Week 11 blog

Overall as we read about the evolution of the intellectual class in a historical and political context it is interesting to evaluate how this identity has transgressed throughout time. In the beginning of this course we talked about the beliefs of the old class and now we are trying to evaluate the framework that constitutes the New Left. One important question to ask about this matter is: How does the quasi religion of the New Left compare to that of the Old Left? There are three main political ideologies to consider in this discussion which consist of communism, new leftism, and wokeism. We must first establish that historically the bourgeoisie secularized religion. They relied on rational thinking and logic for answers rather than a supernatural force. They argued that they did not want their knowledge of the world diluted by a false power. They also think that they can see the reality because of their own struggle (Marxian thinkers provide them with those ideas). In regards to wokeism there is especially a hostility to religion. Wokeists viewed religion as a force for anti freedom and conformity. They also thought that religion can be a way in which groups set themselves among other groups which leads to hostility. They viewed institutions that reinforced like-minded thoughts and ritual as the institutionalization of conformity. They encouraged social deviance and political reform. 

I think that this process of religionization from intellectuals is a very important concept to study. We can first consider the role that gnosticism plays in society and how this relates to the intellectuals’ agenda. Gnosticism transfers the supernatural narrative of religion into a worldly narrative. Now intellectuals believed that it was capable of achieving a utopian society in this life without the assistance and worship of a supernatural god or force. There were many different approaches that intellectuals tried to take on in order to achieve this utopian. According to the Marxist view, the intellectuals sought hope through the proletariat class. They hoped that the working class were the only ones capable of overcoming a bourgeois capitalist society. Wokeist intellectuals thought that they could create a utopia through expression of free speech and challenging conventional societal standards. Yet, something that I found contradictory about this claim was that there were repetitive cases of Wokeists shutting down hearing other people’s opposing views. There are examples of them storming podiums and screaming and chanting to prevent opponents from expressing their views. Therefore, I think this a double standard and weakens the legitimacy of the claims that wokeists claim to believe are inherent to their worldview. I furthermore think that wokeists are neuro puritanical in their reasoning. There is this aspect of moralizing judgment in their viewpoints. Furthermore, there is a relativism in truth. They think that their version of the truth is the only truth worth expressing which could be fundamentally restrictive. I wonder if because they are especially fueled by outrage if they are not incorporating empirical facts into their viewpoints. This relates to Gad Saad’s discussion of the pursuit of freedom and defense of the Truth. I think in our search for the truth we shouldn’t immediately shut down opposing viewpoints without scientific evidence and rational thought which I think wokeists do not advocate for.