{"id":1275,"date":"2023-08-22T19:57:46","date_gmt":"2023-08-22T19:57:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2023\/08\/22\/wokery-as-metastatic-managerialism\/"},"modified":"2023-08-22T19:57:46","modified_gmt":"2023-08-22T19:57:46","slug":"wokery-as-metastatic-managerialism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2023\/08\/22\/wokery-as-metastatic-managerialism\/","title":{"rendered":"Wokery as Metastatic Managerialism"},"content":{"rendered":"

This article<\/a> by the Swedish conservative Malcom Kyeyune from  2022 will enrich your understanding of wokery or wokeness. <\/span><\/p>\n

But first I record an epiphany<\/a> I recently experienced. I was puzzling over why Anheuser-Busch would so egregiously violate the sensibilities of their Bud Lite drinkers by using the effete and epicene<\/a> Dylan Mulvaney as poster boy (girl?) for their product. It makes no bloody 'bottom line' sense! Isn't the company in business to make money? Why spit in the face of your consumer base? And don't the A-B execs have a fiduciary responsibility to do right by their shareholders? <\/span><\/p>\n

And then it dawned on me around the time of Tucker Carlson's defenestration. The very next day after our boy was booted out of the Overton window<\/a>, <\/span>an advertisement for the ESG outfit Blackrock<\/a> appeared on Fox. 'ESG' abbreviates the ominous 'environmental social governance<\/em>.' Blackrock promotes — wait for it — 'gender diversity.' What I came to see is that a vastly powerful and 'woke' managerial elite was calling the shots with respect to Anheuser-Busch and other companies. Pace<\/em> The Who, "the new boss is not<\/a> (8:02) the same as the old boss." The old rulers, the owners of capital, have been replaced by the new bosses, the managerial class.<\/span><\/p>\n

James Burnham saw it coming in 1941. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

T<\/span>he core thesis of James Burnham\u2019s 1941 The Managerial Revolution<\/em> helps explain what is happening in the West today. A former Trotskyite who later became a leading figure in postwar American conservatism, Burnham argued in that book that Western society would not see the collapse of capitalism and its replacement by socialism. Instead, he maintained, America would likely see capitalism replaced by a nonsocialist successor\u2014one dominated not by capitalists in the classical sense but by a class of managers that would come to control the real economy, regardless of formal ownership status.<\/span><\/p>\n

This distinction\u2014between ownership of, and control over, capital\u2014was a topic of some discussion in the interwar years, with early analyses noting that apparatchiks in the Soviet Union had appropriated control over public resources. In the U.S., Burnham\u2019s prophecy of a new managerial order came against the backdrop of the New Deal, which had coincided with a (somewhat understandable) loss of faith in capitalist ideas. The balance of power was shifting from property rights to a steadily increasing category of human rights, and Americans were becoming more accepting of state planning and control over larger parts of society.<\/span><\/p>\n

Burnham saw America in the early 1940s as being in a somewhat transitory phase. The old, capitalist order was clearly ailing, and managers were steadily growing their power at the owners\u2019 expense. Still, the process of forming a new rulership class was by no means complete. While \u201ccontrol over the instruments of production is everywhere undergoing a shift\u201d toward managers, wrote Burnham, \u201cthe big bourgeoisie, the finance-capitalists, are still the ruling class in the United States.\u201d New Dealism was not yet a \u201cdeveloped, systematized managerial ideology\u201d that was capable of fully replacing capitalism.<\/span><\/p>\n

But if Burnham were alive today, he might see wokeness as exactly that: a systematized, managerial ideology capable of standing on its own as a claim to rulership over society on behalf of the new class of managers. Indeed, many of the dynamics that worried or fascinated thinkers like Burnham during the interwar and New Deal era seem to reappear today in hypertrophied form.<\/span><\/p>\n

Let us return to the question of ownership versus control. Here, wokeness serves to abrogate property rights, as seen in many controversies taking place in the business world. Consider the fate of the video-game behemoth Activision Blizzard, recently bought by Microsoft. After various ex-employees leveled allegations of workplace mistreatment and a frat-boy culture at its California offices, the company found itself under siege from multiple directions. First, the state of California sued it. Then, the media started covering the story with fervor. Various NGOs and activist organizations jumped into the fray, and the Securities and Exchange Commission launched an investigation. Though the original accusations against the company had to do only with sexual misconduct in the workplace, the list of demands made on Activision Blizzard quickly expanded beyond the original crime. Firing the offending workers or instituting mere workplace reform wasn\u2019t good enough; rather, Activision Blizzard would need to open up its internal hiring and firing decisions to some sort of public review to ensure that it met various \u201cdiversity\u201d targets. If one reads between the lines of the controversy, it becomes clear that the owners of a company now must subject their hiring process to review by other managerial institutions.<\/span><\/p>\n

The main practical demand that wokeness places on society is a massive expansion of managerial intermediation<\/em> in previously independent social and economic processes. With Activision Blizzard, a controversy regarding the workplace environment quickly metastasized into a struggle to implement new, alternative human-resources structures that corporate leadership would not control, and to which it would have to pay, in effect, a kind of ideological protection money. In real terms, this represents a nontrivial abrogation of property rights: you may still own your company, but don\u2019t expect to be free to run it as you see fit without the \u201chelp\u201d of outside commissars. Another example of creeping intermediation can be seen in the Hollywood trend to hire so-called racial equity consultants to ensure that characters from various minorities are sufficiently represented in movies and TV. Time was when a screenwriter would conceive of a plot and populate it with characters, drawing upon crude, inequitable instruments such as empathy and imagination; this is less and less permissible. Populating stories with various minority characters is not just encouraged but demanded\u2014and one must do so only after employing intermediary consultants. Writing now requires intercession from a class of moral managers.<\/span><\/p>\n

Seen in this light, wokeness is not a mere scholastic ideology. Indeed, the woke tend to be uninterested in any form of Socratic dialogue regarding their suppositions. In 2017, the feminist philosophy journal Hypatia<\/em> descended into massive controversy after a writer, Rebecca Tuvel, published an argument that transracialism ought to enjoy the same sort of philosophical status as transgenderism. Tuvel appeared to make her argument sincerely, in an effort to explore the philosophical implications of people who transcend social categories, but the effort rendered her a pariah.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

At this point, you may wish to take a break from Georgia 10-pt and really tax your analytic and reading comprehension skills by studying my 2021 Substack<\/em> piece, Can One Change One's Race?<\/a> in which I refute Rebecca Tuvel's Hypatia<\/em> article. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

If woke ideology has little use for academic discussions, it is quite adept at asserting control over institutions. One cannot separate woke controversies from struggles over hiring and firing privileges inside institutions. What appears to be a fight over principles is simultaneously a fight over institutional prerogatives and access to resources.<\/span><\/p>\n

Like the managerial ideology that Burnham anticipated, wokeness both asserts a wide variety of rights that supersede ownership and insists upon the creation of a permanent caste of managers to monitor the implementation of these rights. This tendency toward intermediation now extends to almost every facet of modern society, including in areas previously seen as foundational to the political system. Democracy, for instance, is now seen as needing various forms of intermediation so as to function properly. Without the input of managers, the thinking goes, the raw expression of the popular will can lead to aberrations, such as the election of Donald Trump or Britain\u2019s decision to leave the European Union. Calls are increasingly being made to impose a layer of experts qualified to judge just what political questions and issues could be safely left to purportedly benighted voters to decide.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This article by the Swedish conservative Malcom Kyeyune from  2022 will enrich your understanding of wokery or wokeness. But first I record an epiphany I recently experienced. I was puzzling over why Anheuser-Busch would so egregiously violate the sensibilities of their Bud Lite drinkers by using the effete and epicene Dylan Mulvaney as poster boy … Continue reading “Wokery as Metastatic Managerialism”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[455,180,10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1275","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-burnham-james","category-decline-of-the-west","category-wokery"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1275","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1275"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1275\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1275"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1275"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1275"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}