Today, I would like to talk about the phenomenon I call “identitizing.” Identitizing is taking a thing (it could be anything, a book, movie, song, experience, food, anything at all) and grounding the importance, significance, and meaning of that thing in terms of the social identity of either the person who made the thing or the person interpreting the thing. Identitizing as a concept accepts the following two ideas:
Ugh..."neurodivergence." These people act like being autistic is some kind of gold star...assuming, of course, they ARE autistic. Many of these folks are "self-diagnosed", which means they just like thinking of themselves as different from others. It's distressing.
"There are no universal human emotions that we can reference to understand each other."
Of course we know that there are, and I think the Woke know it, too, but in the same way they privilege 'lived experience' as not subject to deconstruction, they privilege the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy over shared humanity to avoid having to acknowledge it This is why it's so important for a Woke person to get on a place on the victimhood .
This is true in the arts as well. Postmodernism is deliberately brutish and indecipherable without any focused meaning. It is the opposite of any work which would create meaning or stir any positive emotions or connections in the viewer. This has its roots in Marxist/ Progressive dogma which discourages any loyalty to anything other than the Collective or Statist institutions. There is a systematic dismantling of anything inspiring individual loyalty to one’s family, one’s friends, one’s religion, one’s sexual identity, established science, established law, social and cultural norms (particularly Western culture) and any desire to buck the Statist party line.
“ Anyone who gan get you to believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities”—Voltaire
This is happening even at the level of art creation, not merely enjoyment.
Artists who are not the same race/gender/sexuality/nationality of their characters or content in writing, performing or visual depictions (paintings, photos etc) are no longer "allowed" to explore these alternative narratives. This means that actors and performers are now only cast as their immutable characteristics. Visual artists can no longer explore cultural influences that are not their own, as has been done through time. Writers who are not the same *whatever* (gender, sexuality, ethnicity, race) as their creations cannot write those stories, or if they do, they are no longer published.
So cultural production, and the freedom of creativity, both to make it and enjoy it, are severely censored and limited. This madness means that cultural output and artistic creations are permitted to be transmitted to, created and enjoyed by fewer and fewer people, leaving artists with niche careers, rather than the broad, universal influence they once had. Imagine that Georgia O'Keeffe's paintings could not integrate elements of native American art. Gay male actors would be relegated to only roles for gay males. Paul Simon or Sting could no longer experiment with Jazz, reggae, or Zydeco musical styles in their compositions. The influence of Japanese woodblock prints on the Post-Impressionists, are now seen as "cultural appropriation."
Furthermore, how can artists expect to build a career or a body of work with such limitations in the audience, reach and opportunities? Their business model is a niche subset of a subset, and their impact on the culture is therefore smaller and smaller.
The universality of the sublime, artistic experience is no longer in existence. There is no timeless beauty anymore. We are atoms, disconnected and inert.
But isn’t identity also a constructed category? Doesn’t it just go round and round and round in circles? How can one even begin to make the claim “speaking as a gay/Asian/non binary/disabled person” without having some basis upon which to claim to be gay/Asian/non binary/disabled? How is identity uniquely free from the post modern undermining that takes apart every other category?
I think the Woke world-view falls apart when it comes to moral questions. EVEN IF they are correct that only immutable identities give a person the "right" to assert a firm "truth," they provide no moral basis for the rest of us to care about their truth. No basis to change our behavior or to allocate resources to various folk based on their particular trauma/needs, and no basis to consider what is "fair." They want to somehow keep the cultural and religious sense that we have of fairness, justice, empathy, and equality in order to demand action and material goods while at the same time denying the moral validity of any principles of fairness, kindness, or good will towards unfavored groups.
For instance, we must feel empathy and concern for the needs and safety of trans-women, and that means giving them full access to private women's spaces like locker rooms, prisons, hospital wards, and domestic violence shelters. So, fear for one's safety is something we are all supposed to understand and accommodate, right? Not so fast. The real fear (based on lived experience) that natal women have regarding allowing natal men into their private and secure areas is brushed aside by the Woke. Their safety is of ZERO concern. Yet where, then, is their moral basis for demanding 100% support for trans women's safety?
Literally everything they advocate is based on persuading society that their demands follow premises of traditional Western morality. Except that they then enact the cruelest arbitrary and even murderous policies against all non-favored groups; acts that are in direct opposition to traditional Western morality and philosophical principles.
Postmodernism originally appeared to the public through clever and provocative art, design, and literature. Many Critics and historians who understood the underpinnings said "Be Careful".
"... the idea is that one cannot deny nor deconstruct the experience that another person has, and as such you cannot “deny my experience” as the saying goes."
I cannot deny your experience but perhaps I can deny your interpretation of it?
Ugh..."neurodivergence." These people act like being autistic is some kind of gold star...assuming, of course, they ARE autistic. Many of these folks are "self-diagnosed", which means they just like thinking of themselves as different from others. It's distressing.
"There are no universal human emotions that we can reference to understand each other."
Of course we know that there are, and I think the Woke know it, too, but in the same way they privilege 'lived experience' as not subject to deconstruction, they privilege the oppressor-oppressed dichotomy over shared humanity to avoid having to acknowledge it This is why it's so important for a Woke person to get on a place on the victimhood .
This is true in the arts as well. Postmodernism is deliberately brutish and indecipherable without any focused meaning. It is the opposite of any work which would create meaning or stir any positive emotions or connections in the viewer. This has its roots in Marxist/ Progressive dogma which discourages any loyalty to anything other than the Collective or Statist institutions. There is a systematic dismantling of anything inspiring individual loyalty to one’s family, one’s friends, one’s religion, one’s sexual identity, established science, established law, social and cultural norms (particularly Western culture) and any desire to buck the Statist party line.
“ Anyone who gan get you to believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities”—Voltaire
This is happening even at the level of art creation, not merely enjoyment.
Artists who are not the same race/gender/sexuality/nationality of their characters or content in writing, performing or visual depictions (paintings, photos etc) are no longer "allowed" to explore these alternative narratives. This means that actors and performers are now only cast as their immutable characteristics. Visual artists can no longer explore cultural influences that are not their own, as has been done through time. Writers who are not the same *whatever* (gender, sexuality, ethnicity, race) as their creations cannot write those stories, or if they do, they are no longer published.
So cultural production, and the freedom of creativity, both to make it and enjoy it, are severely censored and limited. This madness means that cultural output and artistic creations are permitted to be transmitted to, created and enjoyed by fewer and fewer people, leaving artists with niche careers, rather than the broad, universal influence they once had. Imagine that Georgia O'Keeffe's paintings could not integrate elements of native American art. Gay male actors would be relegated to only roles for gay males. Paul Simon or Sting could no longer experiment with Jazz, reggae, or Zydeco musical styles in their compositions. The influence of Japanese woodblock prints on the Post-Impressionists, are now seen as "cultural appropriation."
Furthermore, how can artists expect to build a career or a body of work with such limitations in the audience, reach and opportunities? Their business model is a niche subset of a subset, and their impact on the culture is therefore smaller and smaller.
The universality of the sublime, artistic experience is no longer in existence. There is no timeless beauty anymore. We are atoms, disconnected and inert.
But isn’t identity also a constructed category? Doesn’t it just go round and round and round in circles? How can one even begin to make the claim “speaking as a gay/Asian/non binary/disabled person” without having some basis upon which to claim to be gay/Asian/non binary/disabled? How is identity uniquely free from the post modern undermining that takes apart every other category?
I think the Woke world-view falls apart when it comes to moral questions. EVEN IF they are correct that only immutable identities give a person the "right" to assert a firm "truth," they provide no moral basis for the rest of us to care about their truth. No basis to change our behavior or to allocate resources to various folk based on their particular trauma/needs, and no basis to consider what is "fair." They want to somehow keep the cultural and religious sense that we have of fairness, justice, empathy, and equality in order to demand action and material goods while at the same time denying the moral validity of any principles of fairness, kindness, or good will towards unfavored groups.
For instance, we must feel empathy and concern for the needs and safety of trans-women, and that means giving them full access to private women's spaces like locker rooms, prisons, hospital wards, and domestic violence shelters. So, fear for one's safety is something we are all supposed to understand and accommodate, right? Not so fast. The real fear (based on lived experience) that natal women have regarding allowing natal men into their private and secure areas is brushed aside by the Woke. Their safety is of ZERO concern. Yet where, then, is their moral basis for demanding 100% support for trans women's safety?
Literally everything they advocate is based on persuading society that their demands follow premises of traditional Western morality. Except that they then enact the cruelest arbitrary and even murderous policies against all non-favored groups; acts that are in direct opposition to traditional Western morality and philosophical principles.
Postmodernism originally appeared to the public through clever and provocative art, design, and literature. Many Critics and historians who understood the underpinnings said "Be Careful".
Now we see the how and why.
"... the idea is that one cannot deny nor deconstruct the experience that another person has, and as such you cannot “deny my experience” as the saying goes."
I cannot deny your experience but perhaps I can deny your interpretation of it?