The Rise of “Woke”: From Postmodernism and Critical Theory To Identity Politics

[@jessemontano762]

Dr. Hivks is the man .. Amazing philosopher

[@zmo1ndone502]

Imo THIS GUY IS THE BEST AT EXPLAINING WOKENESS AND ITS PHILOSOPHICAL TIES SIMPLY, PLAINLY AND WITH NO OUTSTANDING BIAS. PRETTY MUCH ANYONE DOING A PRESENTATION LIKE THIS WOULD LET THEIR PERSONAL FEELONGS AND POLITICS BE KNOWN BUT NOT HIM.

[@LeoRobillard-d4x]

Arigato, Mr. Robato

[@deaddocreallydeaddoc5244]

A most valuable lecture, not to be missed or dismissed. A couple of insertions if I may; historically, Britain banned the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade in 1807. All European nations except Portugal signed on and patrols began then. The U.S. announced its own ban in 1808 and joined in the patrols. MLK was a Christian Socialist and member of the Highland Folk Marxist School. He was responsible for the initiation of many government programs that resulted in the stratification of society into racially identified groups with preferences. His personal life is in total contradiction of his preached principles. If we judged him on the actual revealed content of his character, which was deviancy at such a staggering level, some reluctance to KowTow to him would have helped prevent the rise of CRT. Delgato, Horkheimer, Adorno, Eric Fromm, and Marcuse were all members of the neo-Marxist Frankfurt School and fled Germany. Marcuse served in the OSS during WW2. As a reward, the U.S. government allowed him tenure at Columbia University. At the time of his retirement, he had been teaching at UC San Diego and lecturing everywhere for decades. Marcuse wrote the most-read books of the time "Eros and Civilization," and "One Dimensional Man," and was regarded as "The Father of the New Left." Also, feminism was always a revolutionary movement related to French Revolution Communism.

[@samfisher1964]

thank you very much for sharing your knowledge

[@JadyGrudd]

At root, "woke" is a construct corresponding to Marx's "awakening to class conciousness."

[@dennissilber287]

@@JadyGruddAt root “woke” is a construct derived from a decades old black expression that refers to being aware of all that is going on around you.

[@johnbrown4568]

Thx for posting this important presentation by Dr. Hicks.

[@johnbrown4568]

Thank you for posting this outstanding presentation by Dr. Hicks.

[@moseybear]

Thank you Prof Hicks ... one of the most influential persons ("mentor") in my post graduate development in behavioral science. I am trying to get you an audience with independent POTUS candidate V.A. Shiva Ph.D. (M.I.T.) because he could benefit from your experience and knowledge.

[@mohammadmansournejad]

Amazing presentation. Thank you professor Hicks.

[@DrTWG]

Enjoyed this and consolidated my knowledge . I hate the way they reject science/reason but are so privileged by what that kind of thinking has produced . I see them as children playing silly games BUT - unfortunately this rot has insinuated itself so deeply into academia and now , in turn , our institutions . The metastases will continue to seed and grow . What can we do ?

[@thunkjunk]

I feel Enlightened!

[@peterpedersen3988]

42:58 A most amazing offer, I really would've loved to take him up on that offer! And, by the way, I've had encounters with speakers who not only didn't make that offer, but fled from others (or most likely: me), whenever people were trying to speak to them afterwards. So I appreciate this tremendiously.

[@zmo1ndone502]

I love James Lindsay but he OVERLY INTELLECTUALIZES A LOT WHICH I ENJOY but if You truly want to learn about wokeness and critical theory in a timely manner listen to Hicks. He hits all the key points like a pro

[@michaelmarkunas]

Another well done presentation. Powerful charts as well.

[@robleahy5759]

I enjoy your style of speaking!

[@moseybear]

Having a serious "battle" within the behavioral science community (professional) by introducing the topic of "Postmodernism" and how it relates to behavioral pathologies. Why is this, you may ask? Simple put, there is no "diagnosis" criteria for Postmodernist bias in behavioral science. You can't "bill" for Postmodernism, yet it is IMHO the #1 factor in predicting behavioral pathologies. I can predict with much certainty a person's behavioral pathology (based upon dx criteria) by "scoring" a person's "Postmodern bias". This includes, but not limited to, narcissism (and its various subclassifications), BPD (borderline personality disorder) and depression to name just a few. The clinical community is keen to "shut down" any discussion of this topic. Sad.

[@tjp45]

I study irregular, unconventional, guerilla war whatever you'd like to call it and funny you compare it to post-modernism because guerilla warfare statistically is almost never successful in achieving its goals.

[@zmo1ndone502]

Bro is Woke about Woke.

[@twoinchtape]

dumbshit comment

[@mystrength5640]

Would be interesting to hear his views, On Professor Rosaria Butterfield’s books, and her views on Feminism!

[@pillpollen3154]

Very important video

[@timstevens3361]

good lecture modernism is from dark ages until say 1970s n a kind of cultural mitosis since then. continue 2nd part plz. i read some rand im 3/4 in her camp i guess . she has kooky quirky bits tho. read atlas n fountainhead n objectivism.

[@hamedmoradi5291]

Woke to postmodernism is like religion to theology.

[@jeffreyscott4997]

It has been said that Christianity is "Platonism for the masses". It would seem that Wokeness is "Postmodernism for the masses".

[@notloki3377]

imagine thinking that liberalism isn't equally based in faith.

[@jeffreyscott4997]

@@notloki3377 You would have to imagine it is.

[@notloki3377]

@@jeffreyscott4997 ok... let me rephrase my point. liberalism is equally based in faith. don't believe me? find me an emperical example of a human right in nature. it's something you have to believe in.

[@Ninonabc]

To the point in a few words,

[@holycommunists9159]

The characterization of the Critical Theory camp (The Frankfurt School) is extremely loose.... They CONSTANTLY extoll the value of reason and rationality in their work, they just see it's modern conception as a farce of reason (or, more accurately, a fetish). The intellectual background of the figures mentioned is also quite loosely suggested. Sure, Marcuse studied under Heidegger but distanced himself pretty clearly and worked extensively to unify the larger scale critiques of Marx with the more individual conception of the unconscious from Freud. The project, also, was to revise many crucial premises which had not manifested in terms of Marx's historically contingent vision. The nature of society had changed, thus the Marxian theory (itself meant to be a contexted one, historically and materially contingent) was taken on in some ways, but they were by no means orthodox marxists. Just seems a bit broad of a brush to paint with saying that they simply disputed whether it was to be parts of Kantian epistemology and Marx, or maybe a dash of Hegel, here and there. Also, how is the German philosophy from around WWII (which for much of its life published in German even while located in America) especially relevant to the postmodern (or more appropriately the post-structuralist) developments in France? Is it that they both had influence in American universities? They don't seem to share a whole lot else except being labeled as marxist. A history of ideas on this seems pretty crucial to the argument but it's glossed here and in other discussions on postmodernism. And, finally, what about the influence of British Cultural Studies? Is it postmodern? Is it modern? Is it irrelevant? This is just a surface level set of questions about this account. British Cultural studies is pretty crucial and influential now, no? And, finally, the work of many non-marxist or non-postmodern thinkers (say, Reinhart Kosseleck, a historian from Germany) have argued that the Enlightenment (not just the material conditions it led to, but it's conceptual/philosophical conception of itself) is directly related to modern events (WWI and WWII, Fascism, Marxism, Soviet Marxism, the cold war). Is this unreasonable to suggest given how history actually went? Even a progressive account of history where everything is on a positive, liberating trajectory that always improves because we constantly improve would have to deal with the problems we've all inherited around the whole world (not just parts of it where we live in a relatively comfortable middle-class simulation) and should take those problems into account. Not sure anyone defending enlightenment values would feel okay glossing such immense moral quandaries we've seen emerge in our lives today. Interesting listen, but many more questions than answers.

[@RichardEnglander]

My question to prof Hicks: you described the journey of high academic Critical Theory which comes from a Marxist often Hegelian background into policies in law schools and in policing academy's, in schools and government policies, in journalism etc etc. Many would call all this 'Identity Marxism' or 'Cultural Marxism', they would speak of The Long March Through the Institutions and say that it worked, the evidence is clear that the 'seized the means of cultural production' and thus onwards. Since we all know that this happened, but when I look at Wikipedia it calls this a 'Far-Right antisemitic conspiracy theory' then is that not proof that the conspiracy is true and Wikipedia is captured too? *Insert Donald Sutherland body snatchers pointing meme*

[@StephenHicksPhilosopher]

Yes, that's not a good look for Wikipedia, which is often an excellent resource but also often captured by activists of various sorts. // As for the dismissive epithet, the Critical Theory > Cultural Marxism > Long March is hardly a 'conspiracy,' as a conspiracy is something done secretly while the theorists and activists (Horkheimer, Marcuse, etc.) state their intentions publicly and repeatedly. Also, basically everybody from all parts of the political spectrum (except the far, far Left who are playing a rhetorical power game) acknowledge the theory and practice for what it is.

[@deaddocreallydeaddoc5244]

It would be interesting to insert the role that religion, i.e. Christianity has played in this dynamic. They have been even more anti-science and retrogressive in effect since at least the 5th century, only grudgingly giving ground. Its role in opposing The Enlightenment is important, especially in U.S. History at least in creating a polarization that rejects all reference to Humanism and religious neutrality in political life, contrary to the intent of the U.S. Constitution and the Founders. The importance of the Beecher Family and the rise of the Republican Party in the 1850s as a pro-industrialist/tariff party in the 19th century cannot be ignored, as they fomented the American Civil War.

[@TheFourlom]

Christianity is certainly not "anti-science" (but certainly "anti-scientism," as C. S. Lewis pointed out). "Science" means knowledge (and the German "wissenschaft" still retains that original, more accurate meaning) which can be acquired by various means: senses, intuition, logic, etc. This "science vs. religion" motif has been throughly discredited in academic discourse. See the work of Ronald Numbers, David Lindberg, James Hannam, not to mention Stephen Gaukroger's exceptional 5-volume series on "Science and the Shaping of Modernity."

[@centerfield6339]

Loads of scientists way back when were Christians. Why do you say Christianity was anti-science?

[@bleubergeronpoulin]

6:42 : There may be more people with access to more than 1.9 international dollars than in 1820 - this is indeed the capitalist logic at work, which creates ever more wealth (an admittedly aporetic logic, given that the planet has its own limits) - but this fact does not prevent an immense disparity between those who earn just a little more than 1.9 international dollars and those who earn several billion of this very currency. A large proportion of the world's population may well earn a little more than before but still remain in a situation of subservience to the system. If 95% of the world's population earned between 1.9 and 5 international dollars - in principle this would exclude them from extreme poverty - but they would nevertheless remain a powerless population in the face of the remaining 1% who possess billions. That being said, the proportions are real: the richest 1% accumulate more wealth than 95% of the poorest combined, according to Oxfam reports. *The problem isn't that more and more people are getting almost nothing, the problem is that fewer and fewer people are getting almost everything.* And historically, it's the gap between the very rich and the very poor masses (although perhaps not in extreme poverty...) that writes history, and a very wide gap between the rulers and their subjects is never a sign of an egalitarian system. As a general rule, this is known as absolute totalitarianism, dictatorship and oligarchy.

[@StephenHicksPhilosopher]

Neither of your "problems" is a problem, Bleu. 1. The planet has more resources and unlimited potential resources. 2. The poor are getting richer too.

[@bleubergeronpoulin]

​@@StephenHicksPhilosopher First of all, nothing is unlimited, including the planet. The limits are becoming increasingly evident: forests are burning, heat records are being set year after year, biodiversity is disappearing, and so on. You can choose to deny it, but that's a separate issue for now. Secondly, people having access to 1.9 Int$ doesn't mean much if fewer and fewer people are controlling more and more of the world's resources. It's an oversimplification to just say 'the poor are getting richer.' Yes, over the past century, many countries-like China, India, South Korea, Singapore, Vietnam, the UAE, Brazil, among others-have invested massively in various industries, and as a result, more people now have access to a bit more capital. But merely stating that is meaningless. It's like saying more people are winning in a casino because more people are playing. That might be technically true, but if we don't examine how much more money the casino is making off these people, the point is meaningless and intellectually lazy. The casino simply gains more and more power, while a slightly larger number of people win slightly more than before. As I mentioned earlier (and you wouldn't have needed to repeat yourself rhetorically if you'd carefully read my comment), the issue isn't about having access to a little bit more of almost nothing. The problem is that a small number of people have access to almost everything.

[@stephenhicks677]

@@bleubergeronpoulin: I recommend that you read Julian Simon's *The Ultimate Resource*. Your doom-and-gloom premises have been around for centuries, despite their predictions being constantly falsified. So maybe getting inside the framework of the cautious optimists, at least as a metal exercise to challenge yourself.

[@bleubergeronpoulin]

​@@stephenhicks677 Yes, I read it, and frankly, his thesis makes no sense. It’s likely one of the worst analyses of capitalism I've encountered. For starters, it's largely unscientific, as it disregards the second law of thermodynamics-entropy. Nothing, whether in chemistry or economics, generates or sustains energy on its own, including extractivist capitalism. And yes, humanity has always been concerned about ecological disasters caused by its activities because they've consistently occurred! While we've found some ways to mitigate the damage, we continue on a path of destruction-which is unethical for our home, the Earth. If I may, I suggest you read Karl Marx's Capital (in four volumes).

[@stephenhicks677]

@@bleubergeronpoulin: Sigh.

[@patod4]

Anyone else feels distracted by the sponsors' loud background?.....It does not give a good impression, to the contrary, greedy.Dr. Hicks should be filmed against a neutral background, putting all those huge Gs to one side.

[@dennissilber287]

Ayn Rand and Objectivism, I assume are the origin of “Galt’s Gultch” which references a place and the character, John Galt, a character of mystery, in Rand’s polemic novel Atlas Shrugged. Rand was a writer and philosopher who has no major advocacy in mainstream academic philosophy. Rand inspired organizations need all the promotion they can get. It appears Hicks has some sympathies for Rand (Rand Paul’s namesake) and Objectivism and is giving this talk to what appears to be a group of Rand followers The Atlas Society. Galt’s Gultch appears to be an even they sponsor. Hence the promotional back drop.

[@RichardEnglander]

20:30 just think, Homo Sapiens sapiens split and left Africa over 100,000 years ago, it is a third of the Homo Sapiens species time here.

[@dennissilber287]

In case you haven’t noticed Homo sapiens never “split and left Africa”. There are still some Homo sapiens to be found in Africa.

[@SifisoDludla-m3o]

In 2024 we still have whose thinking is bounded into American mentality. This was a very bad presentation.

[@dennissilber287]

It’s an attempt by Hicks to define post modernism negatively to a post modernist naive audience. It’s much like how oppressing politicians try to define each other negatively to the voters. The Atlas Society appears to be an Ayn Rand and Objectivist promoting group. The post modernism group of philosophers have enjoyed significant attention in academic philosophy, unlike Rand and Objectivism. Look up Ayn Rand in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to read why that is.

[@DemetriosKongas]

Post-modernism and post-structuralism have nothing to do with Marxism. Actually , they have criticized Marxism relentlessly. Marxism is a child of enlightenment, too. Besides, much of the progress mentioned has been the result of protracted struggle in which, in much of the 20th century, Marxists played a prominent role.

[@dennissilber287]

Hicks is attempting to define post modern philosophy before anyone in his audience manages to go and find out about it from a source that is less hostile towards or biased against it. It’s pretty dense stuff so he really doesn’t have much to worry about. Jordan Peterson rales against post modernism too and also links it to Marxist and left wing ideologies. Post modernism has had far more traction in academia than Ayn Rand, the apparent focus of the Atlas Society, ever had. It’s no wonder Hicks’s post modernism bashing predilections gained him a willing audience here and many praise filled posts.

[@notloki3377]

i know dr. hicks knows better than to make an appeal to "progress." also, reason and democracy make for comical allies.

[@dennissilber287]

If so then why does he?

[@notloki3377]

@@dennissilber287 it was a rhetorical lament. he ought to know better, but he clearly doesn't and that's disappointing.

[@PilgrimMission]

As usual Dr Hicks gives no credit to the Christian faith. This weakens his arguments.

[@williammiles459]

Well, it’s true, but he’s not a Christian apologist. What I wish he would have talked about is the two types of slavery: ancient, which had little to do ethnicity. And more recent, ethnic slavery. The latter is blamed on European Christianity, the former had it’s genesis in regional conflict.

[@claudiapost-schultzke7216]

wrong facts are facts

[@dennissilber287]

Hicks is giving his talk to an event sponsored by the Atlas Society called Galt’s Gulch Conference which is named after a place based on the character John Galt in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged. The Atlas Society focuses on the writer and philosopher Ayn Rand and her ideas. Rand was a hard core atheist and it may be assumed her followers are too. Rand was concerned with the notion of objective reality and what she believed as man’s inherent rational nature. Clearly there’s no role there for the Christian faith. Speaking of which your statement is just one more example of the shear arrogance of Christianity and Christians who believe their faith supplants any and everything that non Christians think or believe. You have the unmitigated gall to suggest that any presentation or argument that doesn’t include or consider what you believe is somehow diminished or “weakened”. Christianity is the antithesis of humility historically as well as contemporarily.

[@djrychlak4443]

This guy is a pinhead.

[@StudSupreme]

9:00 - not sure I agree with the chart. What about the Greeks and Romans?

[@dennissilber287]

I think Hicks is focusing on early modern era philosophies to give post modernism a context.