Social justice praxis dreams

Over on Bluesky discussion of “Woke 2.0” like this from William B. Fuckley …

I think that specific activist language is probably dead, the next round is going to sound more like labor organizing than a college class. Woke 2 will have somewhat more limited aims and also be far more ruthless about political power.

Yeah, my predictions are that Woke 2 will be more successful, but much more limited. A reclamation rather than a revolution.

Less “Folx” and more “no, gay people do get to exist in public actually, fuck you”.

I do think a lot of the stuff that generated so much sound and fury last time was kind of based on an assumption that 2020 was the worst society could get and that flawed liberal democracy was the floor. A kind activist version of ZIRP. I don’t think anyone will be under that illusion in a few years.

… inspired Dr. Samantha Hancox-Li to ask:

alright why not. woke 2 takes. let’s have ’em people

I fell into a little rant-thread which did not quite answer the question but seemed worth capturing:

Bitter experience teaches me not to make predictions beyond “I will not get the things that I want” but since you ask, these are some things I want and therefore expect to Not Get. I confess to the inclinations of my own privileged position affecting my center of gravity; I am who I am.

I want social justice praxis …

• … which understands the liberal school and identity politics school as counterweights to each other’s limitations. “The law in its majestic equality …”
• … which recognizes that tendencies are not absolutes. e.g.: “This person stands in a position of privilege so they miss a lot, but they do have a point about this particular thing, which that marginalized person did not happen to know.”
• … which recognizes that its terms of art are terms of art and says so. e.g.: “When we use the word ‘privilege’, we are not using it the ordinary way …”
• … which does not enable narcissistic abuse. e.g.: If someone has stepped wrong, they can expect clear feedback about how to correct the error, and if they make the correction we consider the matter closed.
• … liberal enough to reject diffuse, unaccountable processes … and leftist enough to reject depriving people of their livelihoods.
• … enthusiastic about creating clear write-ups of what the heck happened.
• … enthusiastic about digging in to imperfect efforts e.g.: “Without forgiving ABC for the error XYZ we can appreciate that ABC is good enough to be worth criticizing deeply, and then look closely at the problems with XYZ …”
• … which talks as frequently and profoundly about class as it does about race.
• … equipped to recognize that racism is a single-edged blade which cuts PoCs deeply and white people not at all, while sexism is a double-edged blade much sharper on one side that cuts men pretty damm deeply even though it cuts women far worse.
• … liberal enough to prefer universalist policy solutions but smart enough to know that universalist policy is rarely enough by itself.
• … very enthusiastic about addressing clearly & specifically what individuals in privilege can & should do.
• … which actually understands what the word “systemic” means. e.g.: “There is plenty of bigotry to address … and without structural interventions inequities will reproduce themselves even without bigotry.”
• … which understands the difference between punishing bad actors and depriving them of power, and vigorously prefers the latter.
• … with a sophisticated ethos for dialogue between the privileged and the marginalized.