You are currently browsing the monthly archive for June 2025.
This checklist arms readers to dissect vague “woke” claims with evidence and reason, countering the polysemic manipulation of terms like DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion), diversity, inclusion, safe spaces, and kindness. It refines my critique of Philosophy Professor Letitia Meynell’s essay, “How to talk about political correctness and wokeness without falling into a trap” (https://theconversation.com/how-to-talk-about-political-correctness-and-wokeness-without-falling-into-a-trap-227412), which advocates dialogue but overlooks “woke” rhetoric’s deliberate ambiguity. Similar oversights appear in works like Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility, which assume systemic harm without proof. By exposing the Motte and Bailey strategy—illustrated with dual examples—and proposing an evidence-based alternative to the Marxist oppressor/oppressed lens, this checklist ensures rigorous, unifying discourse. Each criterion includes diverse references and, where relevant, Meynell’s quotes for standalone clarity.
1. Definitional Clarity: Is the Term or Claim Clearly Defined?
- Rationale: “Woke” terms exploit polysemy, shifting meanings to evade scrutiny. Meynell writes, “Typically, ‘wokeness’ and ‘woke ideology’ are terms of abuse, used against a variety of practices that, despite their diversity, have a similar character.” Her vagueness allows “woke” to glide between empathy and coercion, a common tactic.
- Evaluation Questions:
- Does the claim define terms (e.g., “diversity,” “safe space”) explicitly in context?
- Is the term’s usage consistent, or does it shift between benign and prescriptive senses?
- Can the proponent articulate boundaries (e.g., what constitutes “inclusion”)?
- Action: Demand a concrete definition and test its consistency. If meanings shift, flag the ambiguity as a rhetorical dodge.
- References:
- Haidt, J., & Twenge, J. (2021). The Coddling of the American Mind. Penguin Books. (Critiques vague “safety” rhetoric.)
- McWhorter, J. (2021). Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America. Portfolio. (Analyzes DEI polysemy.)
2. Evidence of Harm: Is the Claimed Harm Substantiated?
- Rationale: Meynell asserts, “The practice implicitly endorses or maintains unjust or otherwise pernicious attitudes about the group that facilitate discrimination and various other harms against them.” She assumes systemic harm without evidence, a frequent “woke” flaw. Authentic claims require data, not anecdotes.
- Evaluation Questions:
- Is there data (e.g., studies, statistics) linking the practice to measurable harm (e.g., disparities)?
- Does the claim rely on subjective offense or unproven systemic bias?
- Are alternative explanations (e.g., socioeconomic factors) considered?
- Action: Require quantitative or qualitative evidence. If absent, challenge the claim’s validity.
- References:
- Oswald, F. L., et al. (2013). Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: A meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(2), 171–192. (Questions implicit bias impact.)
- Sunstein, C. R. (2019). Conformity: The Power of Social Influences. NYU Press. (Examines weak links between norms and harm.)
3. Contextual Appropriateness: Is the Intervention Proportionate?
- Rationale: Meynell’s example—calling out an antisemitic slur—is clear, but many interventions overreach. She writes, “Real effort is required to learn to see injustices that are embedded in our ordinary language and everyday practices.” Context matters; blanket prescriptions stifle discourse.
- Evaluation Questions:
- Does the intervention match the harm’s severity (e.g., education vs. punishment)?
- Is the practice’s context (e.g., intent, norms) considered?
- Does the intervention risk chilling free expression?
- Action: Assess proportionality. Propose context-sensitive alternatives.
- References:
- Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2018). The Coddling of the American Mind. Penguin Books. (Critiques overprotective policies.)
- Volokh, E. (2021). The First Amendment and Cancel Culture. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 44(3), 689–702. (Analyzes speech restrictions.)
4. Reciprocity in Dialogue: Does the Proponent Engage Critically?
- Rationale: Meynell urges critics to “make a sincere attempt to understand the woke intervenor’s perspective,” but spares advocates scrutiny. Dialogue requires both sides to justify claims, not dismiss dissent as “nasty.”
- Evaluation Questions:
- Does the proponent provide evidence or rely on moral assertions?
- Are they open to counterarguments or label dissenters ignorant?
- Do they acknowledge opposing views’ validity?
- Action: Pose evidence-based challenges. Note deflections as non-reciprocal.
- References:
- Rauch, J. (2021). The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth. Brookings Institution Press. (Advocates open discourse.)
- Murray, D. (2022). The War on the West. HarperCollins. (Critiques one-sided moralizing.)
5. Motte and Bailey Detection: Is the Claim Defensible or Overreaching?
- Rationale: The Motte and Bailey strategy defends innocuous ideals (motte) to justify contentious policies (bailey). For example, in 2020, “inclusion” (motte) defended deplatforming speakers (bailey) at universities, deflecting censorship concerns by retreating to “protecting marginalized groups.” Similarly, “kindness” (motte) justifies speech codes (bailey), dodging free speech critiques.
- Evaluation Questions:
- Does the claim pivot from a benign principle (e.g., “kindness”) to a prescriptive mandate (e.g., speech restrictions)?
- Is the motte (empathy, fairness) separable from the bailey (coercion)?
- Can the proponent defend the bailey without retreating to the motte?
- Action: Identify motte and bailey. Challenge the bailey’s logic and evidence.
- References:
- Shackel, N. (2005). The Vacuity of Postmodernist Methodology. Metaphilosophy, 36(3), 295–320. (Defines Motte and Bailey.)
- Pluckrose, H., & Lindsay, J. (2020). Cynical Theories. Pitchstone Publishing. (Analyzes “woke” rhetoric.)
6. Impact on Unity: Does the Claim Foster Cohesion or Division?
- Rationale: Meynell’s vision of “a more just and peaceful society” ignores how “woke” claims vilify dissenters, fracturing communities. Prioritizing group identities (e.g., via DEI quotas) over individual merit exacerbates division. A 2021 Cato Institute survey found 66% of Americans fear expressing views due to social repercussions.
- Evaluation Questions:
- Does the claim promote mutual understanding or alienate groups?
- Are dissenters labeled harmful without evidence?
- Does the intervention prioritize ideology over common ground?
- Action: Evaluate social impact. Propose alternatives emphasizing shared values.
- References:
- Cato Institute. (2021). National Survey: Americans’ Free Speech Concerns. cato.org. (Quantifies social fear.)
- Twenge, J. M. (2023). Generations: The Real Differences Between Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, Boomers, and Silents. Atria Books. (Discusses polarization.)
7. Alternative Truth-Seeking Framework: Is the Claim Grounded in Objective Reality?
- Rationale: “Woke” claims often use a Marxist oppressor/oppressed lens, framing issues as power struggles without evidence. An alternative prioritizes objective reality via falsifiable data and universal principles (e.g., merit). For example, to evaluate gender pay gaps, regression analysis of education, experience, and hours worked can reveal causes beyond systemic sexism.
- Evaluation Questions:
- Does the claim rely on a binary oppressor/oppressed model or multifactorial causes?
- Are truth claims supported by falsifiable data (e.g., statistical analyses)?
- Does the framework allow universal principles over group narratives?
- Action: Challenge unempirical claims. Propose analyses rooted in objective metrics.
- References:
- Sowell, T. (2020). Charter Schools and Their Enemies. Basic Books. (Challenges systemic racism narratives with data.)
- Popper, K. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge. (Advocates falsifiability.)
8. Application to Key “Woke” Domains
- DEI:
- Check polysemy: Does “equity” mean equal opportunity or outcomes? Demand data on outcomes (e.g., hiring gaps).
- References: McWhorter (2021); Sowell (2020).
- Safe Spaces:
- Assess if “safety” means physical protection or ideological conformity. Challenge speech-limiting policies.
- References: Lukianoff & Haidt (2018); Volokh (2021).
- Kindness:
- Distinguish empathy from performative mandates. Question “kindness” that suppresses critique.
- References: Pluckrose & Lindsay (2020); Rauch (2021).
Summary Table: Key Criteria for Evaluating “Woke” Claims
| Criterion | Core Question |
|---|---|
| Definitional Clarity | Is the term (e.g., “diversity”) clearly defined and consistent? |
| Evidence of Harm | Is the claimed harm backed by data, not just anecdotes? |
| Contextual Appropriateness | Is the intervention proportionate to the issue’s context? |
| Reciprocity in Dialogue | Does the proponent engage critically with counterarguments? |
| Motte and Bailey Detection | Does the claim shift from benign ideals to contentious policies? |
| Impact on Unity | Does the claim foster cohesion or alienate groups? |
| Truth-Seeking Framework | Is the claim grounded in falsifiable data and objective reality? |
Conclusion
This checklist dismantles “woke” polysemy by demanding clarity, evidence, and reciprocity. It exposes the Motte and Bailey trap and counters Meynell’s oversight in assuming systemic harm, a flaw echoed in broader “woke” apologetics. By grounding discourse in objective reality over Marxist binaries, it fosters a just, unified society. Clarity is the antidote to ideological overreach.
Bibliography
Below is a bibliography for the references cited in the “Checklist for Evaluating ‘Woke’ Claims,” formatted in APA style with URLs where available.
- Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2013). Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People. Delacorte Press.
- Cato Institute. (2021). National Survey: Americans’ Free Speech Concerns. Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/publications/survey-reports/national-survey-americans-free-speech-concerns
- Haidt, J., & Twenge, J. (2021). The Coddling of the American Mind. Penguin Books. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/562756/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind-by-greg-lukianoff-and-jonathan-haidt/
- Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2018). The Coddling of the American Mind. Penguin Books. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/562756/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind-by-greg-lukianoff-and-jonathan-haidt/
- McWhorter, J. (2021). Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America. Portfolio. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/670138/woke-racism-by-john-mcwhorter/
- Murray, D. (2022). The War on the West. HarperCollins. https://www.harpercollins.com/products/the-war-on-the-west-douglas-murray
- Oswald, F. L., Mitchell, G., Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., & Tetlock, P. E. (2013). Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: A meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(2), 171–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032734
- Pluckrose, H., & Lindsay, J. (2020). Cynical Theories. Pitchstone Publishing. https://www.pitchstonepublishing.com/shop/cynical-theories
- Popper, K. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/The-Logic-of-Scientific-Discovery/Popper/p/book/9780415278447
- Rauch, J. (2021). The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth. Brookings Institution Press. https://www.brookings.edu/book/the-constitution-of-knowledge/
- Shackel, N. (2005). The vacuity of postmodernist methodology. Metaphilosophy, 36(3), 295–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2005.00380.x
- Sowell, T. (2020). Charter Schools and Their Enemies. Basic Books. https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/thomas-sowell/charter-schools-and-their-enemies/9781541675131/
- Sunstein, C. R. (2019). Conformity: The Power of Social Influences. NYU Press. https://nyupress.org/9781479867837/conformity/
- Twenge, J. M. (2023). Generations: The Real Differences Between Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, Boomers, and Silents. Atria Books. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Generations/Jean-M-Twenge/9781982181611
- Volokh, E. (2021). The First Amendment and cancel culture. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 44(3), 689–702. https://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2021/09/Volokh-Final.pdf
In recent years, we’ve seen protests that aren’t just peaceful marches but also aren’t as extreme as riots or wars. These actions are often called “mid-level violence.” Groups like activists and Antifa—a loosely organized movement against fascism—use them to fight what they see as unfair systems or dangerous ideas. This primer will explain what mid-level violence is, how it works, and why it can be both helpful and tricky.
What Is Mid-Level Violence and How Is It Used?
Mid-level violence is more intense than peaceful protests but less destructive than full-scale chaos. Think of actions like breaking windows, clashing with opponents in the street, or disrupting events. These groups use it to show they’re serious about their cause, whether it’s stopping oppression or challenging authority.
To make it work, they use specific tactics:
- Black umbrellas: Protesters hold these up to hide their faces from cameras, so police can’t easily identify them.
- Noisemakers: Loud horns or drums create confusion, overwhelming police or opponents.
- Filming confrontations: They record everything with their phones, especially if police or others react in a way that looks bad, to share their side of the story.
These tools help them push their message and protect themselves while doing it.
Why Does It Work Best With a Low-Information Audience?
These tactics are most effective when people don’t know the full story. Imagine you see a short video online of police pushing protesters. It might make you think the police are wrong—unless you saw what happened earlier, like protesters throwing things. This is called a “low-information audience”—people who only get a small piece of the puzzle.
Social media makes this even stronger. Videos spread fast, and people react before digging deeper. A clip that looks dramatic can get tons of attention, shaping opinions without showing the whole picture.
What Are the Risks?
While mid-level violence can grab attention and rally support, it has downsides. It can scare off people who aren’t sure where they stand—sometimes called “moderates.” If all they see is chaos, they might turn away from the cause. It can also make society more divided, as groups stop talking and start fighting instead. So, while it’s a powerful tool, it can backfire and make things harder to fix.
Why Understanding This Matters
Knowing how mid-level violence works helps us make sense of today’s protests. It reminds us to look past quick videos and find the full story. By doing that, we can figure out what’s really going on and work toward solutions that bring people together, not push them apart.
As a parent, you want your child’s education to focus on facts, skills, and values that prepare them for life. But in some classrooms, teachers are introducing queer theory—a radical ideology that challenges traditional norms about gender, sexuality, and society. This guide will help you understand what’s happening, why it’s a problem, and how you can take action to protect your child.
What Is the “Motte and Bailey” Tactic?
Imagine a castle with a strong, defensible tower (the “motte”) and a large, less defensible courtyard (the “bailey”). The motte and bailey tactic is a trick where someone makes a bold, controversial claim (the bailey) but, when challenged, retreats to a safer, less controversial claim (the motte). In education, this looks like:
- The Bailey (bold claim): Teachers say they’re “queering the curriculum” to challenge norms and promote radical ideas about gender and sexuality.
- The Motte (safe claim): When parents object, teachers retreat to saying they’re just being “inclusive” or “teaching diversity.”
This tactic makes it hard to argue against without seeming like you’re against inclusion. But inclusion and queerness are not the same thing, and it’s important to know the difference.
Key Terms You Need to Know
- Inclusivity: Making sure all students feel welcome and respected, regardless of their background (e.g., race, religion, disability). True inclusivity is about kindness and fairness, not ideology.
- Queer: Originally a slur, this term has been reclaimed by some to describe non-traditional sexual orientations or gender identities. In education, it often means challenging or rejecting societal norms.
- Queering the Curriculum: This means adding queer theory to lessons. Queer theory isn’t just about acceptance—it’s about questioning and destabilizing what’s considered “normal” (e.g., traditional family structures, biological sex). In elementary schools, this can confuse young children who need clear, factual learning.
Coercive and Deceptive Tactics Used in Schools
Some teachers push queer theory while dismissing parents’ concerns. Here are the main tactics they use:
- Hiding Behind “Inclusivity”: Teachers claim they’re just being inclusive, but they’re actually promoting queer ideology. For example, they might say they’re “teaching inclusively” to make it sound harmless, even though they’re introducing complex ideas about gender and sexuality.
- Using Critical Theory: Teachers use methods like critical literacy, which encourages students to question power and norms. This might sound educational, but it’s often a way to push activism instead of facts—too advanced and ideological for young kids.
- Ignoring Parents: When parents object, teachers might offer small compromises (like letting a child skip a lesson) but won’t change the overall curriculum. They dismiss concerns as unimportant or unreasonable.
- Leveraging Policy: Teachers use school rules or laws to defend their actions, even if parents disagree. This makes parents feel like they have no say.
These tactics are coercive because they force queer ideology into classrooms while sidelining parents. They’re deceptive because they hide behind feel-good words like “inclusivity” to avoid real discussion.
Why This Is a Problem
- It’s Not Age-Appropriate: Elementary students need to focus on basics like reading and math, not complex ideas about gender and sexuality.
- It Undermines Parental Authority: Parents should have a say in what their kids learn. Ignoring you breaks that trust.
- It Confuses Children: Challenging basic truths (like boys and girls) can unsettle young kids who need stability.
- It’s Activism, Not Education: Schools should teach facts, not push political ideas.
What Parents Can Do to Stop It
You have the power to protect your child’s education. Here’s how:
- Educate Yourself:
- Learn what queer theory is and how it’s used in schools. Look up articles or videos online.
- Ask for your school’s curriculum details—lesson plans, books, anything they’re teaching.
- Talk to Teachers:
- Ask clear questions: “What are you teaching about gender or sexuality? Why is this in the curriculum?”
- Stay calm but firm: “I’m all for kindness, but I’m worried about ideology in the classroom.”
- Engage with School Boards:
- Go to meetings and speak up. Bring examples of what’s being taught.
- Suggest focusing on core skills instead of controversial topics.
- Form Parent Groups:
- Team up with other parents who feel the same way.
- Share info and plan together—maybe write a group letter to the school.
- Monitor What Your Child Learns:
- Talk to your kid about their day. Check their homework or classwork.
- If something seems off, write it down and raise it with the teacher.
- Use Legal Resources:
- If the school won’t listen, talk to a lawyer who knows education law.
- Look up your state’s rules on parental rights.
- Advocate for Policy Changes:
- Push for rules that let parents approve or get notified about sensitive topics.
- Back school board members who care about parents’ voices.
- Consider Alternatives:
- If the school won’t budge, look into private schools or homeschooling.
- Find options that match your values and focus on real learning.
Final Thoughts
You’re your child’s best defender. Don’t let schools brush you off or confuse you with buzzwords. Demand clear answers and a focus on age-appropriate, fact-based education. By staying informed and active, you can keep your child’s classroom a place for learning—not ideology.
Key Points(TL;DR)
- The pride movement of the 1970s and 1980s focused on securing legal and social acceptance for lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals, achieving significant milestones like same-sex marriage legalization.
- With gay marriage widely accepted in the West, the original goals of the pride movement were largely fulfilled, suggesting a natural conclusion to its initial mission.
- The rise of queer theory and postmodern ideologies in the 1990s shifted the movement’s focus toward challenging all societal norms, diverging from its original aim of integration.
- Some critics argue that this shift, influenced by concepts like David Halperin’s “queer as an identity without essence,” has led to public behaviors that challenge traditional norms of decency.
- While personal freedom is valued, there is debate over whether certain expressions should be limited in public and professional spaces, reflecting tensions between individual rights and societal expectations.
Introduction to the Original Pride Movement
The pride movement, which gained momentum in the 1970s and 1980s, was a transformative force in advocating for the rights and acceptance of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals in Western societies. Sparked by the 1969 Stonewall Riots, the movement crystallized with the first gay pride parade in 1970, known as the Christopher Street Liberation Day. This period saw significant achievements, such as the election of openly gay officials like Kathy Kozachenko and Harvey Milk, and the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness. The movement’s central aim was to secure legal recognition and social acceptance, with a particular focus on achieving same-sex marriage rights, a goal realized in many Western nations by the 2000s, notably with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges (History of Gay Rights).
Achievement of Core Goals
The legalization of same-sex marriage marked a pivotal victory for the LGB community, fulfilling a core objective of the original pride movement. By 2015, when the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, many legal and social barriers that once marginalized LGB individuals had been dismantled. This milestone suggested that the movement had largely achieved its aim of integrating LGB individuals into societal frameworks, allowing them to live openly without systemic discrimination. However, rather than marking a point of closure, this success coincided with a significant ideological shift within the movement, redirecting its focus from acceptance to broader, more radical objectives.
Ideological Shift and Queer Theory
In the 1990s, the emergence of queer theory and postmodern ideologies reshaped the pride movement’s trajectory. Unlike the earlier focus on securing specific rights for LGB individuals, queer theory, as articulated by scholars like David M. Halperin, emphasizes the fluidity of identities and challenges all forms of normativity, including societal structures beyond sexuality. This perspective views “queer” not as a fixed identity but as a positionality that opposes dominant norms, fundamentally altering the movement’s goals from integration to deconstruction of societal frameworks (Queer Theory). Critics argue this shift has led to a movement that prioritizes subversion over acceptance, creating tension with the original pride ethos.
Queer as an Identity Without Essence
David Halperin’s concept of “queer” as an “identity without an essence” encapsulates this new direction, defining “queer” as “whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant” (Saint Foucault). This framework has broadened the pride movement to include expressions that challenge traditional norms, such as public nudity or other behaviors some view as extreme. Critics contend that these displays, often seen at modern pride events, diverge from the movement’s original focus on dignity and acceptance, instead promoting a radical opposition to societal standards that can feel coercive to those who value traditional norms of public conduct (The Tyranny of Queer Theory).
Balancing Freedom and Public Norms
While personal freedom is a cornerstone of democratic societies, the evolution of the pride movement raises questions about the appropriateness of certain expressions in public and professional spaces. The original pride movement sought to ensure individuals could live authentically without fear of persecution, a goal many believe has been achieved in much of the West. However, the current movement’s emphasis on challenging all norms has led to debates about whether behaviors like public nudity or unconventional gender expressions should be normalized in shared spaces. Critics argue that while private expression is a right, imposing such behaviors in public settings can undermine the movement’s original intent, alienating those who supported its initial goals and prompting questions about whether the essence of “pride” has been lost.
Evolution of the Pride Movement: From Acceptance to Ideological Shift
Origins and Achievements of the Pride Movement
The pride movement, which took shape in the 1970s and 1980s, was a response to decades of systemic discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals. The 1969 Stonewall Riots in New York City served as a catalyst, galvanizing activists to demand equal rights and societal acceptance. The first gay pride parade, held in 1970 as the Christopher Street Liberation Day, marked a significant step toward visibility and empowerment (History of Gay Rights). During the 1970s, the movement achieved notable milestones, including the election of Kathy Kozachenko to the Ann Arbor City Council in 1974, making her the first openly gay elected official in the United States, and Harvey Milk’s election in 1977 as a San Francisco supervisor. Another landmark was the American Psychiatric Association’s 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders, a critical step toward destigmatization (Milestones in Gay Rights). The 1980s, however, were overshadowed by the HIV/AIDS crisis, which shifted some focus to health advocacy while reinforcing the movement’s commitment to visibility and rights. The ultimate goal of legalizing same-sex marriage was realized in many Western countries, with a defining moment in the United States when the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision affirmed marriage equality as a constitutional right, signaling the fulfillment of a core objective of the original pride movement.
Fulfillment of Original Goals
The legalization of same-sex marriage represented a triumph for the LGB community, effectively achieving the pride movement’s primary aim of securing legal and social acceptance. By 2015, same-sex marriage was recognized across much of the Western world, dismantling significant legal barriers that had marginalized LGB individuals. This milestone allowed many to live openly, marry, and access rights previously denied, such as inheritance and healthcare benefits. Social attitudes also shifted, with increasing acceptance of LGB identities in mainstream culture. This success suggested that the pride movement, as originally conceived, had accomplished its mission of integrating LGB individuals into societal frameworks. However, rather than marking a point of closure, this achievement coincided with a transformation in the movement’s focus, driven by new ideological currents that diverged from its foundational goals.
Rise of Queer Theory and Postmodernism
In the 1990s, the pride movement underwent a significant ideological shift with the emergence of queer theory and postmodern leftism. Queer theory, rooted in post-structuralist critical theory, challenges the notion of fixed identities and normativity, particularly heteronormativity. Scholars like Michel Foucault, Gloria Anzaldúa, and Judith Butler contributed to this framework, which views gender and sexuality as social constructs rather than essential truths (Queer Theory). Unlike the earlier pride movement’s focus on securing specific rights for LGB individuals, queer theory advocates for a broader deconstruction of societal norms, emphasizing fluidity and diversity in identities. This shift redirected the movement from seeking inclusion within existing structures to challenging those structures entirely, a departure that some critics argue has diluted the original focus on acceptance and equality (The Tyranny of Queer Theory).
David Halperin’s Queer Identity Without Essence
Central to this ideological shift is David M. Halperin’s concept of “queer” as an “identity without an essence,” articulated in his 1995 book Saint Foucault. Halperin defines “queer” as “whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant,” suggesting it is not tied to any specific group or characteristic but rather exists in opposition to societal norms (Saint Foucault). This perspective has profoundly influenced the modern pride movement, broadening its scope to include a wide range of identities and expressions that challenge traditional norms. As a result, pride events have increasingly featured behaviors such as public nudity, BDSM displays, and other unconventional expressions, which some view as radical departures from the movement’s original focus on dignity and acceptance. Critics argue that this approach, rooted in Halperin’s framework, promotes a form of anti-normativity that can feel coercive, particularly when it demands public acceptance of behaviors many find inappropriate for shared spaces.
Contemporary Critiques and Public Space Concerns
The evolution of the pride movement has sparked significant debate about its current direction and impact. Critics contend that the incorporation of queer theory’s anti-normative stance has led to a movement that prioritizes subversion over integration, often at the expense of the broader social acceptance sought by earlier activists. Modern pride events, which sometimes include explicit displays or unconventional gender expressions, are seen by some as attempts to normalize behaviors that challenge traditional norms of public decency. This shift has been criticized as alienating those who supported the original goals of the pride movement, such as legal equality and social acceptance (The Tyranny of Queer Theory). Furthermore, the movement’s alignment with corporate interests, evident in the commercialization of Pride Month, has raised concerns about its loss of radical edge, transforming it into a mainstream spectacle that may dilute its political significance (Queer’ing Corporate Pride). The debate also touches on the balance between personal freedom and public responsibility, with some arguing that while individuals should have the right to express themselves privately, imposing such expressions in public or professional settings can undermine social cohesion and the movement’s original intent.
Balancing Freedom and Societal Norms
The tension between personal freedom and societal expectations lies at the heart of contemporary critiques of the pride movement. The original movement fought for the right of LGB individuals to live authentically without persecution, a goal largely achieved in many Western societies. However, the current movement’s emphasis on challenging all norms, as influenced by queer theory, has led to public expressions that some find excessive or inappropriate, such as public nudity or behaviors associated with niche subcultures. While personal freedom is a cornerstone of democratic societies, there is a growing sentiment that such expressions should be confined to private settings to respect shared public spaces. This perspective argues that the movement’s shift toward enforcing new norms, such as mandatory pronoun usage or the promotion of gender identities some view as anti-scientific, risks alienating supporters of the original pride movement and undermining its legacy of fostering inclusion and dignity.
Conclusion
The pride movement has undergone a profound transformation since its inception in the 1970s and 1980s. Initially focused on securing legal and social acceptance for LGB individuals, it achieved significant victories, most notably the legalization of same-sex marriage. However, the rise of queer theory and postmodern ideologies has redirected the movement toward a broader, more radical agenda that challenges all societal norms. David Halperin’s concept of “queer” as an identity without essence has contributed to this shift, leading to public expressions that some view as divergent from the movement’s original goals. While personal freedom remains a fundamental value, the debate over the appropriateness of certain behaviors in public spaces highlights a perceived loss of the pride movement’s original essence. As the movement continues to evolve, it faces the challenge of balancing individual expression with societal expectations, prompting reflection on whether the “pride” in pride remains true to its founding principles.
| Aspect | Original Pride Movement (1970s-1980s) | Modern Pride Movement (Post-1990s) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Goal | Legal and social acceptance for LGB individuals, particularly same-sex marriage | Deconstruction of societal norms, including gender and sexuality norms |
| Key Achievements | Removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder (1973), election of openly gay officials, same-sex marriage legalization (2015 in the U.S.) | Increased visibility of diverse identities, mainstream corporate support for Pride Month |
| Ideological Basis | Civil rights and equality within existing societal frameworks | Queer theory and postmodernism, emphasizing anti-normativity |
| Public Expressions | Marches and parades focused on visibility and dignity | Inclusion of public nudity, BDSM, and other unconventional displays |
| Critiques | Faced opposition from conservative groups and societal stigma | Criticized for overreach, commercialization, and alienation of original supporters |
Key Citations
The evidence leans toward Ave Regina, Op. 140, No. 4, being characterized by Rheinberger’s late Romantic style, which emphasizes harmonic richness, expressive melodies, and a devotional tone. Given his conservative approach, the piece likely features clear tonal structures, with possible polyphonic textures suitable for SATB voicing and homophonic sections to enhance the hymn-like quality. The text’s sacred nature, used in Catholic liturgical contexts such as feasts of the Blessed Virgin Mary, suggests a contemplative and reverent character. The optional organ accompaniment would enhance the expressive depth, though the a cappella option allows for flexibility in performance settings.
Sources like Brilliant Classics describe Rheinberger’s choral writing as having “gently rounded quality,” comparing him to a south-German Fauré, indicating lyrical and melodic contours. While specific analyses of this piece are less readily available, general descriptions of his choral works suggest a blend of modern Romantic spirit with masterly counterpoint, fitting for church services or concerts focusing on sacred repertoire.
Philosophy Professor Letitia Meynell in this portion of an essay postulates how we need to deal with ‘woke’ in our society. I read the essay and found that it misses one of the key aspects of ‘woke’ and that is the use of polysemy to confuse the meanings of words and terms. Let’s read her essay together and then propose a some counters to her arguments. A long read, but it is necessary to see how ‘woke’ works in the wild and what you can do to counter it.
“A few years ago, there was considerable anxiety in some quarters about “political correctness,” particularly at universities. Now it’s known as wokeness, and even though the terminology has changed, the concerns are much the same.
Some years ago, I offered an analysis of political correctness that equally pertains to wokeness today. What interests me are ways to think about and discuss political correctness/wokeness so as to avoid polarizing polemics and increase mutual understanding.
The goal is to help us all envision and create a more just and peaceful society by talking with each other rather than talking past each other.
‘Woke interventions’
Typically, “wokeness” and “woke ideology” are terms of abuse, used against a variety of practices that, despite their diversity, have a similar character. Often, what is dismissed as “woke” is a new practice that is recommended, requested, enacted or enforced as a replacement for an old one.
These practices range from changing the names of streets, institutions and buildings to determining who reads to pre-school children in libraries and altering the words we use in polite conversation.
When a practice is identified as “woke,” there is an implication that the non-woke practice is better or at least equally good. Thus the dismissal of something as “woke” is an endorsement of some alternative.
If we stop there, all we will see is a power struggle between progressive and conservative values. To dig deeper, I am going to share a particular case of calling out, or language policing, as an example of wokeness.
This incident happened to a Jewish friend of mine when we were students. She was directing a play about the Holocaust and, during auditions, a young woman casually used the word “Jew” to mean cheat. When my friend challenged this, the young woman asserted that it wasn’t offensive; it was just the way people from her town talked.
In the wrong
I use this example because I think it’s clear this young woman was in the wrong. My friend wasn’t being overly sensitive and was right to call her out.
But this example is also useful because it’s fairly typical of cases where someone attempts a “woke intervention” and it’s rejected — someone follows a practice that is common in their community, a “woke” intervenor calls it out, and the person responds not with an apology or even a question, but with outright dismissal.
Often, such responses come with an explicit criticism that the “woke” intervenor is over-sensitive, irrational or controlling. Sometimes, the original speaker claims victimization at being targeted, ironically displaying the hypersensitivity often attributed to people described as woke.
Three claims
In thinking about this and similar situations, it strikes me that woke interventions tend to share the same kinds of motivations. They boil down to the following three claims about the targeted practice that justify the woke intervention:
- The practice is offensive to the members of a group to which it pertains;
- The practice implies something that is false about this group and reflects and reinforces this inaccuracy;
- The practice implicitly endorses or maintains unjust or otherwise pernicious attitudes about the group that facilitate discrimination and various other harms against them.
So, in my friend’s case, she was right to call out this young woman, who had insulted her to her face and implied something about the Jewish community that is not only false but dangerously and perniciously antisemitic.
Now, in any particular instance, it is an open question whether, in fact, a specific term or practice is offensive, inaccurate or facilitates discrimination. This is where the difficult work starts.
Real effort is required to learn to see injustices that are embedded in our ordinary language and everyday practices.
Social psychological work on implicit biases suggests that good intentions and heartfelt commitments are not enough. It takes integrity and courage to critically examine our own behaviour and engage in honest conversations with people who claim we have hurt them.
However, once we recognize what’s at stake, to dismiss something as woke is a refusal to even consider the possibility that the targeted practice might be offensive, premised on false or inaccurate claims or discriminatory or harmful.
Defensiveness
Often such refusals are grounded in defensiveness and embarrassment. I suspect many of us can recognize the young woman’s sense of shock, hurt and denial at being called out for her behaviour.
But for those who disagree with a woke intervention, the right response is not glib dismissal or bombastic accusations of “being cancelled.”
Rather — after a sincere attempt to understand the woke intervenor’s perspective and consider the relevant facts — the right response is a respectful, tempered explanation of why they believe their remarks or actions were neither premised on false claims nor discriminatory. An apology may be in order. After all, at the very least, one has inadvertently insulted someone.
If my analysis is correct, we can now see why the knee-jerk dismissal of something as “woke” is so nasty; it amounts to a self-righteous choice not only to insult or denigrate others but to protect one’s ignorance and support injustice.
Unless we learn to talk with each other rather than past each other, it’s difficult to see how we can ever achieve peace on Earth or truly show our good will to each other.”
Refuting Wokeness: Clarity Over Obfuscation
Introduction: The Polysemy Trap
Philosophy Professor Letitia Meynell, in her essay on navigating “wokeness,” seeks to foster dialogue about contentious social practices. Yet her analysis falters by overlooking a critical feature of “woke”: its polysemy, which obscures meaning and confounds discourse. The activist Left often deploys poorly defined terms, resisting crystallization into cohesive arguments. This ambiguity is deliberate, enabling the Motte and Bailey strategy—where “woke” advocates defend controversial policies under the guise of innocuous ideals. For supporters, “woke” connotes kindness, empathy, and social awareness; in practice, it can manifest as discrimination against perceived “oppressor” groups. Meynell’s failure to grapple with this duality undermines her vision of mutual understanding, necessitating a sharper critique.
Engaging Meynell’s Core Claims
Meynell posits that “woke interventions” target practices deemed offensive, false, or discriminatory, citing an antisemitic slur used casually during a play audition as a clear case of harm. Her framework, at its strongest, is not a dogmatic defense of all interventions but a call to assess practices critically: might they offend a group, misrepresent them, or perpetuate unjust attitudes? She urges critics to engage intervenors’ perspectives before dismissing their concerns, a reasonable plea for open-mindedness rooted in social psychological research on implicit biases.
Yet this approach stumbles on two counts. First, it ignores the polysemy of “woke,” which allows advocates to glide between benign ideals and coercive measures. A call for inclusive language (the motte) can escalate into punitive actions (the bailey), as seen in the 2018 case of a University of Michigan professor disciplined for refusing to use preferred pronouns, despite no evidence of discriminatory intent. Meynell’s essay elides this slippage, presenting interventions as primarily corrective. Second, her reliance on subjective offense risks overreach. While the antisemitic slur is unequivocally harmful, many “woke” targets—debates over cultural appropriation or microaggressions—hinge on context and interpretation. Absent clear criteria for harm, interventions can stifle discourse, a tension Meynell underestimates.
The Unproven Premise of Systemic Harm
Meynell’s most compelling claim is that “woke interventions” address practices that “implicitly endorse or maintain unjust attitudes,” facilitating discrimination. She invokes implicit bias research to argue that good intentions cannot preclude harm—a point with merit, as biases can operate unconsciously. Yet she assumes systemic harm as axiomatic, demanding critics disprove it rather than requiring proponents to prove it. Research on implicit bias, like the Implicit Association Test (IAT), faces scrutiny for weak predictive validity in real-world behavior (Oswald et al., 2013). Correlation is not causation; asserting that everyday practices inherently perpetuate discrimination requires evidence—say, data linking specific language to measurable disparities. By sidestepping this rigor, Meynell inverts rational inquiry, undermining her call for “honest conversations.”
The Motte and Bailey’s Polarizing Effect
The polysemy of “woke” fuels a rhetorical sleight-of-hand: the Motte and Bailey strategy. In the motte, “woke” is empathy—uplifting the marginalized, fostering inclusion. In the bailey, it justifies policies that alienate or vilify, often without substantiating harm. Consider the 2020 backlash against J.K. Rowling, labeled “transphobic” for questioning gender ideology, despite her nuanced arguments. Such interventions, cloaked in moral righteousness, suppress debate. Meynell’s essay endorses the motte, ignoring the bailey’s divisive impact. A 2021 Cato Institute survey found 66% of Americans fear expressing political views due to social repercussions, suggesting “woke” practices can fracture rather than unite. Polysemy exacerbates this: without shared definitions, dialogue devolves into mutual incomprehension—a debacle Meynell’s framework fails to address.
A Path to True Dialogue
Meynell’s vision of dialogue is laudable but lopsided. She rightly urges critics to consider intervenors’ perspectives, yet spares advocates the same scrutiny. True dialogue demands reciprocity: proponents must substantiate harm with evidence—statistical impacts, not anecdotal offense—while critics must articulate principled objections, such as free speech or empirical skepticism. Meynell’s call for critics to offer “tempered explanations” or apologies assumes intervenors’ claims are prima facie valid, tilting the scales. Dismissing dissent as “nasty” or “self-righteous” poisons discourse, as does the polysemic dodge that shields “woke” policies from critique. A just society requires evidence-based debate: terms defined, assumptions tested, ambiguity exposed.
Conclusion
Meynell’s essay, at its core, aspires to bridge divides through reflection on social practices. Yet it falters by ignoring the polysemy of “woke” and presuming systemic harm without proof. Her prescriptive tone—demanding critics justify dissent while excusing advocates’ vagueness—corrodes the mutual understanding she champions. By dismantling the Motte and Bailey tactic and grounding discourse in evidence, we can forge a society that is both just and cohesive. Clarity, not obfuscation, is the path forward.
References
- Oswald, F. L., Mitchell, G., Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., & Tetlock, P. E. (2013). Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: A meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(2), 171–192.
- Cato Institute. (2021). National Survey: Americans’ Free Speech Concerns. Retrieved from cato.org.
Introduction
Canada’s provincial and national parks are cherished public assets, symbolizing the nation’s commitment to preserving its natural heritage and fostering a shared sense of identity among its citizens. These spaces, funded by taxpayers and managed for the public good, serve as venues for recreation, education, and connection with the natural environment. However, in 2025, temporary closures of prominent British Columbia (BC) parks, such as Joffre Lakes Provincial Park and Botanical Beach in Juan de Fuca Park, have ignited significant controversy. These closures, primarily initiated by First Nations to facilitate cultural practices, environmental recovery, and reconciliation efforts, restrict access predominantly to non-Indigenous visitors. While the objectives of these closures—cultural preservation, environmental protection, and reconciliation—are undeniably important, this essay argues that restricting park access based on group identity is a divisive practice that does not benefit all Canadians. Canada’s parks are intended for all citizens, not solely for particular groups. By presenting the strongest arguments in favor of these closures and subsequently refuting them, this essay advocates for supererogatory and unifying policies that respect Indigenous rights while ensuring equitable access for all Canadians.
Steel Manning the Case for Park Closures
The rationale for the temporary closures of BC parks is grounded in compelling cultural, environmental, and reconciliatory imperatives. First, these closures enable First Nations to exercise their constitutionally protected rights to reconnect with their traditional territories through cultural and spiritual practices. For instance, at Joffre Lakes Park, the Lil’wat and N’Quatqua First Nations have established “Reconnection Periods” to engage in activities such as hunting, fishing, harvesting medicines, and spiritual ceremonies, which require privacy and exclusivity (CityNews). Second, the closures address significant environmental degradation caused by a surge in park visitors. Joffre Lakes experienced a 222% increase in annual visitors from 2010 to 2019, reaching nearly 200,000, resulting in trampled vegetation, litter, and trail congestion (The Narwhal). Temporary restrictions allow the land to recover, ensuring its sustainability for future generations. Third, these closures align with broader reconciliation efforts under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), recognizing historical injustices and supporting Indigenous stewardship of their ancestral lands (BC Gov News). Collectively, these arguments present a robust case for the closures, emphasizing legal obligations, ecological necessity, and moral imperatives.
Refuting the Case for Closures
Despite the strength of these arguments, the approach of restricting park access based on group identity is fundamentally flawed and divisive. Canada’s parks are public spaces, established and maintained for the benefit of all citizens, regardless of background. Restricting access to non-Indigenous visitors creates a perception of inequality, where certain groups are prioritized over others, fostering resentment and undermining social cohesion. The closure of Joffre Lakes for over 100 days in 2025, including peak seasons, denies many Canadians the opportunity to experience this iconic destination, impacting not only individual enjoyment but also local economies reliant on tourism (CityNews). Critics argue that such policies set a troubling precedent, potentially allowing widespread restrictions across BC’s public lands, given that most of the province is claimed by Indigenous groups (National Post). Moreover, the environmental rationale, while valid, can be addressed through less exclusionary measures. For instance, implementing visitor quotas, reservation systems, or enhanced trail management could mitigate ecological impacts without barring non-Indigenous visitors entirely. Similarly, cultural practices could be accommodated by designating specific areas or times for exclusive use, rather than closing entire parks. These alternatives would achieve the same objectives—cultural preservation and environmental protection—while upholding the principle that parks are for all Canadians.
Advocating for Supererogatory and Unifying Policies
Rather than resorting to divisive measures, Canada should pursue supererogatory and unifying policies that go beyond legal obligations to promote inclusivity and national unity. Supererogatory policies, which exceed minimum requirements to promote goodwill, can bridge divides and create a shared sense of stewardship over public spaces. For example, parks could establish collaborative management frameworks involving both Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders to ensure that cultural, environmental, and public access needs are balanced. Such models have been successfully implemented in other contexts, such as co-management agreements in national parks (Parks Canada). Additionally, parks could designate specific zones or time periods for cultural activities, allowing First Nations to practice their traditions without excluding others. Educational programs could also be introduced to inform visitors about Indigenous heritage, fostering mutual respect and understanding. These approaches would not only respect Indigenous rights but also reinforce the idea that Canada’s parks are a shared heritage, accessible to all citizens. By prioritizing inclusivity, such policies would strengthen social cohesion and mitigate the tensions exacerbated by exclusionary closures.
Addressing Broader Implications
The controversy surrounding BC park closures reflects broader challenges in balancing Indigenous rights with public access in a diverse nation. Critics of the closures, such as those cited in the National Post, argue that decisions made by small Indigenous governments without a democratic relationship to the broader population undermine public interest (National Post). This perception is amplified by public backlash, with some labeling the closures as “apartheid, Canadian-style” on platforms like X (Daily Mail). While such rhetoric is inflammatory, it underscores the need for transparent and inclusive decision-making processes. Conversely, supporters emphasize that these closures are a necessary step toward reconciliation, given the historical dispossession of Indigenous lands (The Narwhal). To navigate these tensions, Canada must adopt policies that acknowledge both the unique rights of Indigenous peoples and the collective rights of all citizens to access public spaces. Failure to do so risks deepening divisions and eroding the unifying potential of Canada’s parks.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the temporary closures of BC parks like Joffre Lakes and Botanical Beach are driven by important cultural, environmental, and reconciliatory goals, their exclusionary nature is divisive and does not serve the best interests of all Canadians. Canada’s parks are public assets, intended to unite citizens through shared access to natural beauty and heritage. By restricting access based on group identity, these closures create inequality and foster resentment, undermining national unity. Instead, Canada should embrace supererogatory and inclusive policies that respect Indigenous rights while ensuring equitable access for all. Collaborative management, designated cultural zones, and enhanced visitor management offer viable alternatives that balance competing interests without exclusion. By prioritizing unity and inclusivity, Canada can uphold its commitment to both reconciliation and the principle that its parks are for every citizen.
Key Details of Park Closures
| Park Name | First Nations Involved | Closure Periods (2025) | Reasons for Closure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Joffre Lakes Provincial Park | Lil’wat and N’Quatqua | April 25–May 16, June 13–27, Aug 22–Oct 23 (over 100 days total) | Cultural practices (hunting, fishing, spiritual activities), environmental recovery |
| Juan de Fuca Park (Botanical Beach) | Pacheedaht | 24 hours over May 24 weekend | Harvest marine resources, cultural reconnection |
| Gulf Islands National Park Reserve | Not specified | Indefinite from April 15 | Protect natural and cultural resources |
| Pacific Rim National Park Reserve (Willis Island) | Not specified | Entire 2025 season | Management, cultural purposes, safety, infrastructure repairs |
References
- CityNews. (2025). Joffre Lakes Park to close again for First Nations reconnection. Retrieved from https://vancouver.citynews.ca/2025/05/26/joffre-lakes-closures-to-continue/
- The Narwhal. (2025). Why are First Nations closing B.C. parks? Retrieved from https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-parks-first-nations-closures-racism/
- National Post. (2025). Non-Indigenous visitors being turned away from B.C. public parks. Retrieved from https://nationalpost.com/opinion/non-indigenous-visitors-being-turned-away-from-b-c-public-parks
- National Post. (2025). Closures of B.C. parks to non-Indigenous visitors a sign of what’s to come. Retrieved from https://nationalpost.com/opinion/closures-of-b-c-parks-to-non-indigenous-visitors-a-sign-of-things-to-come
- @NVanCaroline. (2025). X Post on Joffre Lakes closures. Retrieved from https://x.com/NVanCaroline/status/1926677179217089001
- BC Gov News. (2025). B.C. supports land stewardship at Pipi7íyekw/Joffre Lakes Park. Retrieved from https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2025ENV0016-000364
- Daily Mail. (2025). Canada blocking millions from parks over ‘apartheid’ scheme. Retrieved from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14757639/outrage-canada-beauty-spots-closed-natives-reconnect-land.html
- Parks Canada. (n.d.). Official website. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/parks-canada.html
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…