Jacksonville: The Dangers of Dueling Ideologies

The tug-of-war between "wokeness" and "anti-wokeness" will continue until we acknowledge both are system-justifying ideologies.

A terrible, racist shooting has happened at a Dollar General in Jacksonville, FL. A white man directly targeted black people, killing 3. I don’t think I can say much to make that feel less horrible for anyone. I cannot imagine the victims' families' pain. No one should be forced to deal with such a thing.

Immediately, I saw their deaths be used to service a “woke” narrative. Specifically, I see “woke” people blaming Florida's "anti-wokeness" for the racist shooting.

To make it clear, it likely is true.

However, this is reductive and opportunistic. The interplay of “wokeness” and “anti-wokeness” is at the center of an ideological tension that, in my opinion, is not adequately discussed. Without a more careful, informed understanding of these ideologies and their interplay, we will continue to see extreme swings between them, resulting in the perpetuation and reemergence of racial prejudices.

I hesitated to write my thoughts on this matter due to the disgusting nature of the events (and their being another fresh wound), but here I see outcomes that I think are the logical result of consistently treating this issue in a way I have advocated against.

Yin and Yang

I am a long-time critic of "wokeness," which I have repeatedly asserted is an ideology of segregation and essentialism. The "progressive" half of the liberal political spectrum spews an "anti-racism" that sees race as a metaphysical reality, treating ideologically constructed categories as static and unchanging.

The reason for this is that the logic isn’t different either way. The left would never admit it, but the logic of ideas like standpoint theory is just redressed racism: “Black people are different, and white people can’t understand them.” The difference is that they assert this is “good” rather than “bad.”

In a recent piece, I laid out how the lack of a material distinction between groups (and thus their idealist formation) works to create or bolster essentialism:

Idealism is the key to essentialism. One needs an answer to the question, “Why are they like that?” Without it, the group doesn’t make sense. These groups exist without a material distinction, so an ideal or superficial, non-fundamental trait must stand in for one. The ideal or trait becomes reified (treating or transforming an abstract concept or subject as/into a physical object or natural reality) as the “material” essence of the group.

Put another way, people seek explanations for why certain groups are what they are. However, many groups do not have a fundamental, material difference distinguishing them from the rest of society. Race, for instance, is not a fundamental difference but an ideology of difference based on superficial traits (though it can have biological, hereditary consequences on things like health outcomes).

So, people might lean on ideals, beliefs, or traits to define that group. Over time, they might become solidified in people's minds as the fundamental characteristics of that group. It's a way for people to categorize and make sense of the world, but it leads people to make oversimplified assumptions that are ultimately disconnected from reality.

No matter how well-intentioned, I believe the lack of serious critique of “wokeness” assists in pushing skeptics down these reactionary paths. “Wokeness,” in its deference to capitalist authority and reiteration of stereotypes as essential traits, is simply a new justification of reactionary thought, and reaction to that is no different.

Without material distinctions, people argue over superficial ones. This is how identity politics has become so prominent; “black” and “white” sound like opposites. However, the average difference between two humans (of any race) is about 1 in 1,000 DNA base pairs, or 0.1%. “Wokeness” functions to separate along these lines, discouraging people from interacting and asking questions, thus playing the same material role as the ideologies it claims to be against.

It works, too; people separate along racial lines with budding resentments that have little to do with history but rather personal situations. “Wokeness” becomes a catch-all for “why my life as a person in the white/cis/etc. majority is bad.”

Hatred metastasizes, and we see new versions of old battles.

Wokeness As “The Big Bad”

I am certainly not the first to assert that white liberal antiracists are part of the problem. A long list of black thinkers, from Malcolm X to Adolph Reed, Jr., have posited much about it (Reed directly influenced my conception of “woke” antiracist essentialism). Still, it must be said that “wokeness” is a relatively recent ideology. It has developed into a system-justifying ideology over the last decade, though it has roots in legitimate antiracist movements and cultural touchstones.

Racism precedes wokeness, but leftists are specifically invoking “anti-wokeness”:

Make no mistake, I believe “wokeness” is the prominent justifying ideology of contemporary imperial-stage capitalism. I think it functions very much like The White Man’s Burden. However, no ideology is itself the problem; ideology justifies the problem.

For Marx, ideology refers to ideas and beliefs that legitimize the ruling class's interests. In The German Ideology, Marx and Engels argue that the ruling ideas of any era are the ideas of its ruling class. Ideology serves to obscure the realities of class relations and works to maintain the status quo by misleading the majority about their actual conditions and interests.

“Anti-wokeness” is as much a justifying ideology as “wokeness” is. It is simply accepting the framing of “wokeness” (which is itself accepting the framing of the “white supremacy” it is “against”) and asserting the opposites. People’s critique of wokeness defaults to “no, people are not equal” or “I hate x group.” Again, I believe this is due to the nature of idealism, and one justifying ideology doesn’t actually fight its “opposite.”

As I said in “Woke HR vs. Anti-Woke HR”:

Yes, “wokeness” is a cynical distraction from workers’ material interests. However, pitting two ideologies against each other isn’t a critique of ideology. It is a distraction. Yes, a backlash to wokeness is happening, but it isn’t based on any real understanding of power.

“Wokeness” is an answer given for “why things are how they are now,” just as “anti-wokeness” is. They might appear to demand changes in society, but their demands center on a permissive mode: who is allowed to do what and who is prioritized. This assumes zero-sum and refuses to acknowledge material relationships of power.

“Defeating” Wokeness

“Beating” “wokeness” is a totally absurd prospect and will only succeed in accommodating comfort to those who dislike woke sensibilities. The “defeat” of wokeness would act as another justifying ideology, as well. Further, we see an example of “beating” it in this Jacksonville shooting. This person was not transforming power relations, he was taking out his ideologically-directed frustrations for his own personal catharsis.

This will not defeat “wokeness” but strengthen it. This horrific tragedy will only be used to center on ideas that “white men are the problem” and refocus what was an ideology that frankly was beginning to lose steam.

Fighting ideology with ideology is like fighting fire with fire. It might make sense as an adage, but practically speaking, would anyone fight a grease fire in their kitchen with a blow torch? Of course not.

When ideologies clash head-on, the result is more often than not greater division, misunderstanding, and entrenchment. This dynamic escalates tensions and deters constructive dialogue even more.

The irony of attempting to counter “wokeness” with aggressive tactics or counter-ideologies is that it only serves to validate its foundational assertions. When acts of violence or hate, like the Jacksonville shooting, are perpetrated in response to an ideology (rather than measured, nuanced critique), it simply provides affirmation of its contentions and bolsters its relevance.

Such incidents allow proponents of “wokeness” to point out and say, “This is exactly why we need to address systemic issues,” without elaborating on what that actually entails. The term “systemic issues” gets more license to point at nothing in particular, transforming into an isolated grievance unto itself. “But the system!”

The sword cuts both ways, too. Switch “wokeness” with “anti-wokeness” in anything I have said, and it changes nothing but which team gets mad.

Conclusion

The tragedy in Jacksonville is a stark reminder that the dance between ideologies often ends in a cruel crescendo, causing pain and perpetuating division. Instead of leveraging such incidents to bolster our chosen team, we should recognize the greater imperatives of human connection, understanding, and shared struggle transcend ideology. We must address material relationships of power, not arbitrary, superficial lines of distinction.

In pursuing a better world, we should be wary of how “woke” and “anti-woke” ideologies are wielded. Rather than getting deeply involved in (and therefore distracted by) the spiral of ideological warfare, it's vital to delve deeper.

Power comes from somewhere, and it is not skin color.