Over at his blog Rod Dreher has posted an email exchange we had with the title Razib Khan, Anti-Woke Mage Of Old Religion.
Blog-on-blog interaction. Feeling a 2005 vibe!
So here’s the context: I’ve been online for twenty years and have a “name” or “reputation”, and people approach me for advice a lot. If you’re surprised, trust me, I am too. This wasn’t a life aspiration of mine, I just kind of “fell into it.” Most people who read this weblog are aware of the nature of the cultural change over the past generation. In certain institutions and careers, people have to be very careful of what they say and exposing what they believe. They don’t feel they can trust anyone, but, they do feel that they can trust me. I can put people “in touch” who are “safe” close at hand because many people tell me what they “really believe.”
Last week I put a “blind item” out:
many years ago a prominent crypto-pagan who has the ear and esteem of many Christians told me they were considering coming out of the shadows and declaring their fidelity to the old gods. but i told them “no, you’re better off influencing the powers of this age.”
such is life
— Razib 🥥 Khan (@razibkhan) January 29, 2021
Once there is a reasonable gap in time I feel more comfortable saying things like this. For example, the far-left socialist who has more 50,000 Twitter followers who sent me a gushing fan message on Facebook in 2008, can you guess who that is? I won’t say!
In any case, who the person above is is immaterial. The person is influential among the high-middle-brow intelligentsia, and I think that’s a good thing. But Rod messaged me and asked what I was trying to say here. What did I mean “crypto-pagan” and “Christian”?
What I don’t mean is pagan and Christian in any literal sense. I speak in coded and cryptic terms that are clear to anyone who has eyes and awareness but is hidden to the blind. Some people follow me because of an interest in evolution and genetics have conventional liberal-left views. Obviously, I don’t mind offending people, but the outraged and over-wrought responses are tiresome, and engaging with people I am cordial with takes time and energy when our priors are so incredibly different that useful conversation is impossible (e.g., “cancel culture” is a myth, and clearly the people who reach out to me are “frauds who don’t exist”). So I have found if I speak in historical analogies these people simply shrug and move on since they don’t know enough history to make heads or tails of what I’m saying. In contrast, those who are “woke” to the intellectual conformity that many chafe under often become aware over time exactly what I’m talking about, and appreciate what I’m trying to get at (I have DMs to prove this).
These sorts of exercises do cause false positives. A prominent conservative writer unfollowed me immediately after I talked proudly of being an “out” pagan, who stood against the ascendent tyranny of the Christians. Similarly, when I use analogies to the Indian caste system while talking about something totally different, I routinely get unfollows from Indians who are following but offended that I’m talking about India…even though I’m not talking about India at all.
The fundamental issue is when you have many people who read you, you want to speak in a different register to different people. So this sort of “language game” becomes highly useful. It is, after a fashion, using the “master’s tools against the master.”
Finally, this strategy is a concession that my naivete about “information wanting to be free” which is a hold-over from the 1990s is no longer something I hold to. There may not be an Inner Party, but there should be.
Addendum: Some of you may want to know exactly the sort of moments where people get “woke” and then reach out to me. In 2018 a graduate student in population genetics in a prominent lab read David Reich’s op-ed in The New York Times. They were relatively new to the field, but they agreed with the thrust of the op-ed. Their own projects involved human population genetics. They were shocked and confused when many (though not all) of their colleagues denounced the op-ed, with some casting aspersions at Reich’s mastery of the subject matter. The question that went through their head: were they insane, or was everyone around them lying?
I am quite aware that this person’s mentor is very “woke” (I use quotes for a reason) privately, but in public, they present as you would expect. Their ideological beliefs in this area were as vigorous and sincere as Ausonius’ Christianity. The graduate student reached out to me, and my “circle”, and we confirmed that yes, they were not insane. The old gods were real, and the pagan rites were true. The salvation that their colleagues proclaimed was just a damnation of the mind. Mind you, I did counsel taqiya. There are others who venerate Ali that I know still in academia. There is no need to become Husayn.
For Vectron! https://youtu.be/aObsLwsqans (Vectron = Trump/wokeness)
With social media spreading so much misinformation and disinformation, it’s truly unfortunate that you think you must resort to obscurantism and cryptic remarks. What a world.
So is it “Wokist” (and “Wokism”), or “Wokeist” (and “Wokeism”)?
This matters, because it would be an extremely positive thing if there were a rectified name for the new religion that clearly implied it was a religion, and if that name were to become as widely recognized and used as “SJW”. A derivative of “Woke” is probably the best candidate we’ve got for this, and unfortunately “Wokism” looks to me like it has something to do with Chinese cooking, so I think I prefer “Wokeism”. (Or maybe “Wokeitarianism”? Would that fly?)
> Or maybe “Wokeitarianism”?
“Woketalitarianism?”
We will see how long Wokism lasts. In the West, each generation seems to hate the previous one and reflexively do the opposite. The Wokes will hold sway for a generation but they too will be loathed by their descendants. Wokism will go down the ash heap of history.
Hey, get rid of the extraneous “i” and “Woketarianism” actually seems to scan!
The thing is, ideally the name should be something that’s both easily pronounced and understood if seen in print, and this maybe kind of fits the bill. (The connection with Unitarianism — the epitome of liberal Social Gospel Christianity — is an added bonus).
> This matters, because it would be an extremely positive thing if there were a rectified name for the new religion that clearly implied it was a religion, and if that name were to become as widely recognized and used as “SJW”.
I’ve been using “wokeism.” The conjunction of vowels is rather ugly. My feeling was that an awkward and ugly thing deserves an awkward and ugly word, but that’s maybe not the best strategy in terms of building name recognition.
“woketarianism” is definitely better than “wokism” IMO.
> Wokism will go down the ash heap of history.
There’s a decent chance it does to the US what Communism did to Russia and Eastern Europe: half a century or more reign of terror leading to long-lasting (permanent?) reduction in trust and social capital. Might be worse actually: the USSR’s demographic policies were not as insane.
Wokeism is not a sustainable, adaptive ideology clearly, but that doesn’t mean it can’t pilot a civilization into the ground. Similar things have happened before.
I usually get about 75% of your references. I have to go to Wikipedia to figure out the rest. Can’t the elect also do that and figure out you’re making fun of them?
You make it sound like there are a lot of us. This seems unlikely, based on my read of my colleagues, but perhaps I am too cynical? (Or insufficiently cynical?)
Always seemed obvious to me what you were getting at with those references but I guess I’m well enough read in some of the same areas as you. Sort of comical that someone would unfollow you because of taking pagan references seriously.
I wonder how many people get what you’re referencing with the Sulla stuff.
I’m sure they can, and I’m sure some do, but: 1) the esoteric language doesn’t cause the same immediate gut reaction in believers that open talk would; and 2) it becomes more difficult to spread the outrage, since it’s always be necessary to explain the context to the mob, so that they understand what Razib is really saying. Kind of clever actually!
You make it sound like there are a lot of us. This seems unlikely, based on my read of my colleagues, but perhaps I am too cynical? (Or insufficiently cynical?)
it’s partially generational. the youngest cohort have sincere belief often. the older generations profess the words but in their hearts…
As a non-academic but interested “follower” of your blogs, tweets and podcasts , I have to say I found this post a bit smug. Perhaps I am defensive because I don’t have your knowledge of history, but perhaps because I follow you to learn from you.
““woketarianism” is definitely better than “wokism” IMO”
I like Wokianity.
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm
After reading the whole article my predominant thought is that Padilla is projecting a lot. It seems to me that, no matter how welcome he has been, he deeply interiorized the feeling that the Classics are not for “people like him,” something he has heard for his whole life and mostly from his peers, and at this point he can’t resolve the contradiction in other ways than lashing out against everything he has made of his life so far and bringing it all down around himself.
I don’t get all the reference but I find the shtick hilarious. Have contemplated asking you on the podcast to discuss but wasn’t sure the game should be given a way. I suppose that is what this post does though.
I’m not sure that metaphor is perfect, but I’m not sure I could come up with a better one. The woke are way more like 1786 French aristocrats than they are like late antiquity Christians.
It is a nice nose tweak to them, and thoroughly clever and learned which is always good style, with the downside being is that the joke will fly over their heads most of the time.
You know Razib its not Straussian commentary if you write a blog post explaining what you meant to the masses!