Beyond the culture war between the woke and the IDW

Photo credit: Bharath Kishore

The culture war finally makes sense to me. Hopefully, I can help it make sense to you too.

Here, I characterise the culture war as being the struggle to decide the fundamental values of western societies—this war being between two groups (broadly speaking):

1. Those who believe events that transpire between groups should define the nature of relationships between individuals belonging to those groups. And that subjective feelings/experiences are more meaningful than objective phenomena/constructs.
2. Those who believe the relationship between individuals is more important than (and actually drives) the dynamic between the groups to which they belong. And that objective phenomena/constructs are more reliable than subjective feelings/experiences.

Those identifying with the first group are usually labelled “woke”. Those identifying with the second are usually labelled as the “intellectual dark web” (IDW).

I suggest you should continue reading only if you’re willing to accept certain axioms (otherwise, you will be irritated by my attempt to integrate two world views that seem viciously opposed to one another):

1. Neither the IDW nor the woke tribes are driven by fundamentally evil motivations
2. Both movements contain some bad actors
3. People can place little stock in the qualities/attributes you value deepest, without being evil
4. It is possible for good intentions to lead to bad outcomes
5. It is more productive to apply a philosophy that integrates the concerns (but not necessarily the approaches) of all parties that have to coexist, than it is for one side to dominate the other

What are they willing to sacrifice?

The first step to making sense of this war is to try to understand these tribes not by what they are fighting to defend but by what they are willing to sacrifice.

Woke tribe = sacrifice order

The woke tribe is willing to sacrifice societal order (i.e. the manifestation of rules and behaviours in consistent and predictable ways) so as to minimise personal discomfort (i.e. the feeling of unease within oneself). Members of this tribe are probably more comfortable with inner feelings of chaos and inexplicability — they likely see both as inevitable parts of life, not states that should (or can) be avoided at any cost. And they have a point. Society embraces more disorder than we’d like to admit, yet, it’s come this far. We are more willing to do this if we believe we’re allowing chaos in service of a greater virtue (e.g. equality, freedom or love). Breaking away from the norms of an oppressive culture, having people form their own morality rather than subscribing to a single religion’s tenets, and leaving a loveless marriage all proliferate some disorder. Yet, in all those instances, we do not insist that order be maintained at any cost. So, if we must allow some chaos, why not do so in exchange for less suffering?

So, the woke tribe is willing to allow disorder, if it means less personal discomfort. Because it sees comfort as the cure for suffering (hence, concepts like “safe spaces”), it is freaked out by the notion of sacrificing it. Especially if the argument is that one is sacrificing comfort to reduce suffering (it sounds too counterintuitive).

What the woke tribe sees is that the world seems to get better the harder we work to ensure the comfort/safety of others.

Oskar Schindler didn’t need blistering logical precision to know it was right to help those fleeing the Nazis. He shouldn’t have been concerned about whether it created chaos or violated the set order.

IDW = sacrifice comfort

The IDW is willing to sacrifice personal comfort (i.e. the internal state of feeling at ease), in order to minimise societal disorder (i.e. the manifestation of rules and behaviours in inconsistent and unpredictable ways). These people are probably more comfortable with states of personal/inner discomfort than most other people — they see them as not only inevitable parts of life but as, almost, essential. They likely believe the development of the intrapersonal qualities necessary to overcome feelings of inner discomfort, subsequently make one less impervious to suffering. So, feelings of discomfort should not be avoided at any cost… especially at the expense of order. To these people, order is the best mechanism for removing suffering. It is slower to manifest (because it requires construction, rather than solely expression), but it is more universal when it is made manifest. The world already contains lots of people who feel uncomfortable inside, yet, it’s come this far. Physically unattractive people have to live with being romantically/sexually shunned. People of different religions have to coexist knowing their religious beliefs are often antagonistic. People still fall in love and then out of it. We do not adopt a zero-discomfort policy to eradicate these unpleasant phenomena. So, if we must allow some discomfort, why not do it in service of order — our most powerful tool for alleviating suffering on a large scale?

Hence, the IDW is willing to allow discomfort if it means less societal disorder. Because it sees order as the cure for suffering, it is freaked out by the idea of sacrificing it. Especially if the argument is that one is sacrificing order to reduce suffering (it sounds too counterintuitive).

What the IDW tribe sees is that the world seems to get better the harder we work to discover and establish order.

Darwin shouldn’t have been concerned about people becoming distressed and losing their faith as a result of his theory of natural selection. His work was undermining racism. As noted by the BBC, Darwin’s “…detestation of slavery is an under-acknowledged motivation for his scientific work.”

The point of convergence

The actions of Schindler and Darwin can be seen as simultaneously residing in two realms:

1. Morality (what is good vs what is bad)
2. Utility (what is productive vs what is unproductive)

Yet, very different (although not contradictory) values were employed in each situation (what makes sense vs what feels right). Had Darwin gone with what felt right, he would have probably conformed to the assumptions of his time. And had Schindler gone with what made sense, he would have probably focussed on saving his own skin, not others’.

The approaches of the woke and the IDW are both useful—just in different contexts. We need integration, not competition.

Because the kicker here is that both are trying (very hard) to do the same thing — minimise suffering.

So, it comes down to this, are you more willing to live with the feeling that “things don’t make sense” or the feeling that “things don’t feel good”?

The solution? Evolving beyond the concept of politics

The concept of “politics” is proving woefully incapable of dealing with the societal dynamics emerging from the Information Age.

The problem with politics is that it rewards domination and punishes compromise. In systems theory, all complex systems involve an interplay of cooperation and competition. But politics has over-emphasised competition over cooperation — which is an archaic framing, suited to archaic/tribalistic human societies. The scale at which tensions manifest in the Information Age means that if we don’t shift from a competition to a cooperation-based system, we very well might destroy ourselves. Consider misinformation the nuclear weapon of the metaphysical realm and we need to shift strategies in light of mutually assured destruction.

I do not believe hierarchies are inherently bad or can be done away with. I’m merely suggesting there needs to be a revision of the means by which one can summit the hierarchy, the state in which one can remain at its top and, indeed, a revision of the idea that there can be only one.

The overemphasis of competition over cooperation is good for objective realms (like science) or superficial ones (like sports), but not for realms that are both serious and subjective (like governance). As I’ve illustrated, even when the point of tension that emerges in governance hinges on an objective point (like a scientific one), the approach one takes to resolving that tension is based on subjective values.

Hence, the intractable gridlock we see today, between the IDW and woke tribes (for example).

I believe the complex of incentives and disincentives inherent in the system we call “politics” is unsuitable for the world in which we now find ourselves. I believe we need a new system (entirely outside the paradigm of politics) that embodies the following qualities:

1. Effective cooperation confers far greater rewards that successful competition
2. Destructive competitiveness carries greater disincentives that failed cooperation
3. The outcome in service of which the system is engineered is not the selection of a dominant entity, rather the discovery of a productive approach

In part 2 of this article, I’ll discuss in more depth how such a system might work.