Just when it started to seem like larger outlets were beginning to tire from publishing system-justifying “woke” ideology (for more on how “wokeness” is bourgeois, capitalism-supporting ideology, see my book Woke Ouroboros), a friend sent me a story from the New York Times Magazine, entitled, “I’m a Couples Therapist. Something New Is Happening in Relationships.” The idea of the article is that “for more and more of Orna Guralnik’s patients, the ideas behind Black Lives Matter and #MeToo are leading to breakthroughs at home.”
Dr. Guralnik, the piece’s author, introduces us to a new phenomenon:
Recent events have reshaped the national conversation on power, privilege, gender norms, whiteness and systemic racism. Together these ideas have pushed us to think, talk, argue and become aware of the many implicit biases [and] unconscious assumptions that privilege some and inflict harm on others. These insights have also made it easier for people to realize there may be plenty of other unconscious assumptions undergirding their positions. I’ve been surprised and excited by the impact of this new understanding, and it has all made my work as a couples therapist easier.
What we’re about to examine is an attempt to normalize Twitter-style arguments as a means to mediate relationships. It’s important to note that Guralnik is an accredited professional and an American citizen with the right to an opinion, which the reader will see that I disagree with. And though she most likely did have a moment where her hair split down the middle like the Grinch when she thought this article up, we must recognize that it ceases to be her opinion when published by a mainstream (read: ubiquitous, capitalist-owned) media outlet and becomes propaganda – and that is the real problem.
Slurpee Privilege
The article starts by recounting a story, which I must reprint here for both context and fairness:
One afternoon in 2020, early in the pandemic, I met Syl’violet and Matthew for a virtual session. Young, idealistic, deeply in love, they were also prone to dramatic fights. In this session Syl’violet, a vivacious essayist and spoken-word poet, was trying to describe the ways she felt Matthew, a measured medical student, was trying to control her, in this case by trying to dissuade her from buying a slushy. He thought they should keep to a tight budget until after he became a doctor and achieved financial stability. Then she could have “all the slushies you want later.” Syl’violet found his reasoning maddening, especially since he seemed to imply she was reckless.
On the face of it, the fight seemed insignificant, but then an exchange took place that changed the tenor of the argument, connecting us to the underlying roots of the issue. “I have trouble envisioning that finish line,” Syl’violet exclaimed, tearing up, “because the plan that he’s talking about? My life has always been: The plan never works. You can do all the right things, you can obey all the right rules and get [expletive].” For a moment, Matthew continued to try to reason with her and convince her of his sound financial strategy. “I know that sounds very conceited, cocky,” he said, to which Syl’violet whipped back: “No! It sounds privileged!” She described her family’s relationship to money; they’d had nothing but trauma for generations. Syl’violet resented Matthew’s pride in his plan. “A privileged setting gave you access to all these things,” she said. “You’re taking ownership over it like, ‘I did it according to plan,’ as if, like, if other people did it according to plan, it would work out.”
With the mention of the word “privilege,” Matthew came around to realizing they were talking about forces larger than themselves. Each of them was African American, but he came from a financially stable family; his parents, a firefighter and a bank manager, followed a middle-class trajectory and did well. “Let me rephrase,” Matthew said carefully, signaling to Syl’violet that he could see how his certainty about his future reflected his class background: “I recognize that if it wasn’t for my parents’ credit score, my loans to get — OK — so, I get that.” As the relevance of class and race came into focus, Syl’violet’s rage transformed into deep sorrow, generations of poverty weighing heavily on her. “I cannot stop thinking that we’re going to go bankrupt.” She worried that they might even be evicted. “I wish I could believe what you believe,” she told Matthew. He replied, his voice growing tender: “We have the same life now.” He looked at her, exuding care. “We have to live with the idea, the thinking, the viewpoint, that we’re going to die old together.”
Here, we see how talking about “systemic issues” gets distorted by liberal (read: capitalist) ideology: Matthew is doing “the right thing” by "realizing they were talking about forces larger than themselves," so he could tone it down a bit and take the blame here.
If done focusing on material relationships of power, systemic criticism will eventually lead back to the ruling capitalist class, as power differential comes from relationship to means. However, this paradigm removes that focus on material differences in class interests and instead focuses on individuals’ relative position within vast inequalities to designate a good guy (a victim) and a bad guy (an aggressor or neglector) to sort through interpersonal relations.
This story presents an excessively idealistic outcome and was filmed for Guralnik’s Showtime documentary series, Couples Therapy (I know this because the article directly promotes it), which leads me to question its well-crafted narrative’s credibility in a world of “reality TV.” Further, in an essay about “something new happening in relationships,” Guralnik sure seems to be introducing it intentionally:
For couples, I incorporate systems thinking, a practice that focuses on the system — a couple, say or a family — and interprets how each individual unconsciously behaves in ways that serve the system as a whole.
In doing so, the essay portrays woke ideologies as magical tools for communication, whereas in reality, they often result in further arguments. I ask readers who have observed someone attempting to explain to another person that they’re privileged: how did that go?
Even without a heavy focus on economic strata or race, few people respond well to accusations of privilege. For Matthew, a black man, race may also factor in that reaction:
Reality has not transformed any of the decadent theories that tie Black manhood to the caricatures of the 1970s. Black men are thought to be latent rapists—the Black Macho of old—violent patriarchs, a privileged Black male, craving the moment he is allowed to achieve the masculinity of whites. These mythologies, of decades long gone, remain the morality of disciplines and the political foundation from which racist caricatures become revered concepts.
-Tommy J. Curry, The Man Not (2017)
Further, the framework of “privilege” is ultimately competitive; it is quantitative and intended to place one party in an “advantaged” position and another in a “disadvantaged” one. However, like golf, the party with the least privilege points wins.
In the story, Matthew has an epiphany that he is privileged and becomes tender, realizing he is the “aggressor” (the bad guy) and she the “victim” (the good guy). The situation is automatically resolved because he ceases to defend his position that Syl’violet needs to hold off on the Slurpees a little while because they don’t have a lot of money, presumably because he’s a medical student and she is a “vivacious essayist and spoken-word poet.”
I think there's a key insight which makes Matthew's concern valid, though: a med student and a poet are not making bank regardless of their backgrounds.
Both of them clearly harbor worries about financial matters; however, rather than collaboratively delving into the underlying motivations that provoke such intense emotional responses regarding a mere slurpee, the situation was reduced to a competitive framework where resolution is seen as one conceding to the other.
To see eye-to-eye on this, Matthew could acknowledge that his style of reasoning may be seen as excessively logical (or even cold) by people who aren’t accustomed to making calculated decisions and being assured of specific outcomes. Syl’violet could talk about her family history up front and her fears of bankruptcy or eviction. Upon acknowledging each others’ perspectives more neutrally (and without labels or assumptions that come with politically-charged terminology), the contradiction of financial concern and discretionary purchases (such as Slurpees) could be examined for a possible solution.
Discussing this, another friend suggested to me, “I suspect it's not simply because she doesn't want to be poor, but because being poor means being subject to the control of others. Being denied a Slurpee is also being subject to the control of others.” This represents a much less contradictory motive for Syl’violet; the fact that she becomes so upset when asked to restrict her small purchases due to financial constraints supports this idea. However, instead of identifying and examining what could be a perceived lack of control (or other potential issues), the “woke” paradigm simply codes her as “the good guy,” and that’s the end of the story (literally).
Problem Solving and Framework
When a couple has a difference in opinion, a resolution that satisfies both parties is the preferred outcome. However, a therapist's job isn't to put a solution forward but to help bridge the gap to understanding, setting the patients up with the tools to find that resolution.
I very much agree with the general premise that systemic thinking is important to acknowledge in therapy; it allows us to see what is beyond our reach and help maintain realistic expectations. To quote the Serenity Prayer, a well-known mantra most often associated with recovery programs, “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.” This ultimately expresses what dialectical materialism can help us separate: the things we, individually, can and can not change.
Interpersonal relationships are certainly affected by systemic issues, but we must seek to resolve what is resolvable. Matthew can not change his background, nor can Syl’violet; however, this background shouldn’t define either in terms of personal development or interpersonal relations.
However, the framework The New York Times seeks to popularize in publishing Guralnik's opinion (Couples Therapy advertorial?) is that of a competition in which one party wins. The question is not “what is the nature of this interpersonal situation?” It is “who is privileged?” The former would certainly include questions about background and position, but the latter makes them the sole factors.
In Guralnik’s proposed framework, their backgrounds totally define their relative positions, which may lead to the belief that their financial situation is permanent. However, it is important to recognize that once Matthew completes his program, it is likely that the couple will experience an improvement in their financial position. Depending on the job market, it may not reach the level Matthew anticipates, but having a doctorate will likely improve their situation.
They are not yet there, so it could be crucial to be mindful of discretionary expenses, such as purchasing a Slurpee, as these seemingly small expenses can accumulate over time and bring the couple closer to the financial concerns Syl’violet fears.
The "woke" or intersectional paradigm overlooks these immediate factors and instead focuses primarily on quantifiable social position. As a result, individuals are reduced to labels symbolizing their quantitative differences (“privileged,” etc.), shaping their perspective on the situation. Consequently, this framework unintentionally discourages viewing each other as teammates and promotes the perception of opposing interests.
Matthew is “wrong,” but not because there is a complex, unknowable capitalist system that doesn’t simply reward hard work. Rather, he’s “wrong” because his family is relatively well-off (though “middle-class” is a misnomer and the quantitative/qualitative difference between his family and the capitalist ruling class is vast), and he continues to operate on the paradigm he was taught.
Syl’violet is “right” because she has lived a life without financial security, and thus the predictability Matthew relies on in his plans is something she has never experienced. She’s lived through negative experiences that Matthew hasn’t.
Asking, “do we have the money to spend on discretionary purchases?” is out of the question. Instead, the allowed question is, “of these two people, who is the oppressor, and who is the oppressed?”
A Snake Eating Its Own Tail
In my book Woke Ouroboros: Segregation and Essentialism, I characterize "woke" ideology as a seemingly progressive approach that ultimately justifies and perpetuates the very inequalities it claims to combat.
The tendency to individualize systemic problems was once apparently exclusive to “conservative” ideology. The ideologies of “individual responsibility” are a pernicious means of offloading blame for the problem of poverty. However, the “progressive” responses haven’t rectified this. As described earlier, this “understanding” of systemic issues cannot reach a logical conclusion because it is not allowed to see the class dialectic through the lens of material relationship to means.
“The system” is only ever allowed to be an ideal, a horrible evil exercised upon the population because some people are greedy and bad. To have more is bad, to have less is good. Thus, to “do well” in this system means to “be on its side.” In this paradigm, Matthew represents “the system” to Syl’violet. As he talks of his plans and goals, she sees him as “the bad guy,” no different than the ruling capitalist class, because she isn’t encouraged to see class through a lens of material relationship to means. Here, class is ultimately a set of ideals that tend to associate with certain quantitative economic strata.
While it reverses the morality of the “conservative” ideology, the “progressive” ideology is not mechanically different. It is still about personal choice, and we don’t have to look hard to see why.
#MeToo rhetoric was woven into their discussions, functioning as a superego…
Guralnik goes on to talk about being a trained psychoanalyst, specifically noting, “I am of a later theoretical school that, rather than seeing civilization in conflict with the self, sees the social contract, our relationship to the collectives we belong to, as nested in the deepest corners of our unconscious.”
This wholly contradicts the legitimate idea of “systems thinking;” it is an idealist view that society’s makeup comes from inside of our individual minds. This is the liberal, “demand drives supply” view of society with a Freudian veneer, the consumer mindset that if one simply makes the right purchases, the market will respond with change.
Thus, to “understand” the system, to “recognize there are forces bigger than us” at play, is wokely transformed into a means of assigning blame relative to a quantitative position, thereby obscuring the qualitative distinctions that determine who holds genuine power.
Conclusion
This worldview is applied to various couples in Guralnik’s work as a therapist and propagandized to the public by The New York Times. To break down this ideology, one finds that it is not about systemic thinking at all. The awareness one might have of systemic issues is used as a bludgeon against others who aren’t in the ruling capitalist class, in this case, in the context of a romantic relationship.
One of the largest print outlets in the country’s imposition of this version of “systemic thought” to both therapy and relationships serves to further normalize new justifying ideology to all the same old divisions and inequalities. The “reactionary” justifications certainly still exist, from “individual responsibility” to outright bigotry. Still, in a neoliberal market where “choice” is supposedly so relevant, there has to be a “progressive” counterweight that doesn’t lead to the system’s destruction.
That is “wokeness.” When viewed in context with “anti-wokeness,” either way, people feel they are fighting what their side perceives as injustice by labeling their family, friends, neighbors, and partners and acting accordingly. This is not class conflict, it is not dialectical, and it does not look for the root of any of these contradictions (thus, to call wokeness “Marxism” is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of either).
Plus, it doesn’t help these couples. If constant Slurpee purchases actually were hindering Matthew and Syl’violet’s financial situation, how would that ever be addressed? And what if they actually weren’t? What if the problem wasn’t their finances and actually was just Matthew being controlling?
These things aren’t addressed in this paradigm. Instead, these people become essentialized avatars for perceived injustices in each other’s eyes. They embody things far beyond the current situation, and their words and actions connote more than they could possibly actually mean.
The things they can change are set aside to focus on what they can not. Counterintuitively, what they can not is seen through a systemic lens but ultimately individualized, creating “sides.” That isn’t a recipe for understanding; it’s a recipe for further atomization as people are perceived more and more as an opposing interest to force into submission.
And the ruling class laughs.
Interpersonal affirmative action, the reaction to "suburban white dads who say they're colorblind but don't want their daughters to date Black men" -- now brought to you by the NYT
Also best case scenario I would interpret “check your privilege” as just an invitation for empathy, but yeah obviously people want it to be more than just that. And, yes, what people want is unfortunately not meaningful solidarity.
Somewhat tangential, but I remember reading an article last year where people were claiming that “good cause eviction” is racist because some Black people are landlords, too, but I’m having trouble digging it up again.