Author: Emily Ahearn

This week’s reading from Mark Mitchell held a common theme of  moral relativism. The moral universe has become relativized and has created areas where most of us don’t think that it is morally right to allow ppl to do morally unjust acts. At the visceral level there is foundational moral vocabulary created by society and there is to some degree a conforming to moral parameters that people have to adhere to. In order to be a consistent moral relativist one must think that everything that other people do is okay because we cannot morally judge them. We give up our autonomy at a certain level. In class we discussed examples like not being able to agree with someone agreeing to be murdered and cannibalized or someone willingly being someone’s slave. There is this moral distortion that occurs. Extreme acts like these create a moral vacuum. Left without a solution society rips itself apart and plays into this moralizing game. It is used as a mechanism to fuel revolutions and civil wars. Throughout time there has been an existing rift between transgressors and the morally pure. This is true with our current situation in the world and events like the bombing of civilians in Ukraine. This idea of the morally pure versus morally evil  is a common theme evident in many religions as well. For instance in the case of Christianity Jesus was depicted as morally pure and was transgressed against and died for the salvation of humanity. Christians are taught that if they live morally pure lives in this world then their souls will be saved and they will be allowed to live in the utopia that is heaven. I think a lot of times it is not so simple or black and white with morality. There is a continuum and many gray areas of how we define moral acts. This varies greatly according to the moral and social conformity of different cultures as well.

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.

Peter Wood’s 1620, addressed the goal of the 1619 Project which was to essentially reframe the country’s history through the publication of newspapers. The aim of this was to put slavery and the black American experience at the heart of our country’s political identity and origin. Rather than incorporating and adding the black experience into our education of American history, it strived to entirely replace our traditional understanding of American history. The proponents of 1619 further argued that America began with the arrival of slaves. They view the planation system and slave market as the origins of modern day capitalism. They also wanted to revamp our entire perspective on Abraham Lincoln. They claim that he was not a hero to the salves and did not have the slaves’ best interest at heart. I personally think that this claim is too extreme to make. I agree that there were still injustices and formal laws in place that prevented the equality of citizenship that slaves should have been granted during his presidency. However, I think that their claim is too extreme and undermines the progress that Lincoln did make in aiding slaves. I further thought that it was interesting that the 1619 goal aligns with the perspectives of the New Left. This is because it promotes the radicalization and transformation of society. Yet, I think there are many complications with claiming that America began with slavery. On one hand in can make it wrongly seem like we have moved on from slavery and that racism is in the past. On the other hand it can make it seem like racism is ingrained in the roots of our history and is something that is inescapable. Woods agrees more with the later conclusion. He says that even though we should create laws in society that are “colorblind” we will always have the tendency to congregate within certain racial groups. His reasoning for this is that we have shared qualities and cultural affinities which result in these group formations. This makes me wonder; however, is the bonding of racial groups an example of racism? Or is it just us expressing our identity with like minded individuals? This leaves our interpretation of how racist and oppressive American society is and has been in the past ambiguous. Surely we should work to create laws in society that offer equality for all races of citizens, yet it is difficult to tell how much of these oppressions are the direct result of the American government itself. To determine the start of American history and how it should be taught we have to evaluate the facts themselves. Although, plantation systems have many correlations with how we operate modern day capitalism in turns of production and exploitation, we must also recognize that slavery arose in British Northern American colonies, but it did not arrive in Virginia until nearly half a century later. It is difficult to pinpoint a specific year of American history’s origin if we try to use slavery as the start of the timeline. The dates can get very messy so I think we should proceed with caution before proceeding with the 1619 Project.

After reading Gad Saad’s “Parasitc Mind” and following our class discussion with him I more further intrigued about his discussion of the pursuit of freedom and defense of the truth. I think that in order to truly pursue the truth that some social deviance is typically necessary. For instance, Gad Saad talks about growing up resisting confromtiy and being socially deivant from a young age. In his adut years he emphasizes how political correctness is a direct limitation of freedom of speech. In the pursuit of the truth, he argues that we should not modify our language of the truth. He also further goes on to claim that we don’t need to be politically correct in scientific research. While keeping this in mind he clarifies that we should not be unecsarily rude or disrepectful in our presentation of the truth. 

Today in society he claims that our pursuit of the truth is limited by what he calls idea pathogens. They alter our ability to think rationally and accept evidence based thinking. So how can we form an immunity against idea pathogens? Saad brings up the concept of homeostasis of victimology. This refers to the a mechanism in the human mind and body that tries to achieve an equilibrium state. Through reaching this equilibrium we are able to approach scientific data without biases or emotional influence. I think that Saad would claim that it is especially difficult to achieve this equilibrium status in today’s society due to the polarization of politics and strong influence that the media has.

I think that our discussion of the relationship between race and the prison system was very important from last class. Throughout time there has been a noteworthy trend between these two variables. For instance, black males are disproportionately incarcerated in relation to any other race. I found the story of George Jackson to be an interesting case in American history to analyze. It was fascinating to me that even from the confinements of a prison cell he was able to achieve public outreach and support for his case. Additionally his case can teach us more about the dangers of the radicalization of the prison system. Both prisoners and guards died as a result of this conflict. The George Jackson story also gives us a better understanding of the criminal class being a part of the population that could drive gnostic religion. He was able to present himself as a refined intellectual through his book and this led to great appeal from the New Left. Additionally he was able to manipulate the public with his charismatic attitude and motivational speaking skills. He was a major reason why the New Left sought out to use prisoners as the vanguard of political movement. I also think that it is fascinating that upper-middle class and educated white students would seek out the assistance of criminals in their political agenda. With two groups so structurally different it is surprising that the New Left thought their unison would achieve an utopian society. This especially surprised me because these two groups were fighting every different inequalities (The New Left was more concerned with classroom politics and the black prisoners more concerned with civil rights movements and prison reform).

Our discussion of the Vietnam War last class made me realize that my previous education on this matter was rather biased and not representative of the true perspectives that Americans had felt about the war at this time. I was unaware that until  around 1967, most Americans supported the war and thought that the United State’s involvement was justified. I was always told that many Americans were unsupportive of the war and wanted to get our troops out of Vietnam. In high school I remember being shown pictures of anti-Vietnam propaganda and photographs of protests in the streets. Therefore, it was surprising to me to learn that this was not always the case, especially in the first few years of war. Yet, when looking at different perspectives of the war it is too generalizable to label leftists as either anti-war or pro-war. There is much complexity with cold war politics. It is too simple to say that the United States’ mission there was completely altruistic and selfless. There is one side which consisted of the radical left which believed that Americans were totally wrong, and even evil. They went as far as believing that Americans were dessacrating the environment  in Vietnam. They also argued that there is no legitimacy to the South Vietnamese regime so we should not be helping their cause. I think that part of the reason why the United States lost the war was that there was not enough support from Americans themselves (especially the Old Left). American political elites were not serious enough about the war and there were Anti-American protests on the street that were publicized by the media. The Soviet Union saw that  Americans couldn’t sustain war efforts too much longer and that their own people were not unified which put Americans in a vulnerable position in the war.

I found our discussion of the Old Left to be very thought provoking from last week’s class discussion. We were able to distinguish the difference between the Old Left and the Contemporary Left’s agendas and perspectives on social issues. We determined that the modern contemporary left prioritizes social rights issues such as LGBTQ and black rights, whereas the Old Left more so consisted of students who were concerned about classroom politics. It was interesting to unravel this generalizable youth phenomenon that took place around the sixties. We specifically talked about the importance of the Berkeley student movement and the irony in their “free speech” campaign. They claimed that they were advocating for free speech when they did not actually believe in free speech, they only thought their side could talk and they wanted to shut down any other opposing sides from expressing their views. I personally think that a movement cannot be successful without tolerating the constructive criticism of other perspectives. It is an ineffective and totalitarian agenda to try to shut down other groups’ freedom of speech. Furthermore, I think it is important to look at the generational conflicts that emerged during the formation and perpetuation of the Old Left. The view of these young leftists, which is still inherent to young generations today, was that they were on a mission and they knew more than their parents did. Their agenda was also fueled by a sense of anger and limited freedom they felt were constricted by the older generations.

What stood out to me the most from our conversation in last week’s class was the bizarre self identification associated with the intellectual class. It surprised me that they see themselves as a subset of the working class. When I think of someone who is an intellectual I immediately associate them with the bourgeoisie. I think this misconception comes from the fact that typically intellectuals are extremely well educated and to me having access to higher levels of education is a sign of privilege. Also intellectuals often hold powerful positions in society and determine how society should be governed. This further made me think that they are associated within some subset of the bourgeoisie. In reality they consider themselves to be subset members of the proletariat class. This could be because of their view that workers are the agents of political change. It interested me that some intellectuals have opposing views on what to do with workers. Some think that they should directly involve themselves and even encourage a revolution from the working class. These intellectuals think that workers are so diluted by bourgeoisie capitalist power that they can’t help themselves without a vanguard to show them the way. They want to go along and push the process ahead. Some intellectuals go as far as having the desire to fight on the battlefield alongside their worker allies. Other intellectuals isolate themselves and think that only the workers are the ones capable of creating change. Some even think that intellectuals themselves are a part of the problem in society and society should be run by workers. This relates to our discussion of utopia and how intellectuals have different views on how we can achieve a utopian society through the working class.