Links ist nicht woke

by Susan Neiman, Christiana Goldmann (Translator)

Seit sie denken kann, ist Susan Neiman erklärte Linke. Doch seit wann ist die Linke woke? In ihrer von Leidenschaft und Witz befeuerten Streitschrift untersucht sie, wie zeitgenössische Stimmen, die sich als links bezeichnen, ausgerechnet die Überzeugungen aufgegeben haben, die für den linken Standpunkt entscheidend ein Bekenntnis zum Universalismus, der Glaube an die Möglichkeit des Fortschritts und die klare Unterscheidung zwischen Macht und Gerechtigkeit. Als Philosophin überprüft sie dabei die identitätspolitische Kritik an der Aufklärung als rassistisch, kolonialistisch, eurozentristisch und stellt Die heutige Linke beraubt sich selbst der Konzepte, die für den Widerstand gegen den weltweiten Rechtsruck dringend gebraucht werden.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Sociology, Cultural, History, Society

177 pages, Kindle Edition

First published March 20, 2023

About the author

Susan Neiman is an American moral philosopher and essayist, her main interests are in the history of philosophy and morality, and the philosophy of politics and religion.

Reviews

[Theaetetus · Rating 3 out of 5]

As someone who would describe himself as both left and woke (a viewpoint I post publicly with a healthy dose of unease), I really wanted to read this book to see what the supposed irreconcilability in myself was all about.

My expecting position remained unfulfilled, however, as the book is essentially about only one of the key words in its title: left. Woke, with only a small number of scattered mentions, is an epiphenomenon, a passing thought the author sometimes activates in the background. I agree that a thorough understanding of left is essential in trying to ground the main thesis of the book, but the writer leaves it almost entirely to the reader to give form to her principal argument. Why, for example, is woke tribalistic? How, exactly, does woke relate to the power-justice debate? As a reader, the book gives you the tools to scantily answer these questions but nowhere is the matter unearthed in detail, which is something I expect from a writer who qualifies her own style as clear and distinct in the beginning of the book. Perhaps it’s been too long since I read a book of philosophy and have unlearned its abstract character…

Despite the lack of explicit rendition of her own argument, the book does provide interesting information on what it means to be left (hence, three stars) and gives compelling arguments to save the enlightenment thinkers from a too one-sided, eurocentric reading which definitely sparked my interest. From that perspective I do recommend it. However, don’t expect a thought-provoking read on woke.

[Hans Sandberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title could give the impression that this is a polemic against the woke radicals which it is not. Instead it's a deep discussion of what it means to be progressive in today's world. It's an argument for believing in the possibility of change, and why any change that is not reactionary must reach for universal values. I found her critique of Foucault and Carl Schmitt important and effective. It's rather sad though that there is a need to talk to progressives about the latter, who was a Nazi philosopher. I'm less impressed by her critique of Evolutionary psychology, which ignores the work of the evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson and the theory of group selection, which can hardly be blamed for neoliberalism.

[Heather · Rating 1 out of 5]

This title caught my eye because I identify as "left" and am never sure what "woke" is or what is my relation to "woke-ness." I distrust the term because of how it's been caricatured and weaponized by the reactionary right. But I also distrust the "woke." So I was hoping this book would clarify a definition of "woke" and its relationship to "the left."
Unfortunately, it didn't.

I appreciated the author's definition of "liberalism/the left," which she defines with 3 traits or attitudes: Universalism, commitment to Justice, and Optimism about the future potential and past achievements of social progress. For "the left" she adds a 4th trait, commitment to Human RIGHTS (as opposed to "liberal's" willingness to grant benefits.) OK, I'm on board with all 4 of those.

But then she defines "woke" as the opposite of these 3 attitudes: Tribalism (aka "identity politics") replacing Universalism, cynical belief in Power replacing commitment to Justice, Pessimism/Cynicism/Nihilism replacing Optimism. She doesn't offer any examples of "woke" discourse or action, and she admits that "the woke" don't explicitly claim these attitudes - but claims they act upon them. I think her "woke" is a paranoid fantasy based on right-wing and middle-aged-liberal fears of finding themselves (ourselves) on the wrong side of social change.

Here is an analysis of the moral panic about "woke" that I find useful:
https://michaelhobbes.substack.com/p/...
and another
https://michaelhobbes.substack.com/p/...

A red flag for me: Neiman attributes the belief in Power and the Pessimism/Nihilism to Foucault, based on the first few pages of "Discipline and Punish". It irritates me how "Foucault" has become a bogeyman - not that Foucault is beyond criticism, but when you name-drop "Foucault" as a one-word shortcut to invalidate a claim, idea, or analysis, I lose trust in you.
I also find it a bad sign that several (male) reviewers spontaneously suggested that her model is useful to understand how "liberal" feminism is being hijacked by "woke" transgender activists - MASSIVE red flag.
This one's a dud.

[Florian Lorenzen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Gerade bei Büchern, deren Kernthese uns intuitiv zusagen, ist Vorsicht geboten, denn sie verleiten uns oftmals zu einem zu positiven Vor-Urteil. Im Bewusstsein dessen habe ich „Links ist nicht woke“ aufmerksam gelesen – und wurde enttäuscht.

Doch zunächst zur Autorin: Susan Neiman ist eine US-Amerikanische Philosophen, die bereits seit einiger Zeit in Deutschland lebt. Glaubwürdig bekennt sie sich zur politischen Linken und zu Black Live Matters, wodurch deutlich wird, dass sie im Unterschied zu so manch anderer Linke (Auge, Sarah Wagenknecht) nicht nur ökonomisch links, sondern auch progressiv ist. Von dieser Position aus kommend formuliert Neiman in „Links ist nicht woke“ eine grundlegende Kritik an dem woken Denken. Während das linke Denken von Universalismus geprägt sei, sei das woke Denken vielmehr tribalistisch und relativistisch. Diese Unterscheidung bringt Neiman gut rüber, auch wenn wir das schon in anderen Büchern ähnlich gelesen haben, wie bspw. in Francis Fukuyamans „Identität“.

Hieran anschließend arbeitet Neiman heraus, was die theoretischen Grundlagen und Einflüsse der woken Linken seien – und hier beginnt es holprig zu werden. Überraschenderweise führt sie hierbei zunächst Carl Schmitt an, der ja nun bekanntlich ein rechter Denker ist. Ihre Begründung: Nach Schmitt sind Werte ausschließlich ein Ausdruck von Interessen; genau dieselbe Kritik, mit der die woke Linke versucht, das Denken der Aufklärung zu diskreditieren. Nun würde ich dieser Beobachtung zwar nicht widersprechen, doch Carl Schmitt damit zu einem Meisterdenker der woken Linken zu machen, ist dann doch etwas grotesk. Schmitt war vor allem ein nicht-normativer Denker, hatte also stets die Brille des zynischen, kaltblütigen Macht-Theoretikers auf. Das ist eine gänzlich andere Perspektive als die einer hoch-normativen woken Linken. Zwar gibt es durchaus linke Theoretiker, die Schmitt rezipieren und in ihr Werk integrieren. Das bekannteste Stück dieser Art ist vermutlich Chantal Mouffes „Über das Politische“. Doch Werke wie diese kommen primär aus der traditionellen, nicht aus der woken Linken. Ob Neiman diese Hintergründe nicht kannte oder man den Verweis auf Schmitt eher als inner-linker Diffarmierungsversuch verstehen muss, das weiß ich nicht.

Noch weniger plausibel fand ich den Verweis auf die Evolutionspsychologie, die laut Nieman einen angeblich starken Einfluss auf das woke Denken hätte. Meines Erachtens ist genau das Gegenteil richtig; nämlich, dass sich das woke Denken durch die völlige Abwesenheit solcher wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse „auszeichnet“. Es ist ein Kernelement dieser Weltanschauung, dass letztlich alles als gesellschaftlich konstruiert angesehen wird. Dementsprechend werden evolutionspsychologische oder biologische Fakten (bspw. im Hinblick auf die Geschlechterrollen oder das Paarungsverhalten von Menschen) von ihnen negiert, nicht „reproduziert“.

Auch eine Kritik an Michel Foucaults darf hier natürlich nicht fehlen. Auch wenn ich hier definitiv eine Schnittstelle sehe, so hatte ich insgesamt den Eindruck, dass sie für ihre Kritik eher ein Zerrbild Foucaults heranzieht. Diese verkürzte Sichtweise auf den Postmodernismus hatte Daniel-Pascal Zorn auch schon in „Die Krise des Absoluten“ kritisch angemerkt.

Eine linke Kritik am Denken halte ich weiterhin für wichtig. Doch eine solche Kritik müsste ganz anders, muss theoretisch fundierter ausfallen als jene von Neiman. „Links ist nicht woke“ ist leider ein Schuss in den Ofen – auch weil es kein sonderlich gut geschriebenes Buch ist.

Review bei Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CwejMOtNHkA

[J TC · Rating 4 out of 5]

Susan Neiman - A Esquerda não é woke
Iniciei este livro convencido que estava de ser uma análise do movimento woke. Estava enganado. Quem pretender aceder ao filme que nos trouxe até aqui, decididamente este não é o livro adequado nem para se entender as origens do movimento e designação, nem como evoluiu nas últimas décadas e acelerou desde 2016. Não é um bom livro para isso nem sequer é adequadamente exaustivo na análise que faz das diferenças entre esquerda e wokismo.
A classificação mais adequada parece-me ser a de um ensaio sobre conceitos de universalismo, poder, liberdade e justiça. Um ensaio de alguém que vinda da área da filosofia usa o amplo conhecimento que tem dessa área para fazer uma abordagem sobre as dicotomias subjacentes aos princípios enunciados e de que forma eles são fronteira percetível entre que se considera a favor do progresso e de esquerda e quem zangado com os falhanços do neoliberalismo se refugiou dentro de um grupo tribal.


Este livro reflete essencialmente sobre a contribuição da filosofia para os fundamentos do wokismo e de que forma uma discussão séria de gente crescida e culta se transformou nesta forma de “pidgin” cultural que é o léxico woke.
Susan Neiman discute aqui conceitos sobre liberdade, livre arbítrio, os desígnios do homem, a dicotomia entre universalismo e tribalismo, os perigos deste último que ao remeterem a discussão de nós e os outros, os que estão contra nós torna o mundo um lugar perigoso onde o efeito das multidões de Gustave Le Bom é demasiado evidente. Não tentar compreender os outros, não tentar perscrutar as suas motivações e razões, só força a dicotomia desta era tornando o mundo um lugar cada vez mais perigoso.
A autora começa esta sua abordagem a esta visão dicotómica do mundo pelo “ataque” o movimento woke faz ao iluminismo. Para os adeptos dessa dialética “pidgin” o movimento iluminista foi o patrono da “supremacia” ocidental, do colonialismo e da escravatura. Como bem lembra S Neiman, quando cita David Graeber e o seu livro “O Princípio de Tudo”. O movimento iluminista, não é a justificação teórica do colonialismo ou de movimento esclavagista. O iluminismo teve em parte as suas origens na organização social desse povos “primitivos” tal como ela nos é referida nos diálogos entre o hurão Kandiaronk e Lahontan e de forma estes mesmos diálogos e o conhecimento dessas sociedade baseadas na propriedade comum influenciou os próprios princípios de liberdade e igualitários que o Iluminismo e os seus filósofos como Rousseau importaram desses povos. Susan Neiman é muito perentória na defesa da importância do iluminismo para a nossa organização social de hoje, bem mais por esses princípios que importou dessas terras que pelo colonialismo e escravatura com que se fez acompanhar ainda que estes estejam mais relacionados, para além da obsessão pela evangelização e catolicismo, com a organização económica, o capitalismo e o lucro que com iluminismo em si.
É injusto acusar o iluminismo do que foi o colonialismo e a escravatura. Essa interpretação resulta de uma epistemologia do ponto de vista, algo que os movimentos woke têm trazido para a discussão ao confundirem a arvore com a floresta. Para o movimento woke termos como justiça e autoridade moral são quase sempre inquinados pelo ponto de vista.
Depois da discussão sobre o iluminismo e de que forma erram os que nele vêm apenas a origem do colonialismo e da xenofobia, Susan Neiman faz-nos um análise de alguns pensadores sobre os quais a esquerda tem refletido e cuja obra têm analisado para demonstrar que a leitura que os movimentos woke deles fazem não são em si uma análise de esquerda mas antes uma deturpação da visão destes autores.
É assim que autores como Carl Schmitt, Michel Foucault, Edmund Burke, Diderot, Voltair, Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Adorno, Horkheimer, Kant, Thomas Hobbes e Noam Chomsky são analisados pela autora que demonstra que a interpretação que o movimento woke deles faz é em si mesmo a justificação teórica que baste para se assumir uma clivagem teórica insuperável entre wokismo e esquerda (clivagem que dá título ao livro), mas também indica que os fundamentos teóricos do wokismo são eles mesmos insustentáveis e por toda a construção que daí deriva mais não é que uma fantasia. Uma fantasia perigosa.

[Gonzalo Zamora Galleguillo · Rating 2 out of 5]

Tengo pocas cosas buenas para decir de este libro. Lo trataré de resumir igualmente.

El problema principal es que este libro es engañoso. Su titulo e introducción da a entender una crítica que busca separar a la izquierda de un fantasma que persigue a la gente en internet (particularmente en Estados Unidos) en los últimos dos años: lo "woke". Les aviso que aquí van a salir sin entender muy bien que es lo Woke.

En ningún momento se termina por entender bien que es o que significa ser Woke. La única conexión real y directa se hace en el primer capitulo a la hablar de Tribalismo frente a Universalismo. La autora entiende tribalismo como el intento usar las políticas identitarias como fijadores de la totalidad de la identidad política de las personas afectadas, llevando a que la discusión temática sea separatista, lo que para ella es problemática porque se ha censurado a los filósofos de la ilustración.

De aquí en adelante es una defensa a la Ilustración, nunca sabemos quién es es Woke, qué movimiento, qué partido, qué políticos, qué leyes o políticas han sido Woke. Lo siguiente es discutir sobre la diferencia entre Poder y Justicia. La discusión me parece interesantísima e incluso la apoyo. Foucault tiene muchos problemas al no tener marco normativo y no adjudicar a las ideas de moralidad. Pero de ahí a hacer una conexión con Schmitt, Heidegger y culpar a los males de la izquierda en leerlos y seguir sus ideas para hacerse "Woke" se pierde todo el peso de la discusión. Por lo demás, ¿Quién lee a esos autores? Realmente tienen una influencia. Mira que la opción de mencionar a Mouffe, Laclau y compañía estaba ahí. Pero lo único que hace es mencionar a Fanon y decir "incluso él era universalista y buscaba la justicia". ¿Entonces quién es Woke, quién comete el error? Mi hipótesis es que nuevamente, es pelea contra internet.

Tiene otros problemas como rotear bastante a los lectores. En un momento incluso dice que todos los que leen a Foucault tienen el problema de no entenderlo. Cosa que se puede compartir, pero no puede ser tu argumento para decir que los "Woke" deben leer de nuevo a Kant y a Rousseau. Poco más me queda por decir. Es como una columna de diario, pero larga. Igualmente, generalista, de poco aporte, y con evidente conocimiento desperdiciado.

[Jim · Rating 3 out of 5]

I feel the title of this book is like click bait - there is very little here that clearly questions “wokeness”. Disappointing in that regard. The book lacks a clear logical through-line, so it comes across as choppy and disorganized. Like, what’s the point? Still, there are passages, even pages, that are clear and direct, and enlightening. These latter bits saved the book from the 2-star pile, but just.

[Kusaimamekirai · Rating 5 out of 5]

It’s difficult to say this book is simply one or two things simply the breadth and scope the author takes on here is so impressive. In short though, she critiques “woke” theory not from the right or dismissively but rather from the left and from a place where she sees worthy ideals but disastrously misguided application.
As a fellow leftist (a word which we are both proud of but has been poisoned in modern discourse) she believes that the ideals of being a progressive, as well as the Enlightenment itself, are crystallized in three important philosophical ideas.
The first being a commitment to Universalism.
By that she means that when we fight for justice, we fight for justice for all. As groups seem to break off into tribes now where the input of other tribes is occasionally allowed as at best a temporary “ally” and at worst treated with suspicion as being part of a systemic problem with nothing to offer.
It is a dramatic and worrying shift from even 60 years ago during the Civil Rights movement where a multitude of races and genders worked for the greater good.
Secondly, the firm commitment and distinction between justice and power. This is of course is intrinsically linked to Universalism in that as she writes:

“Without Universalism, there is no argument against racism, merely a bunch of tribes jockeying for power”

When justice ceases to become about an equal playing field for all rather than just upending the current power structure to place your tribe on top, there is no incentive for any kind of cooperative effort or real change.

Finally, is the belief in the possibility of progress. This is perhaps the most important idea of all in that when you get to a point where you believe that things have always been bad and will continue to be so, you not only stop trying to change it, you begin to inherently distrust everyone you suspect of sustaining the status quo.
As the author writes, yes some Enlightenment thinkers wrote racist things. Most of them also had no time for women as anything in society other than wives and mothers.
Yet they also were fiercely critical of colonialism, ardent defenders of individual liberty, and insistent on reason and doubt rather than religious superstition.
No they were not fully actualized human beings. Neither are we. But to dismiss them as having nothing useful to offer us simply because they were white men not only shows a profound lack of an ability to see the totality of something but a distressing disinterest in learning from people different from us.
Furthermore, things are undoubtedly better than they were even 20 years ago. Things were better than they were 20 years before that.
Yes the change can at times be incremental and maddeningly slow. We sometimes also take steps back. But to deny that we have made progress does a disservice to those who fought for it.
There is so much more here but I believe these three tenants she lays out are the basis of a healthy democratic society. One that has yes, not always lived up to its own rhetoric to be sure. But if we simply stop there, throw up our hands, and say things have always been awful so I’m just going to head to this corner while you stay in yours, we are for more gone as I society than I fear.

[Alex Hulst · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ietwat misleidende titel, hoewel de kritiek op het tribale karakter van het niet gedefinieerde ‘woke’ fors is, is het vooral een pleidooi voor Verlichtingsdenkers en een kritiek op Foucault.

[Nelson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Livro interessante, mas infelizmente como é habitual não definem o que é o wokismo, partindo do princípio que está assumido o que é. Eu diria que 80% do que os mais à direita definem como wokismo são atos perfeitamente aceitáveis no sentido de promover a integração daquelas que são discriminados diariamente. Mesmo episódios referidos que podemos discutir se não foram longe demais (ex: a polémica da tradução do poema de Amanda Gorman que é referido no livro), numa escala de “pessoas prejudicadas” é infinitesimalmente insignificante comparado, por exemplo com a monstruosidade da agenda de discriminação do recém-eleito presidente americano e dos partidos de extrema-direita

O livro nas partes 2 e 3 não parece dirigido ao público comum sendo mais um exercício filosófico de fundamentos para princípios, rebatendo alguns intelectuais modernos que seriam precursores do wokismo. Em especial na parte 3 discordo de grande parte do diagnóstico e conclusões

Mas a parte 1 é bastante interessante, no sentido em que expõe efetivamente um aspeto do pensamento político dos partidos de esquerda atuais onde falham redondamente. Já não conseguem formular objetivos universais que todas as pessoas possam partilhar, sendo mais fácil a retórica "anti" qualquer coisa. Vejamos por exemplo como antigamente tínhamos esta visão universal usando o célebre discurso do sonho de Martin Luther King em 28 de agosto de 1963:

“A nova e maravilhosa militância que tomou conta da comunidade negra não deve nos levar a suspeitar de todas as pessoas brancas, pois muitos de nossos irmãos, conforme evidenciado por sua presença aqui hoje, acabaram por entender que seu destino está vinculado ao nosso destino e que a liberdade deles está vinculada indissociavelmente à nossa liberdade.”

“Tenho um sonho de que um dia, nas colinas vermelhas da Geórgia, os filhos de ex-escravos e os filhos de ex-donos de escravos poderão sentar-se juntos à mesa da irmandade “

A visão de Luther King, mesmo num momento de forte repressão e segregação racial, era apresentar o que queria de uma forma que a comunidade dominante branca não se sentisse ameaçada e que essa comunidade branca pudesse partilhar desses mesmos valores que ele apregoava.

Este sentido de universalismo de valores que todos possam partilhar é talvez aquilo que a esquerda desistiu de comunicar, mesmo que a maioria individualmente continue a acreditar nisto.

Optou-se uma fórmula mais simples, mediática e populista de criar inimigos, do "anti" que torna mais difícil as pessoas do outro lado juntarem-se a lutas que deveriam ser universais.

[Nathan Fisher · Rating 1 out of 5]

Not even worth discussing, but for the record this is not about the 'left' nor the 'woke,' neither of which is present in any meaningful or operative sense here. More of a hysterically anxious diatribe against Foucault. Didn't realize there was still a market for those, honestly. So unsystematic and banal it could probably not pass the Turing test against something generated by Chat-GPT.

[Michelle Curie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Turns out I get all weak in the knees not only for pretty covers but also catchy titles! This was a seemingly intriguing analysis of how the woke-movement drifts away from the true values of the left, unfortunately conveyed in a patchy manner that leaves a lot of room for criticism.



Left is Not Woke is a critical piece of writing by the US-American philosopher Susan Neumann. While clearly positioning herself as a leftist, she claims that the current political left has drifted off into dangerous territory. She noticed their tendency to utilise identity politics and makes the point that this comes at the cost of true emancipatory fight, using this book to defend ideas of the age of enlightenment against woke criticism.

This is not an analysis of wokeness. Beware that this is a philosophical book by a philosopher: Neimann uses Kant, Diderot and Arendt to support her points and it's definitely a piece of writing that requires attention and focus. It's really an ideological approach to ideas and neither an historical examination of how the woke-movement came into being, nor a sociological analysis of what position woke folks hold in our society (though I think this would have benefitted from at least partially incorporating both into this as a publication). I think the title might be misleading and might almost be too catchy for a book that is definitely should not be placed in the popular science isle. I’d assume this is targeted at people who already know about the subject, but think it would have still profited from at least defining the term woke and specifying woke people, which remain quite vague here.

Her points might not be new, but they're still bold claims to make. So her main statement is that woke culture is hindering left values because they disregard the three main pillars of universality, justice and progress. Each aspect is explored in its own chapter and she does make a couple of points that I liked to ponder on (for example how our attention has shifted to see the point of view of the victim as the more authentic, which is a relatively new development in history, but has severe consequences of how we move forward as a society, because it doesn't create equality as originally intended, but rather disregards other point of views).

She uses Carl Schmitt and Michel Foucault to show similarities between them and what the woke movement thinks to make the point that there are dangers in that sort of thinking (after all, Carl Schmitt specifically is known for his right-wing ideas). I'm not an expert on either of those philosophers' works, so I remain unconvinced and unsure about whether the parallels she draws are valid or far-fetched. I think – and I also believe this is the book's biggest and most critical weakness – a more specified definition on who she is criticising exactly would have been needed. I remain unsure about how much I’m actually able to draw from this.

[Alex · Rating 2 out of 5]

This ain't it. Foucault mal wieder als Gespenst der Postmoderne, was weder Foucault, noch der Postmoderne gerecht wird. Der Woke-Begriff bleibt weiter sehr undefiniert und nicht ausdifferenziert, man weiß gar nicht so Recht gegen was für eine Konzeption sie sich hier richtet. Ihr Plädoyer für Fortschritt und Universalismus ist zwar nicht viel entgegenzusetzen, bleibt aber doch recht blass, kann man Woke doch sehr gut mit diesen Aspekten konsolidieren . Und das obwohl Woke zum Kulturkampfbegriff geworden ist und sich auch in kapitalistische Logiken eingebettet hat.

[Hanna · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 Hatte leider mehr erwartet bei dem Titel, trotzdem interessant!

[Daniel Gil Muñoz · Rating 4 out of 5]

De algún modo, algo había en la manera en que el libro está escrito que me hizo leer con bastante interés desde el principio. Aunque honestamente de la mitad para el final me he acabado perdiendo entre reflexiones, probablemente porque no estoy demasiado acostumbrado a leer de filosofía. En este libro la autora expone su visión de lo que supone ser de izquierdas, entre otras cosas esgrimiendo que hay una serie de ideales que deben defenderse. En ocasiones todo ello lo contrapone a 'lo woke', aunque en mi opinión no aborda más que de manera superficial de qué se trata. En el primer capítulo da una serie de pinceladas, y tal y como lo entiendo, lo encuadra dentro del tribalismo. En resumen: un buen libro, quizás con el retrato incompleto respecto a su objetivo, y que plantea cosas interesantes.

[Mirte Verhaert · Rating 2 out of 5]

Als je een kritiek op de relatie tussen woke en links verwacht zou ik een ander boek lezen. Als je een pleidooi voor de verlichting, en een pittige kritiek op foucault wilt lezen, zit je goed. Haar ideeën zijn interessant maar niet heel erg uitgewerkt.
Al bij al doet het voor mij niet wat het belooft op de cover noch de achterflap.

[Greg · Rating 3 out of 5]

Disappointed.

After reading the author’s ‘Moral Clarity’, I was looking forward to this book, but was left disappointed. It doesn’t really say much about the ‘woke-ism’ it is trying to distance from the left and seems to be just a short defense of the Enlightenment and a critique of Foucault. I was looking for a more substantial delineation between left vs woke and the negative aspects of wokeness that may spoil any positives.

Seems more appropriate to have been essays in another book rather than a stand-alone book.

[lectornicolas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Demasiado necesario para el hoy y para todo quien se identifique más con la ideología/politica “de izquierda” 😅

3 (o 4) bases fundamentales de las izquierdas (y que son muy necesarias para construir democracias más justas), al parecer han sido transformadas (para peor) con ideas “liberales progresistas” (woke) basadas en artilugios y sofismas que huelen a fascismo, censura, engaño, ignorancia, prejuicios, rabia y verborrea displicente 😱😱😱

Este libro enseña el por qué ✅

¡Aprendí mucho!

Libro 38 del 2025

NICO SOTO
@LectorNicolas

[Laura · Rating 5 out of 5]

Praise Susan Neiman for calling bullshit on destructive and depressive notions about what one must believe to be a progressive thinker. With an impressive blend of eloquence and clarity, she unpacks the intellectual trajectories that stifled our thinking and offers better paths forward.

[Christina · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is my second read from Susan Neiman, and so far, she's two for two. This one is based on a lecture, so it's short, but it is densely packed with ideas. Once again, it's not a book to be read quickly, but pondered and thought about and chewed over. While she doesn't go into great detail about the actions of wokism, she does show how they have jettisoned the ideas historically championed by the left: universalism, justice, and progress. Instead, they have substituted reactionary ideas of tribalism, power, and doom.

Neiman is "happy to be called leftist and socialist" in her political positions. She is a fierce defender of the Enlightenment ideas that birthed both. She shows that many current woke attacks on the Enlightenment, claiming it was all about imperial power and colonial exploitation, are ignorant of the many writings by Enlightenment thinkers that criticized those very things. There's a reason that colonization was often justified by claiming that it was bringing civilization and its gifts to ignorant savages. This was a reply to contemporary critics, who were calling the colonizing governments out. Ancient empires like the Romans or the Persians saw no need for a fig leaf.

Neiman shows that the thinkers whose ideas often permeate the anticolonial justifications behind wokism supported determinism of all sorts. Carl Schmitt was an outright Nazi. (As in he openly supported the Nazi party, even forty years after the demise of the Third Reich, and never regretted it.) Michel Foucault asserted that everything was power, except justice, which was an idea invented as an instrument of power. (After debating him on Dutch television in 1971, Noam Chomsky "later remarked that Foucault was the most amoral man he ever met.") Sociobiology claimed to have scientific evidence that humans are naturally violent and selfish, and that existing social arrangements are not just matters of culture, but biologically inevitable. (After being discredited, it was renamed evolutionary psychology. "The revision added a layer of protection against the charge of biological reductionism, but it's largely a distinction without a difference.") These are defenders of might makes right, of only a small group of select humans have value as people, of nothing can change. Which leads to then why bother trying to improve anything?

I highly enjoyed reading this book. It made me *think*. I especially liked her critique of evolutionary psychology, which due to popular science I'm far more familiar with than Foucault or Schmitt. (To quote Neiman, "Kinship detectors? Seriously?") She concludes that the "woke yearn for progress as much as I do, and many of those who reject the idea of progress get up every morning to work for social change." They are unaware that the rhetorical views they hold and the obscured assumptions behind them are weighing them down. Thus are inevitable disappointments and setbacks turned "into the structure of the universe, creating a symphony of suspicion that forms the background music of contemporary Western culture," instead of a reason to continue working for a better possibility. But as Neiman also says, we've already come a very long way since the Enlightenment proposed that the world could be better and change was possible. Throughout human history, it was common to view torture of criminals as public entertainment, something you'd bring the whole family to for spectacle. "It's a sign of deep and visceral progress that we shudder at the thought of offering live torture to children as a treat." If we can overcome that, think how much more we can change.

See also:
The third chapter, "Justice and Power" touches on themes of cynicism being used to defend the status quo. Neiman looked at that more expansively in Why Grow Up?: Subversive Thoughts for an Infantile Age. My review is here. Fair warning: it's long.

[Marea sdp · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bueno, qué decir, tenía sed y esto ha sido un vaso de agua. Es un ensayo más bien divulgativo (¿?), quiero decir que no tiene mucha profundidad argumental. Pero hay preguntas que lanza, una recuperación de la Ilustración y algunas tesis que me gustan mucho. He disfrutado mucho de su lectura y reflexión.

[Johannes · Rating 5 out of 5]

In dem Buch wird nicht gegen die woke Bewegung gewettert.
Es geht darum wie Diskussionen geführt werden können, um verschiedene Philosophische Standpunkte und was es heutzutage bedeutet, „links“ zu sein.

Den Schreibstil fand ich sehr angenehm, weil verständlich erklärt wurde und Kritik sachlich stattgefunden hat.

[Eavan · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 -- This was awesome. Recommended by a friend of mine, I don't agree with everything Neiman believes (I'm not a socialist nor a communist, and I feel humans are just a bit too flawed at birth for utopias), but her arguments are incredibly lucid and worth reading given the stasis of social, economic, and moral progress we're stuck at now in the United States. Her stances are all consistent and very inspiring, and her takedowns of Foucault were wonderful to read--She put into words my anger at his work and his adherents in much more elegant terms than I ever could. Definitely a read for either those aligned on the left and feel something is missing (like the ability to actually do anything), or those wishing to read a cogent critique of the philosophical underpinnings of the left c. 2020. Anyway, great read and I am interesting in reading more of Neiman!

[Darya · Rating 2 out of 5]

I can’t even begin to describe how angry this book made me.

[Frank Jude · Rating 4 out of 5]

For many years, I was hired by many yoga teacher trainers to teach Indian/Yoga History and Philosophy, but it very early became obvious that most of the students had no experience in thinking philosophically. I was not one to lean into heavy philosophical jargon, but to face adult students of yoga who did not understand, for instance, the difference between “monism” and “dualism” and the implications of believing one or the other, or what was meant by theodicy, or that the most common forms of ethical theory were virtue, deontology, and consequentialism and how that related to Yogic and Buddhist ethics soon made it evident that I had to first teach some of these philosophical concepts before even touching on the differences between Classical Yoga and Vedanta, and what it means to say that Buddhism and Jainism are heterodox schools of thought. Along with this, I found the need to impart some basic critical thinking concepts like the most common informal logical fallacies and the abuse of heuristics that can derail clear thinking. It became clear to me that most people don’t think about what they think they think. They often base their ideas on emotion, and do not follow what their thinking really leads to or is based upon. We all have a metaphysics, but most don’t make it conscious, and as the philosopher Eugene Fontinell often noted, “unconscious metaphysics are dangerous metaphysics.” Julian Baggini and Jeremy Stangroom, in their book, Do You Think What You Think You Think You Think? show that what people say they believe is actually at odds with what they truly believe and that most of us our quite inconsistent in our beliefs and in our thinking about our beliefs.

Susan Neiman understands this. As she begins her “Conclusion”: “This is a philosophical book, though it’s not only meant for philosophers….” She tells us that “I have chosen to focus on ideas. The woke call to decolonize thinking reflects the belief that we will not survive the multiple crises we’ve created unless we change the way we think about them. I agree that we desperately need fundamental changes in thinking, but I’ve urged another direction. For, as I’ve argued, the woke themselves have been colonized by a row of ideologies that properly belong to the right.”

And that is just what I’ve been arguing for several years now. So many of my well-intentioned, liberal friends don’t seem to understand the ideas that undergird the ‘woke’ project and how anti-progressive they in fact are, primarily because they haven’t ever thought about the ideas behind the 'woke project.' And ideas shape the reality we live. As Nieman shows, the same ideas based upon postmodern relativism undergirding the “woke” have been used by the right to create the “post truth” world of “alternative facts” that has led to the extreme polarization we now face in American society.

Now, I know just referring to the “woke” is going to cause a reactivity that includes closed eyes and mind, a refusal to even think about what this book is about. So, Neiman begins this short, eminently readable tract by situating herself as not “liberal” because she lives in a country where “liberal” often means neoliberal libertarianism. She, like me, is a LEFTIST, happy to be called a socialist. What distinguishes liberal from left, she writes, is the view that “along with political rights that guarantee freedoms to speak, worship, travel, and vote as we choose, we also have claims to social rights….” Now, liberal and conservatives in American call these social rights “benefits”, “entitlements”, the “social safety net” or “nanny state.” Such terms make clear these leftist social rights like fair labor practices, free accessible education and health care, and decent affordable housing are more matters of charity than justice. And as Thomas Piketty has argued, it is quite possible to move toward a participatory socialism by changing legal, fiscal, and social systems by doing something as simple as raising tax rates that would still amount to less than the tax rates in the US after World War II that saw our greatest economic growth along with the growth of the middle class. The identity conflicts that now permeate what passes for our political discourse “are fueled by the disillusionment with the very ideas of a just economy and social justice.

So, what’s Nieman’s point? She tells us up front in her “Introduction” that what concerns her most “are the ways in which contemporary voices considered to be leftist have abandoned the philosophical ideas that are central to any left-wing standpoint: a commitment to universalism over tribalism, a firm distinction between justice and power, and a belief in the possibility of progress.” And all there of these fundamental ideas are connected. Neiman speaks for me when she writes that in response to so many on the left who have felt betrayed by what’s called “the woke left, or the far left, or the radical left” she is “unwilling to cede the word ‘left’ or accept the binary suggestion that those who aren’t woke must be reactionary.” Instead, she spends the bulk of her book showing how many of today’s self-identified left have in fact abandoned core ideas any leftist should hold. AND, this project of hers – and why I’ve written this fairly detailed review – is that while the current authoritarianism of the right, with its Christian Nationalism and Fascist tendencies is more dangerous, those who identify as progressives have deprived themselves of the very ideas we need if we hope to resist the growing lurch to the right!

“Woke” is a hotly contested term, and it moved from a pretty positive descriptor and term of praise to a term of abuse and the right in this country took it on as a term of attack against anyone standing against racism! A similar thing happened with the term “identity politics” but her point is that the right alone is not to blame for this inversion. Neither identity nor woke politics was used with the nuance they demanded. They became divisive, creating an alienation that the right than took to advantage. Perhaps the worst example is found in “woke capitalism” which hijacks demands for diversity in order to bolster the bottom line.

Neiman asks, “Can woke be defined? And she responds: "It begins with concern for marginalized persons, and ends by reducing each to the prism of her marginalization. The idea of intersectionality might have emphasized the ways in which all of us have more than one identity. Instead, it led to focus on those parts of identities that are most marginalized, and multiplies them into a forest of trauma.” Woke emphasizes the ways marginalized groups have been denied justice, but by focusing on inequalities of power, the concept of justice is often left behind. And in demanding nations and peoples face up to criminal histories, they often conclude that all history is criminal and deny the real progress that has been made historically.

And confusion among well-meaning liberals arises from the fact that the woke movement expresses traditional left-wing emotional commitments such as empathy for the marginalized and indignation at the plight of the oppressed, but they are derailed by theoretical assumptions coming from postmodernism and critical theory that undermine them. Neiman boils it down to a challenging question: "Which do you find more essential: the accidents we are born with, or the principles we consider and hold? Traditionally it was the right that focused on the first and the left that emphasized the second." But when a US liberal female politician heralds the election of Italy’s first female prime minister as a “break with the past” we have to wonder which past? How can any principled person on the left herald the election of a fascist just because she's a woman, especially given Italy’s past history of fascism?! The theories underlying the woke undermine their empathetic emotions and liberating intentions. And because the history of those theories (ideas) is not well understood by liberals who think woke is progressive they give the woke a pass. Yet, some of the authors of those ideas were outright Nazis! We’re talking Carl Schmitt and Martin Heidegger.

The nationalists of the right recognize no deep connections and few if any obligations to anyone outside their own tribe. Traditional leftism begins with the idea of universalism epitomized by international solidarity. The opposite of universalism is the identitarianism that reduces the myriad factors of any individual’s identity down to gender and race/ethnicity. And yet, any clear-headed assessment will show you that the life of a black person such as Barack Obama is dramatically different compared to the life of a poor black man in Alabama or perhaps more obviously as in the example she uses between the life of a black person in America and in Nigeria (see Chimamanda Ngozi Adiche’s Americanah). And even identifying someone as “Nigerian” only has significance outside the country since Nigeria is a land of peoples divided by more than 500 languages and fraught histories. Nieman asks, “Can you identify someone as gay without mentioning whether he lives in Tehran or Toledo?”

Benjamin Zachariah wrote: “Once upon a time, essentializing people was considered offensive, somewhat stupid, anti-liberal, anti-progressive, but now this is only so when it is done by other people. Self-essentializing and self-stereotyping are not only allowed but considered empowering.” Think of this the next time you hear someone introduce their argument for or against something with the phrase, “Speaking as a……” Also, what is it but essentializing when so-called ‘anti-racists’ like Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X Kendi talk about “white fragility”? It’s offensive, stupid, anti-liberal, and anti-progressive, leading to greater tribalism and divisiveness. She quotes Todd Gitlin’s Letters to a Young Activist: “…identity politics is interest-group politics. It aims to change the distribution of benefits, not the rules under which distribution takes place.” A better example of this than of Kendi’s idea that “the only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination” can hardly be found. Neiman pointedly writes that those who think such woke identitarianism is progressive should perhaps consider that one of the more successful examples of identity politics, “complete with the appeal to past victimhood” is the Jewish nationalism of right-wing politicians like Binyamin Netanyahu. As an aside, she shows how the hypervalorization of victimization ends up preventing real progress, an argument detailed by John McWhorter in Losing the Race: Self Sabotage in Black America.

There is so much of value in this short book of less than 150 pages! Some quite thought-provoking as when she argues against “allyship.” In a discussion of the Black Lives Movement, she says that it started with a universalist character, with a breadth and diversity of those demanding an end to violence against black people. But it soon turned away from such universalism, with the idea that it was a movement on behalf of common ideals explicitly rejected by many of its leaders, who allowed for the participation of “white allies.” Nieman writes: “I am not an ally. Convictions play a minor role in alliances, which is why they are often very short. If my self-interest happens to align with yours, for a moment, we could form an alliance. The United States and the Soviet Union were allies until the Nazi regime was defeated. When the US decided its interests lay in recruiting former Nazis to defeat communism, the Soviet Union turned from ally to enemy.” She notes that it was no alliance, but a commitment to universal justice that led to millions of white people around the world shouting “Black Lives Matter”. To divide members of a movement into allies and others undermines the bases of deep solidarity and destroys what standing left means.”

As an indictment of the poor education most of us receive in the US, when I speak of “Enlightenment Values” such as universalism, I mostly get blank stares and questions about what I mean! Worse still, there are others who cynically reject these values and ideals because we haven’t fully lived up to them. This is a perfect example of the good being an enemy of the perfect, otherwise known as the “Nirvana Fallacy.” And one of the more nonsensical arguments I’ve heard from the so-called woke progressives is that Enlightenment Values are themselves “Eurocentric” and “Colonialist” which is 180-degrees from the truth. Neiman reminds us “The Enlightenment was pathbreaking in rejecting Eurocentrism and for urging Europeans to examine themselves from the perspective of the rest of the world.” Indeed, most often, “the point of examining non-European cultures was to point out the defects of European ones” and this at a time when such ideas could have cost the Enlightenment writers and thinkers of such ideas their lives!

To hear some of the “woke” you’d think Europe invented colonialism, as if stronger nations didn’t colonize weaker ones from time immemorial. We’re talking Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Assyrians, Aztecs, Malians, Mughals etc. Such colonialism was never really even questioned until the Enlightenment! Here is an excerpt from Kant’s criticism of colonialism: “Compare the inhospitable actions of the civilized and especially of the commercial states of our part of the world…. America, the lands inhabited by the Negro, the Spice Islands, the Cape, etc, were at the time of their discovery considered by these civilized intruders as lands without owners, for they counted the inhabitants as nothing…. They oppress the natives… spread famine…and the whole litany of evils which afflict mankind. China and Japan, who have had experience with such guests, have wisely refused them entry.” Kant rarely used the word “evil” but he’s clear here in the evil nature of colonialism.

Diderot was even more fervent in his criticism, arguing that indigenous peoples threatened by European colonizers had every right, reason, and justice on their side if they “simply killed the invaders like the wild beasts those intruders resembled.” Enlightenment thinkers didn’t simply point out the cruelty of colonialism, they deconstructed the thinking of those who justified the theft of indigenous lands and resources (which often tended to be theological). This is why it's so important to address and question the thinking behind policy.

Nieman eviscerates the incoherence of much of the ideas behind the woke. Influenced by postmodernism, those who see themselves as radically progressive reject reason itself as a “white European concept” and yet use reason in their argumentation. How else could you argue a point? Audre Lorde was wrong: sometimes you do indeed need to use the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house and reason is one of those tools we need to do so. Yet, there are those who identify reason as oppression. This may make sense if one’s thinking is too weak and unsubstantiated to defend itself.

In her chapter on “Justice and Power” she critiques the cynicism, nihilism, and incoherence of Foucault. His obsession with everything being a power relationship leads him to assert “peace would then be a form of war, and the state a means of waging it.” Nieman punctures such inanity: “An introductory course in logic could have prevented some confusion. From the fact that some moral claims are hidden claims to power, you cannot conclude that every claim to act for the common good is a lie.”

Foucault was one of the most amoral philosophers to write books. As Nieman writes: “Anyone who denies the moral distinction between innocence and guilt denies the possibility of moral distinctions at all.” See the debate between Foucault and Chomsky from 1971.

Perhaps the biggest irony of the woke “progressives” is how anti-progressive such thinking actually is! She writes about this in her chapter, “Progress and Doom.” Traditionally, there was no bigger distinction between he left and the right than in the idea that progress is possible. It is simply not an idea found in traditional conservative thought which viewed history either as circular or as a devolution from some past golden age! The “better world” can only be thought of as being found in the afterlife. But to stand on the left is to believe that people can work together to make real and significant improvements in the real conditions of their own and others’ lives. Here again, Foucault was as reactionary as any conservative thinker as you can see in the debate with Chomsky.

Nieman gives several examples of real progress that has been made that is ignored or simply discounted by woke leaders by looking at Foucault’s Discipline and Punish, which gives a dramatic example of punishment in the 17th century. She begins by pointing out how Foucault fudges the distinction between normative and descriptive claims, which is common among those who identify as ‘critical thinkers.’ He writes in such a way that he attempts to make his readers feel that judging something as better or worse is intellectually crude. So, while he never claims that bringing back drawing-and-quartering would be better, he does say that the object of 18th century prison reform was not punish less but to punish better. He simply hasn’t a moment’s thought about the real human prisoners who were spared such torture! It is progress that we’ve gone from public torture as entertainment (“Bring the whole family to the Drawing-And-Quartering this afternoon!) to questioning the ethics of any capital punishment. And it is the progressive foundation of Enlightenment values that motivates those of us who are capital punishment abolitionists.

To assert that racism is part of the DNA of America forestalls the hope needed to make real progress but that’s exactly the point of Nikole Hannah-Jone’s 1619 Project! Hope isn’t optimism but it sure isn’t pessimism nor cynicism. And as Kant argued, we cannot act morally – and I would add, progressively – without hope. This is what we see in the difference between Chomsky and Foucault.

Now, of course “woke/progressive” activists seek solidarity, justice, and progress. Nieman shows, however, that “the theories they embrace subvert their own goals. Without universalism there is no argument against racism, merely a bunch of tribes jockeying for power.” And if that is what politics comes to, there’s no way to maintain a robust understanding of justice, without which, we cannot coherently work for progress.

[Guilherme Smee · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tinha começado a ler este livro em inglês, quando, em São Paulo, descobri que a editora Aimé publicou o livro em português. Comprei, apesar de achar o livro caro e com firulas gráficas desnecessárias, inclusive uma borda de página sem respiro e pantone vermelho no texto. Susan Neiman, desde o começo já se coloca contra o movimento woke e parcialmente contra o identitarismo. Às vezes é bom ler pessoas que discordam dos nossos valores para sermos mais parcimoniosos em nossa colocações. Newman como os bons filósofos, também é parcimoniosa, ela não quer comprar brigas. Contudo, eu esperava que o livro criticasse mais porque a esquerda não se envolve tanto com as pautas woke, ou seja, uma crítica também à esquerda e não somente ao wokeísmo, que se considera ser uma pauta da equerda, embora possa ser tão tirânco e fascista algumas vezes como a extrema direita. O livro traz bons insights para quando quisermos combater pessoas radicais que acreditam que a segregação racial, sexual, de gênero é o melhor caminho para resolver suas pautas e problemas.

[Manuel Pinto · Rating 5 out of 5]

“O universalismo está sobre sob fogo na esquerda, porque é confundido com o falso universalismo: a tentativa de impor certas culturas a outras em nome da Humanidade abstrata que acaba por refletir apenas o tempo, o lugar e os interesses de um cultura dominante. Isso acontece diariamente em nome do globalismo corporativo, que procura convencer-nos de que a chave para a felicidade humana é um grande centro comercial global. Mas paremos para pensar na proeza que foi fazer essa abstração original da Humanidade.”

[Rocher · Rating 3 out of 5]

3,5 van de 5 sterren.

Het boek gaat dus niet over woke. Het gebruikt slechts woke als een anekdote om links universalisme te illustreren en onderbouwen. Het is ook niet echt een aanval op woke. Het is een filosofisch boek met als doel om een breder publiek aan te spreken. Staan goede punten in. Ben het niet overal mee eens en heb bij sommige dingen mijn vraagtekens, maar dat is ook een van de dingen die de auteur benoemd: dingen in twijfel mogen trekken.

[Veerle · Rating 3 out of 5]

The title is deceiving, since the book mainly describes the left, with woke being more of an epiphenomenon. However, it was very informative and I enjoyed the different views and opinions!

[Ryan McCarthy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short, sweet, and to the point. Serving as a critique of both Foucaldian leftism and neoliberalism, this is a fairly concise exposition on the legacy of the Enlightenment and why liberalism of the traditional variety doesn't have to be a dirty word.