Wow, your breakdown of core phrases was so spot on. They take out nuance, I can't tell you how many hours I've spent in utter anxiety thinking back on a simple interaction where I just was distracted and terrified how it could be misread.
I have been thinking a lot about how to respond here, kier!
I mean, first of all, I really resonate with some of the core experiences that you’ve talked about so far. There is a particular toxic, purity-focused orthodoxy that is a pitfall of being young and online and invested in something that matters, albeit in maybe not the healthiest or most realistic way. I’ve often wanted to try my hand at articulating this specific feeling with precision, because I think that pitfall is so easy to fall into and, having navigated my own way out of it and into better relationship with the valuable critical insights that this orthodoxy has latched on to and intensified, in the way that orthodoxy does, into something almost but not entirely unlike their original form, I do sometimes feel I might be equipped to write something helpful about it. But I’ve never quite managed to get my thoughts into writing, and maybe by now enough other people with similar enough opinions to mine have weighed in on the topic that I don’t REALLY need to publish my own little guide for how to stop being so dogmatic about everything 😆
Incidentally, Kai Cheng wrote an essay about this topic in 2017 which i had an opportunity to re-read while thinking about your series. In the service of “separating the baby from the bathwater”, as you put it, I think that piece does some good work with identifying some specific patterns in the subculture, generating some precise vocabulary to work with in naming those patterns, and importantly, grounding itself in the principles that she still feels committed to. (https://medium.com/@ladysintrayda/righteous-callings-being-good-leftist-orthodoxy-and-the-social-justice-crisis-of-faith-ad89ee4f5b33)
The whole essay is a great read, and there are some other works mentioned in there which tread similar territory (I haven’t read all of them, but I recall vividly the feeling of reading Hot Allostatic Load when it was published).
Part of the reason I’ve spent so much time lately thinking about how to respond to this series is that while i think we broadly agree about the existence of a toxic subculture, or maybe a sub-subculture?, I do feel a little uncertain about exactly what you’ve identified as bathwater! I’m really hoping to see a bit of time spent on what you do hold to be true. For example, you’ve mentioned “the future of the left” in these pieces—what constitutes “the left”, in that framing? What are some specific aspects of the world you would like to see us moving toward, and what do you see as the current barriers to achieving those goals? If you no longer feel aligned with the principles of intersectional feminism or anarchism, as you mentioned in your first piece, those are some big things to disavow—what principles or beliefs do you now hold that feel unaligned with those?
Of course, you’re only halfway through the series and the part where you talk about the future of the left is still to come, so I’m not looking for you to answer those questions one by one in bullet points or anything like that, and I hope this won’t be construed as substantive criticism of your overall endeavour here. As I said up at the top, a lot of your specific experiences which you’ve brought in here have resonated, and I think so far in this series you’ve done some very extensive work of denouncing what you see as the problematic aspects of this subculture! I look forward to engaging with your vision of what all that negation is clearing space for :)
First off, I would love to read whatever you write on this topic, and there's plenty of room for more perspectives!
I'm excited to read the essay you've linked; thank you for that!
For me, the project of the left is to take collective responsibility for meeting the basic needs of all people. I would like to see income assistance, disability, unemployment and pension incomes brought up to a living wage. I would like to see higher corporate, wealth and land taxes, and use those funds to improve public healthcare, education (including post secondary) and transit systems. I would like to see the food bank system nationalized and improved, as well as the establishment of an affordable national childcare program. Something has to be done about the skyrocketing cost of living; I don't know enough about economics to propose a solution but there must be progressive policies that have been successful in other countries. We need to be putting money into researching energy solutions and building infrastructure as well as retraining workers so we can transition into a clean energy economy. Optometry, hearing care, dentistry and prescription drug coverage should be covered by our public healthcare system, as well as mental health and addictions care.
When I first started having concerns about the social justice subculture, I worried I was drifting toward the right. But I only thought that because that subculture had convinced me that we were the only true leftists. Since leaving I've realized how untrue that is, and how I can support the aforementioned policies without ascribing to identitarianism at all.
I think it will be awhile before I can figure out what pieces of wisdom from intersectional feminism I still value. The reason for this is that when I encounter words like privilege, oppression, lived experience, problematic, accountability, etc, my brain fuzzes out and I become instantly exhausted. My body sends me a very clear and firm "no," and to me this is a sign that I'm still recovering from my time in this subculture. I don't expect this reaction to last forever, and I am curious to revisit certain ideas once I am able to approach them earnestly with a fresh set of eyes.
In short, I think the left would benefit from moving away from common-enemy politics towards common-humanity politics. It feels important to strategize on how to gain majority support for progressive policies, and to take a pragmatic rather than ideological approach to which policies will get the goods.
I would like to clarify that although I don't call myself an intersectional feminist or anarchist anymore, I don't disavow those schools of thought (there is way too much diversity within both of them to throw them out wholecloth.) I remain happy to collaborate with intersectional feminists and anarchists towards common goals. For myself, socialism seems to offer a more pragmatic, hopeful and achievable approach to improving the quality of life of the poor and working class, so that's where I'm focusing my learning these days.
As for principles or values, I am definitely still trying to figure that out. Integrity has been central for me for the last several years (aligning my words and actions as much as possible), and I look forward to finding other values to measure my decisions against. Stay tuned!
Your final paragraph hits on something important. This newsletter is not meant to be an exercise in complaint and denunciation—I did plenty of that when I was still in the social justice subculture. I am much more interested in exploring how we create a future with more stability, dignity, and satisfaction for all. It felt important to write this series and describe my disillusionment with what I once thought was the solution to the world's problems. But that disillusionment has led to so much more hope and joy, and in spite of my long-windedness, I promise that's where this is going ;)
This is a really interesting response. I can see that the intention is to engage authentically but it actually sounds quite hostile, so that’s confusing
I'm not sure why you have the impression that my response here is so hostile! Maybe an unfortunate effect of the comment section, which is the reason I usually don't comment on anything online anymore—too many opportunities for miscommunication between folks with little shared context. I don't think we've met, but I assure you that I'm engaging in good faith with my friend's writing here, as someone who resonates with some parts of the writing and feels confused and a bit adrift in other parts.
I did my best to write the specificity of that ambivalence into my response, so it's certainly true that this comment isn't the type of glowing feedback that some others have given. I do want to understand with more precision what values this work stands for and against, because I believe this will bring the specifics of the argument being presented here into focus in a way I'm personally having a bit of difficulty understanding the coherence of with the series as it currently stands. Given their emphasis on complexity, careful response, and critical thinking in this series as well as in conversations we've had over the years, I am trusting that Kier is capable of receiving that feedback in the spirit in which it's intended. I hope this clarifies a bit about where I'm coming from for you!
I must be confused by your tone. It does honestly feel much more hostile than you claim, but sure. It’s not hostile to
1. Begin by saying you could’ve written this but couldn’t be bothered
2. Go on to imply that kier’s topic is an argument that’s been decided already and Kier is somehow late to the party because of someone else’s article 3. Also: That particularly bitchy little comment about not really needing to publish your own little guide for how to stop being so dogmatic about everything.
I’m not interested in having this conversation if that’s the tone you’re going to continue with. I will clarify my intention on those specific points, but my feedback to you here is that if you wanted clarification, or to tell me that you felt my words were not genuine, you could have done so without the sarcasm. I’m approaching this discussion earnestly and carefully, and I’d appreciate if you could do the same.
1. and 3. I didn’t say I could have written this but couldn’t be bothered. The thing I have not yet written, and may never write, is my own piece of writing, which I have often conceived as a “guide for how to stop being so dogmatic about everything” - I’m honestly not sure that piece of writing needs to exist, because I’ve seen others engaging with the topic, AND because I’ve never quite been able to marshal my thoughts around the subject into something that felt like it was the right shape to share. My intention with this section of the response was to share that I’ve been stewing on this subject for a while, and that in some respects kier is saying things I have felt but been unable to express, while establishing a confessional and lightly self-deprecating tone.
2. I disagree that referring to prior related work on the topic at hand indicates lateness. I view this as a valuable basis for careful critical discussion—if someone else has written about it, you get to respond and elaborate your argument in dialogue with theirs! Maybe it’s similar, maybe it differs in some key ways, maybe you disagree with a fundamental premise, which helps make your fundamental premises more explicit! That’s exciting stuff, and I personally always appreciate when someone references something that feels connected to the ideas I’m expressing. I mentioned the Kai Cheng piece for precisely the reason I said I did: it is related work in a similar space, and it has some qualities I really appreciate in work like this, which I mentioned in my response. It also indexes some other pieces, which do different things again in the space! I mentioned Hot Allostatic Load specifically because it felt like a landmark for me in my own thinking on this topic.
All of which is to say: I don’t think the existence of prior work means that a topic is already decided. I do think if prior work exists, it is an interesting thing to read and think about, and may provide a point from which to lend strength, value, and specificity to your own argument.
Wow, your breakdown of core phrases was so spot on. They take out nuance, I can't tell you how many hours I've spent in utter anxiety thinking back on a simple interaction where I just was distracted and terrified how it could be misread.
The paranoia can be debilitating.
It’s weird when someone on the left has something in common with someone on the right, but it happens. Apparently toxic political culture is a thing that knows no bounds. There was Stalin and then there was Michelle Rempel Garner, as analyzed in the Tyee. https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2022/06/24/Michelle-Rempel-Garner-Lobs-Grenade-Conservative-Politics/
This article looks interesting—I'll have to give it a read!
I have been thinking a lot about how to respond here, kier!
I mean, first of all, I really resonate with some of the core experiences that you’ve talked about so far. There is a particular toxic, purity-focused orthodoxy that is a pitfall of being young and online and invested in something that matters, albeit in maybe not the healthiest or most realistic way. I’ve often wanted to try my hand at articulating this specific feeling with precision, because I think that pitfall is so easy to fall into and, having navigated my own way out of it and into better relationship with the valuable critical insights that this orthodoxy has latched on to and intensified, in the way that orthodoxy does, into something almost but not entirely unlike their original form, I do sometimes feel I might be equipped to write something helpful about it. But I’ve never quite managed to get my thoughts into writing, and maybe by now enough other people with similar enough opinions to mine have weighed in on the topic that I don’t REALLY need to publish my own little guide for how to stop being so dogmatic about everything 😆
Incidentally, Kai Cheng wrote an essay about this topic in 2017 which i had an opportunity to re-read while thinking about your series. In the service of “separating the baby from the bathwater”, as you put it, I think that piece does some good work with identifying some specific patterns in the subculture, generating some precise vocabulary to work with in naming those patterns, and importantly, grounding itself in the principles that she still feels committed to. (https://medium.com/@ladysintrayda/righteous-callings-being-good-leftist-orthodoxy-and-the-social-justice-crisis-of-faith-ad89ee4f5b33)
The whole essay is a great read, and there are some other works mentioned in there which tread similar territory (I haven’t read all of them, but I recall vividly the feeling of reading Hot Allostatic Load when it was published).
Part of the reason I’ve spent so much time lately thinking about how to respond to this series is that while i think we broadly agree about the existence of a toxic subculture, or maybe a sub-subculture?, I do feel a little uncertain about exactly what you’ve identified as bathwater! I’m really hoping to see a bit of time spent on what you do hold to be true. For example, you’ve mentioned “the future of the left” in these pieces—what constitutes “the left”, in that framing? What are some specific aspects of the world you would like to see us moving toward, and what do you see as the current barriers to achieving those goals? If you no longer feel aligned with the principles of intersectional feminism or anarchism, as you mentioned in your first piece, those are some big things to disavow—what principles or beliefs do you now hold that feel unaligned with those?
Of course, you’re only halfway through the series and the part where you talk about the future of the left is still to come, so I’m not looking for you to answer those questions one by one in bullet points or anything like that, and I hope this won’t be construed as substantive criticism of your overall endeavour here. As I said up at the top, a lot of your specific experiences which you’ve brought in here have resonated, and I think so far in this series you’ve done some very extensive work of denouncing what you see as the problematic aspects of this subculture! I look forward to engaging with your vision of what all that negation is clearing space for :)
Hi An—thanks for your thoughtful comment!
First off, I would love to read whatever you write on this topic, and there's plenty of room for more perspectives!
I'm excited to read the essay you've linked; thank you for that!
For me, the project of the left is to take collective responsibility for meeting the basic needs of all people. I would like to see income assistance, disability, unemployment and pension incomes brought up to a living wage. I would like to see higher corporate, wealth and land taxes, and use those funds to improve public healthcare, education (including post secondary) and transit systems. I would like to see the food bank system nationalized and improved, as well as the establishment of an affordable national childcare program. Something has to be done about the skyrocketing cost of living; I don't know enough about economics to propose a solution but there must be progressive policies that have been successful in other countries. We need to be putting money into researching energy solutions and building infrastructure as well as retraining workers so we can transition into a clean energy economy. Optometry, hearing care, dentistry and prescription drug coverage should be covered by our public healthcare system, as well as mental health and addictions care.
When I first started having concerns about the social justice subculture, I worried I was drifting toward the right. But I only thought that because that subculture had convinced me that we were the only true leftists. Since leaving I've realized how untrue that is, and how I can support the aforementioned policies without ascribing to identitarianism at all.
I think it will be awhile before I can figure out what pieces of wisdom from intersectional feminism I still value. The reason for this is that when I encounter words like privilege, oppression, lived experience, problematic, accountability, etc, my brain fuzzes out and I become instantly exhausted. My body sends me a very clear and firm "no," and to me this is a sign that I'm still recovering from my time in this subculture. I don't expect this reaction to last forever, and I am curious to revisit certain ideas once I am able to approach them earnestly with a fresh set of eyes.
In short, I think the left would benefit from moving away from common-enemy politics towards common-humanity politics. It feels important to strategize on how to gain majority support for progressive policies, and to take a pragmatic rather than ideological approach to which policies will get the goods.
I would like to clarify that although I don't call myself an intersectional feminist or anarchist anymore, I don't disavow those schools of thought (there is way too much diversity within both of them to throw them out wholecloth.) I remain happy to collaborate with intersectional feminists and anarchists towards common goals. For myself, socialism seems to offer a more pragmatic, hopeful and achievable approach to improving the quality of life of the poor and working class, so that's where I'm focusing my learning these days.
As for principles or values, I am definitely still trying to figure that out. Integrity has been central for me for the last several years (aligning my words and actions as much as possible), and I look forward to finding other values to measure my decisions against. Stay tuned!
Your final paragraph hits on something important. This newsletter is not meant to be an exercise in complaint and denunciation—I did plenty of that when I was still in the social justice subculture. I am much more interested in exploring how we create a future with more stability, dignity, and satisfaction for all. It felt important to write this series and describe my disillusionment with what I once thought was the solution to the world's problems. But that disillusionment has led to so much more hope and joy, and in spite of my long-windedness, I promise that's where this is going ;)
This is a really interesting response. I can see that the intention is to engage authentically but it actually sounds quite hostile, so that’s confusing
Hi Louise,
I'm not sure why you have the impression that my response here is so hostile! Maybe an unfortunate effect of the comment section, which is the reason I usually don't comment on anything online anymore—too many opportunities for miscommunication between folks with little shared context. I don't think we've met, but I assure you that I'm engaging in good faith with my friend's writing here, as someone who resonates with some parts of the writing and feels confused and a bit adrift in other parts.
I did my best to write the specificity of that ambivalence into my response, so it's certainly true that this comment isn't the type of glowing feedback that some others have given. I do want to understand with more precision what values this work stands for and against, because I believe this will bring the specifics of the argument being presented here into focus in a way I'm personally having a bit of difficulty understanding the coherence of with the series as it currently stands. Given their emphasis on complexity, careful response, and critical thinking in this series as well as in conversations we've had over the years, I am trusting that Kier is capable of receiving that feedback in the spirit in which it's intended. I hope this clarifies a bit about where I'm coming from for you!
All the best,
An
Dear An
We do not know each other.
I must be confused by your tone. It does honestly feel much more hostile than you claim, but sure. It’s not hostile to
1. Begin by saying you could’ve written this but couldn’t be bothered
2. Go on to imply that kier’s topic is an argument that’s been decided already and Kier is somehow late to the party because of someone else’s article 3. Also: That particularly bitchy little comment about not really needing to publish your own little guide for how to stop being so dogmatic about everything.
So yeah, hostile
Hey Louise,
I’m not interested in having this conversation if that’s the tone you’re going to continue with. I will clarify my intention on those specific points, but my feedback to you here is that if you wanted clarification, or to tell me that you felt my words were not genuine, you could have done so without the sarcasm. I’m approaching this discussion earnestly and carefully, and I’d appreciate if you could do the same.
1. and 3. I didn’t say I could have written this but couldn’t be bothered. The thing I have not yet written, and may never write, is my own piece of writing, which I have often conceived as a “guide for how to stop being so dogmatic about everything” - I’m honestly not sure that piece of writing needs to exist, because I’ve seen others engaging with the topic, AND because I’ve never quite been able to marshal my thoughts around the subject into something that felt like it was the right shape to share. My intention with this section of the response was to share that I’ve been stewing on this subject for a while, and that in some respects kier is saying things I have felt but been unable to express, while establishing a confessional and lightly self-deprecating tone.
2. I disagree that referring to prior related work on the topic at hand indicates lateness. I view this as a valuable basis for careful critical discussion—if someone else has written about it, you get to respond and elaborate your argument in dialogue with theirs! Maybe it’s similar, maybe it differs in some key ways, maybe you disagree with a fundamental premise, which helps make your fundamental premises more explicit! That’s exciting stuff, and I personally always appreciate when someone references something that feels connected to the ideas I’m expressing. I mentioned the Kai Cheng piece for precisely the reason I said I did: it is related work in a similar space, and it has some qualities I really appreciate in work like this, which I mentioned in my response. It also indexes some other pieces, which do different things again in the space! I mentioned Hot Allostatic Load specifically because it felt like a landmark for me in my own thinking on this topic.
All of which is to say: I don’t think the existence of prior work means that a topic is already decided. I do think if prior work exists, it is an interesting thing to read and think about, and may provide a point from which to lend strength, value, and specificity to your own argument.
Again more brilliance
If I wasn’t drunk I would definitely be more erudite in my total agreement
You, my friend, get points for using “erudite” in a sentence while drunk.
Loving the series
Thank you, glad to hear it!