Inclusivity: The Trojan Horse of Woke Censorship.
(Woke and Weaponized Bureaucracy Pt. 4)
Recently there was a stir in the publishing worlds as several books by the renowned children’s author Roald Dahl (who Wrote both Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and James and the Giant Peach) were edited in order to make them more “inclusive.”
There is a lot to say about the ethics of changing an authors words after the authors has died (Dahl died in 1990), but that is not what concerns me here. What I am concerned with here is what this tells us about the woke understanding of what it means to be “inclusive.” What I want my readers to understand is that “inclusivity,” as the Critical Social Justice (AKA wokeness) understands the term, is going to be used to justify censorship, and to cut off, prevent, or short circuit the free and open exchange of ideas.
In order to understand why this is the case we need to understand how the woke understand inclusivity. As I wrote about wokeness in my last article (quoting James Lindsay) “this worldview is only ever communicated to us in reformulated perversions of our own concepts.” Inclusivity is no exception. This is yet another example of the woke engaging in redefining terms by substituting the regular definition in favor of a definition that reflects the values and ideas of wokeness.1
Inclusivity, in its general everyday usage, means making sure that nobody is unjustly and unfair excluded from participating in something that they should be allowed to participate in. However, in the ideology of wokeness, inclusivity is understood in a very different way, and we need to get to the bottom of exactly what that is so that we can effectively push back on it.
In order to understand how the woke understand "inclusivity,” we need to have a brief discussion about a very important aspect of the woke worldview and ideology: SYSTEMIC POWER.2
Systemic Power is a VERY important concept in woke thought.
In wokeness, “Systemic power” is understood to be power that works through every level of society: economic, institutional, political, linguistic, infrastructural, and social. According to woke theory systemic power operates in and through every aspect of society. Systemic power is though to be a product of socialization, which is the process though which the norms, ideas, concepts, values, rules, and expectations which govern society (even down to the smallest and most mundane social interaction) teach people how to live, interact, and behave. The idea is that society has accepted a set of rules, norms, ideas, concepts, values, and expectations, and everyone in society is taught to accept the validity of those rules, norms, ideas, concepts, values, and expectations and to live their lives in accordance with them. According to wokeness, those values, norms, rules, and expectations function as a sort of social prison that operates by brainwashing us into accepting their validity and allowing them to govern our lives and behavior. Because these rules, norms, ideas, concepts, values, and expectations are built into every aspect of society, their power is said to be “systemic.”
Basically, the woke think violence, police, laws, and other forms of raw power to control people are only one way to exercise social control. Another far more insidious way to exercise social control is to brainwash people into acting and behaving in a particular way. There is no need to force people to believe certain things and behave certain ways if you can just brainwash them into believing those things and behaving those ways.
On this view, society, and the process of socialization is something like a mental prison that chains us to beliefs and behaviors that we did not choose and are not good for us. This is why the “woke” call themselves “woke.” They have woken up and realized that we are all being brainwashed by society into accepting bad beliefs, behaviors, and social systems. According to woke theory racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, domination and oppression are built into the rules, norms, ideas, concepts, values, assumptions, frameworks, systems, and presuppositions of our society. As such, the woke use “critical” methods and ideas drawn from both neo-Marxism, and postmodernism to study society and then deconstruct, disrupt, subvert, and dismantle anything that reproduces our (according to woke theory) oppressive society.
Once you understand this element of the woke worldview, it becomes clear how “inclusivity” is understood by wokeness.
The woke are very concerned with ensuring that anyone who has a marginalized or oppressed identity is protected from that which marginalizes and oppresses them. Because the woke think that all the ideas that lie at the heart of our society are in fact oppressive, they think any attempt to defend, advance, or spread those ideas is also and act of oppression which harms and traumatizes marginalized groups. As such, to defend any idea that the woke see as oppressive is an act which is going to harm, traumatize and otherwise hurt marginalized people.
The woke think that to have a truly inclusive space, you need to make sure nobody who is in that space is hurt, harmed, oppressed, marginalized, or otherwise made to feel unwelcome. For that reason anything that might make anyone feel harmed or unwelcome can’t be allowed. Thus any idea that the woke deem to be oppressive (including : color-blindness, merit, objective standards, traditional morality, pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps, and conservatism) can’t be allowed because those ideas are harmful and thus make marginalize people feel unwelcome. Therefore any idea that, bothers, annoys, agitates, or otherwise offends woke people will be deemed to be “harmful and oppressive” and therefore not allowed to be discussed.
The practical results of this way of thinking are disastrous. This kind of thinking shrinks the boundaries of acceptable debate by making the most sensitive and easily offended person the person who gets to decide which ideas are allowed to be discussed. It also means that ideas which someone might find offensive can't be talked about. This is a problem because sometimes ideas we deem to be offensive turn out to be correct and true. Any truth seeking endeavor is going to have to allow the discussion of unpopular and offensive ideas, and “inclusivity” as the woke understand it simply does not allow that.
Finally, we need to understand that when a woke activists seek to make an institution, organization, or group more inclusive, it inevitably means they are going to engage in the censorship of ideas that woke people don’t like in order to avoid “harming” marginalized people. That means that once the woke make “inclusivity” a value of an institution it will not be long before the only ideas that are allowed in that institution are woke ideas.
This is another way that woke activists take over institutions. They agitate for “inclusivity” and then use inclusivity as tool with which to clear out any idea that clashes with wokeness. They will claim that all ideas that clash with wokeness are harmful and oppressive and that such ideas make oppressed people feel unwelcome, and that because making people feel unwelcome is not “inclusive,” all such non-woke ideas must be removed from the institution. Once that has happened, the woke activists will have full control of the organization. If you have control over the ideas that are allowed in an organization, you have control over the organization.
This is why I call inclusivity the Trojan Horse of censorship. It is how the Woke sneak censorship into institutions in order to control them.
This can be difficult to deal with, particularly because the non-woke version of inclusivity (letting all people participate if they so choose) is a good thing.
What I suggest to people is to ensure that if people ask for “inclusivity” it is made abundantly clear that inclusivity does not include the right to not be offended. A proper understanding of inclusivity does not mean that people must be free from being offended. Inclusivity rightly understood means everyone is included in the debate, and being included in the debate means being included in being offended by ideas one doesn’t like. You must make sure that inclusivity as a value is subordinate to the value of speaking truth, and discussing ideas frankly and honestly. This must be made absolutely explicit. Free and open debate trumps people’s feeling. Period.
Thanks for reading.
Sincerely,
Wokal_distance.
This essay draws heavily on this article from New discourses on Inclusivity: https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-inclusion/
This essay also draws heavily on this article from New Discourses for my explanation of systemic power: https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-power-systemic/
Fantastic piece.
"Inclusivity" can be understood as making a valuable space or product more attractive & welcoming ("inclusive") to progressives while making it unattractive & hostile ("exclusive") to non-progressives.
It's absolutely not an attempt to improve the universal experience; it's a political weapon.
Thank you for this great article. I have a comment to make regarding the way the word ‘inclusivity’ is also understood and used. Maybe this is what you meant also, in which case my apologies.
Is not ‘inclusivity’ also used to remove from everyday language and practice anything that represents oppressive categories and push to the top so-called victimised categories? As a real example in my workplace: in December we do not use the word Christmas anymore but Festivities because Christmas is not inclusive of those who are of a different religion or tradition. If we say “Merry Christmas”, it is understood that the non Christians will feel excluded from the year end joyful celebrations. However, we just had an invitation to celebrate “the Ramadan and Spring”. I do not know why we should celebrate Spring, therefore I can only assume we’re here talking about the Christian Lent. As you can see, the Christian tradition is removed from the language but the Muslim tradition is pushed to the top. Note that our Muslim colleagues always finish their emails to us Christians or of Christian tradition with a “Happy Christmas”, just like we say to them “Enjoy the Ramadan”, “how was Ramadan”, etc. Noone, on the shop floor, feels oppressed or excluded, on the contrary we share the joyful mood of the other groups.
Similarly, the categories of female and male have been removed from our public announcements. We do not say anymore, to greet our clientele, “Ladies and Gentlemen”, we say “Dear customers”. This is done so we are inclusive of those people who do not feel they are either female or male (even though the ‘non binary’ category of human beings does not exist in our legal system.) In doing so, we remove from everyday language the ‘oppressive’ category of female and male and push to the top the so-called victimised category of “non binary people”.
Finally we also remove, in the name of inclusivity, the word “woman”. It is replaced (for the moment in medical settings and literature) by the infamous “people with vaginas”, “menstruators” or other “ovaries havers”. This is so those women who identify as men or non binary or whatever new category, feel included. I don’t doubt this new way of speaking about women will be gradually extended to everyday language. The oppressive category “woman” will be removed while the so-called victimised category of “enbies” or “transmen” will be pushed to the top. But also, the only ones for whom the word “woman” will be used is this other oppressed category: men who identify as women, ie. the ‘transwomen’.
So, is not inclusivity also a tool to erase from the language social, political, biological categories which are seen as oppressive, and replace them in the language by those which are said to be the victimised ones?