  We need to allow ourselves, our ideas, and our actions and decisions to be shaped by what we learn from others--especially from voices that have too often been drowned out in our society.

If woke culture stopped there, I'd be in 100% support.  But, typically, woke culture goes on to take this very valid concern to an irrational extreme.  Not only should we listen to the "lived experiences" of people and take them seriously, but we must defer to such accounts unquestioningly and absolutely.  We must treat them as infallible oracles always to be accepted at face value and never doubted.  And we must listen so much that we ourselves stop talking altogether, accepting that, because we have never had such-and-such an experience or been in such-and-such a situation, we can never have anything worthwhile to think or say about such situations or experiences or any topics related to them.  If I've never been a racial minority, then any idea I might have, or anything I might have to say, about racial issues is completely worthless.  I need to just shut my mouth, sit down, listen to racial minorities talk, and simply accept without question everything they say.  If I have never been a transgender person, I must simply accept whatever ideas about this subject I hear from transgender people without question, never offering any ideas myself.  I must turn off all my critical judgment and simply accept whatever I am told.

I have been informed by woke transgender people that I am required to see them exactly as they see themselves, to accept their account of their gender without question.  If their ideas about themselves and their gender have philosophical foundations the merits of which I can examine, or if I happen to have other philosophical views and arguments that might have a bearing on the subject, that is irrelevant.  My views, my ideas, my arguments are worthless and it is an affront for me even to bring them up or think them, simply because I myself am not transgender.  According to woke culture, if I am not black, I can have nothing to say about questions of justice surrounding the police and racial issues, no matter how much I've listened to the "lived experiences" of black people and no matter the potential merit of my thoughts and ideas.

I've always held that what matters is not who makes an argument, but whether that argument holds up objectively to scrutiny or not.  Is it a good argument?  Does the evidence back it up?  Can it adequately respond to objections?  I don't care if it's a PhD in Philosophy making the argument or my local garbage man--the argument is to be treated the same.  But that's not the woke way.  The woke way seems to be exactly the reverse.  All that matters is who makes the argument.  If the idea or argument comes from the right group of people, then it's a good one.  If it comes from the wrong group of people, then it's worthless.  We see this in words like "man-splaining" or "straight-spaining."  If I try to think about something, or talk or argue about something, that pertains to the identity, experience, etc., of women, my ideas are worthless, dismissed as nothing but "man-splaining."  If I try to have a conversation about issues related to homosexuality, because I am not gay or lesbian my ideas are dismissed without consideration as "straight-splaining."  (Of course, there is such a thing as a vice of "X-splaining"--when someone judges too quickly or firmly outside of what they really know about, not listening to the perspectives of those closer to the situation.  But woke culture tends to lump all attempts to converse or make an argument from anyone "not in the group" into the category of "X-splaining.")

But then, it must be pointed out that woke people tend to be inconsistent in the application of their own principles.  We must always listen unquestioningly to the "lived experiences" of racial minorities, gays, lesbians, transgender people, etc.--that is, unless someone in that category has something to say that contradicts the woke party line.  If a black man, or a woman, or a gay man, etc., criticizes the woke point of view, or contradicts the agreed-upon ideas of woke culture, or dares to transgress the boundaries of woke orthodoxy, that person's voice will be immediately and unhesitatingly rejected--no matter their minority or "victimhood" affiliation.  (Consider John McWhorter, for example.)  Thus we see that the emphasis on bowing with absolute submission to "lived experience" tends, in practice, to be a way of insulating woke ideas from having to deal with any challenge or scrutiny, while other ideas are systematically suppressed as "out of order."  It's a way of squelching dialogue in order to monopolize the conversation with only one point of view.

Or take the common transgender demand that we must accept the transgendered person's view of themselves without question simply because we are not them.  I am me, so the story goes, and so I get to define my own identity, and everyone else has no say in this at all but must simply accept whatever I say about myself.  But do they want to apply this principle consistently?  Do they really believe it in principle?  No.  If I go up to an atheist and say, "I believe that the core of my identity as a person is that I am made in the image of God.  So, since I am me, you have to believe that about me.  I don't care what your beliefs are, mine trump yours because I'm me and you're you.  It is not acceptable for you to hold any other opinion or disagree with me at all on this point, and I will take personal offense if you do."  Who would think this a rational place to draw the line in intelligent, civil conversation in a pluralistic society?  Of course an atheist is not going to agree that I am made in the image of God, because they don't believe in God.  Just because I'm me, I don't get to unilaterally and infallibly define objective reality about myself in so fundamental a matter.  If I believe I'm made in the image of God, I've got to argue for the beliefs that underpin that claim, and I have to seriously consider the alternative arguments of atheists.  I can't play identity politics to win the debate.  There has to be an evaluation on the merits of the case.  It doesn't matter who I am or who other people are.  Everyone has an equal right to have an opinion about my fundamental nature.  My views don't get to trump everyone else's simply on the grounds that I am me and they are not.

Speaking of "trump," I made the same point with a different example once in another conversation.  I'll paste here what I said there.  This was last summer, when Donald Trump was still president.  "Imagine that President Trump comes up to me and says, 'I would like you, from now on, to refer to me as President Wonderful and Good.  That’s how I choose to identify myself, and I would ask that you respect my identity.  If you respect my identity, you will refer to me as I want you to refer to me.'  I am probably going to say, 'No, Mr. President, with all due respect (and the word 'due' is not just decoration here), I am not going to refer to you as President Wonderful and Good, because, in fact, I do not think that this accurately describes you.  If I use that language, I will be communicating a message I believe to be false.'  'But it’s my identity!' replies the president.  'Since it’s my identity, I get to decide how I’m referred to!  To be blunt, your beliefs don’t have anything to say about that!  If you respect me, you’ll refer to me as I wish to be referred to.'  'Mr. President,' I will probably reply, 'it’s not the case that my beliefs have nothing to say about how I refer to you.  Just because we are dealing with your personal identity and view of yourself, that doesn’t imply you have an absolute right to dictate to the world how you should be viewed.  Your assertions or claims about yourself do not alter objective reality, and we believe that the objective reality is that you are not aptly described as a Wonderful and Good president.  If we would be true to our own beliefs and consciences, we cannot sanction communicating such a false message about you with our language.  It is not only your beliefs about yourself that are relevant here.  Objective reality is more important, and our beliefs about reality are a crucial factor in how we ought to talk.  Your absolute claim that you alone get to dictate speech for everyone on this matter is incorrect and groundless.'"*

So, again, woke culture applies its principles selectively.  The only time someone gets to unilaterally and absolutely dictate to others how they are to be viewed based on their "lived experience" and personal identity is when what they want others to believe and accept is something woke culture agrees with and cares about.  Otherwise, woke culture is happy to throw a person's "lived experience" and personal identity under the bus.

And before we leave the "President Trump" example, I'll also point out that, if we listen to woke people talk about Donald Trump, it doesn't seem like it matters much to them whether they themselves have ever been president of the United States before.  They feel free to criticize Trump even though they themselves have never had the "lived experience" of being the president.  What happened to "you can't talk unless you're in the group"?  Are they engaging in "non-president-splaining"?

Now, again, I want to emphasize that the proper response to this woke irrationality is not to go to the other extreme and ignore the valid point that we need to do a better job listening to the lived experiences of others.  This point is very true and very important.  Woke culture is right to remind us of it.  Unfortunately, irrational extremes on one side tend to breed irrational extremes on the other.  We must not let our just refusal to go along with woke irrationalism blunt our determination to accept, endorse, and promote what is right, valid, and just in what woke culture is saying.  We are not naturally prone to working hard enough to listen to the lived experiences of others.  We need to focus on making a determined effort to do better at this.  It is absolutely necessary if we want to pursue a more just society.  But we don't have to go along with woke extremism in order to do this.

For more on how we should deal with claims based on personal experience, see here.

* For more on my views on transgenderism, pronoun usage, etc., see here.

Published on the feast of Sts. Paulinus of Nola, John Fisher, and Thomas More.