I am a psychologist and deeply embarrassed by my professions hand in what you term the successor ideology and it’s enactment in the real world. Plus I want to barf.
My understanding is that these university offices did not arise out of thin air, but were necessary to deal with mandates from the federal Department of Education, which imposes onerous reporting requirements. I do not know to what extent these mandates are written into law (eg Title IX), but a fair amount of it is. In 2016, I had high hopes that Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos would act to curb this, but alas their total incompetence and ignorance prevented them from doing anything significant.
A well written - if humorously terrifying - example of not only the bureaucratic impulse behind much of the DEI movement but also the disheartening rise of credentialism as a replacement for actual merit.
Wesley writes: "According to the strictures of the Successor Ideology, my friend's concession to the feelings of the parents of graduating seniors would be seen as pandering to "white fragility", while his refusal to indulge fairy tales about indigenous purity and righteousness would be deemed a form of "white defensiveness" itself partaking of the essence of "white supremacy culture.""
It's really stunning to me how allergic the Successor Ideology is to fact....and how much it depends on fantasy (the peacefulness of the indigenous) and twisting of biology/science (men with vaginas, etc). And above all, animosity toward competence.
Eventually reality asserts itself. But how much damage in the meanwhile?
I disagree that heckling is "unquestionably free speech". Heckling is much a denial of the free speech rights of others (that the heckler don't like). Heckling should be treated as a form of vandalism (which is what it is).
The example you give in this article demonstrates that "woke" ideology in practice is a circular firing squad. Very much appreciating your insights. Thank you.
Appreciate the combination of ideological history with institutional history. Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron comes to mind, in which an active and pervasive bureaucracy oppresses a people in the name of equality. "Racial casuistry," an excellent phrase indeed. Of importance here is the human desire to conform, possibly better understood in terms of the Girardian-Gansian anthropology of imitation. We think people are "adopting" an ideology, when in fact they are imitating a model, which means imitating a gestalt of ideas and desires, including goals. Thus the "innocent" preference for exploring and supporting interesting and reasonable ideas is only the tip of an iceberg of fairly specific resentments, ambitions, prejudices, commitments, hatreds, and will to power. Looking forward to hearing WY's views on who the "models" are for SI.
"There’s both strength and power in asserting that there is only one morally legitimate way to understand the world. When it comes to the institutional landscape we’re talking about here, that assertion sits at the core of many of our deepest divides."
Besides getting more and more power over people, I wonder if the whole idea is just to divide people from one another. Can't see the logic of it, which pretty much proves the case.
Copy editing nit: "Where the problem they exist is lacking, the problem must be redefined in more expansive terms to ensure it is always with us." looks to be missing a word or two. I read this as meaning something like "Where the problem they exist [to remedy] is lacking, the problem must be redefined in more expansive terms to ensure it is always with us."
I noticed a couple minor errors or omissions like this in the email newsletter of this article, some of which have now been fixed. (There was also "with limit" that now reads "without limit" and "That the effort is still far from completion does not change -> that <- the fact that this is its goal".)
I mention this because I enjoy your writing and applaud the aim of your project and I think engaging another set of eyes to scour your pieces before publication for oversights like these would give your work the polish it deserves.
I am a psychologist and deeply embarrassed by my professions hand in what you term the successor ideology and it’s enactment in the real world. Plus I want to barf.
My understanding is that these university offices did not arise out of thin air, but were necessary to deal with mandates from the federal Department of Education, which imposes onerous reporting requirements. I do not know to what extent these mandates are written into law (eg Title IX), but a fair amount of it is. In 2016, I had high hopes that Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos would act to curb this, but alas their total incompetence and ignorance prevented them from doing anything significant.
A well written - if humorously terrifying - example of not only the bureaucratic impulse behind much of the DEI movement but also the disheartening rise of credentialism as a replacement for actual merit.
Wesley writes: "According to the strictures of the Successor Ideology, my friend's concession to the feelings of the parents of graduating seniors would be seen as pandering to "white fragility", while his refusal to indulge fairy tales about indigenous purity and righteousness would be deemed a form of "white defensiveness" itself partaking of the essence of "white supremacy culture.""
It's really stunning to me how allergic the Successor Ideology is to fact....and how much it depends on fantasy (the peacefulness of the indigenous) and twisting of biology/science (men with vaginas, etc). And above all, animosity toward competence.
Eventually reality asserts itself. But how much damage in the meanwhile?
“Casuistry” is the word I didn’t know I needed in my life.
Yes, this is the organizational shroud. Many new career options.
I disagree that heckling is "unquestionably free speech". Heckling is much a denial of the free speech rights of others (that the heckler don't like). Heckling should be treated as a form of vandalism (which is what it is).
As ever, I am humbled, terrified, amused, bemused, and disdainful. And, again, terrified.
The example you give in this article demonstrates that "woke" ideology in practice is a circular firing squad. Very much appreciating your insights. Thank you.
"My friend then went on to lodge his reservations..." How dare you make me laugh!
Appreciate the combination of ideological history with institutional history. Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron comes to mind, in which an active and pervasive bureaucracy oppresses a people in the name of equality. "Racial casuistry," an excellent phrase indeed. Of importance here is the human desire to conform, possibly better understood in terms of the Girardian-Gansian anthropology of imitation. We think people are "adopting" an ideology, when in fact they are imitating a model, which means imitating a gestalt of ideas and desires, including goals. Thus the "innocent" preference for exploring and supporting interesting and reasonable ideas is only the tip of an iceberg of fairly specific resentments, ambitions, prejudices, commitments, hatreds, and will to power. Looking forward to hearing WY's views on who the "models" are for SI.
University jobs programs, all the way down.
I'll be curious to read about why you named it the "Successor" Ideology, if you haven't already.
Phew! I thought I'd seen it all. Will make massive effort to never be surprised again.
Was just today rereading article You referenced a bit ago, Sir Wesley: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/authority-blob-roundtable Still don't think a lot of Todd Gitlin, tho I'm sure he's famous. But this struck in relation to what You wrote here. From Illana Redstone:
"There’s both strength and power in asserting that there is only one morally legitimate way to understand the world. When it comes to the institutional landscape we’re talking about here, that assertion sits at the core of many of our deepest divides."
Besides getting more and more power over people, I wonder if the whole idea is just to divide people from one another. Can't see the logic of it, which pretty much proves the case.
TYTY, as always. :)
HR departments have long been going on witch hunts and terrorizing regular employees.
Copy editing nit: "Where the problem they exist is lacking, the problem must be redefined in more expansive terms to ensure it is always with us." looks to be missing a word or two. I read this as meaning something like "Where the problem they exist [to remedy] is lacking, the problem must be redefined in more expansive terms to ensure it is always with us."
I noticed a couple minor errors or omissions like this in the email newsletter of this article, some of which have now been fixed. (There was also "with limit" that now reads "without limit" and "That the effort is still far from completion does not change -> that <- the fact that this is its goal".)
I mention this because I enjoy your writing and applaud the aim of your project and I think engaging another set of eyes to scour your pieces before publication for oversights like these would give your work the polish it deserves.