Great review; I will get Pan's book. I'm interested in whether it engages with the concept of the bourgeoisie (Black or otherwise) which seems to be a missing element in revisiting the what happened of the past decade with a new interest in what Adolph Reed was saying all along. If the conversation ought to have been about class, it is interesting that the managerial ranks had no interest in the Black bourgeoisie -- it was never about that.
Kierkegaard writes somewhere that to do the opposite of something is a form of imitation. And I have often thought of that line while watching the rise of anti-woke; which is why I really appreciate Geoff outlining “non-woke” as a route out of these symplegades. I would be very keen to see him elaborate on this notion(s) in a full length piece on the subject some time in Compact’s pages. Additionally, I wonder to what extent one might conceive of a “non-woke” approach to the arts; one that isn’t attempting to be apolitical, or woke, or anti-woke — but rather “non-woke.” Interesting.
<<As Reed, Johnson, and others have pointed out, the transition from Black Power to the black political class was a transition from black politics—the politics that engaged black people (often with white allies)—to black ethnic politics—an identitarian politics of “race relations” and Democratic Party “racial brokerage” (Reed). “Race” relations (a Booker T. Washington term), eclipsed all discussion of economic stratification, where “white” society’s class contradictions were mirrored in “black” society. The same thing is still in effect, with “racial equity” training for corporate HR departments, conducted by “race relations technicians” (Reed).>>
Great review; I will get Pan's book. I'm interested in whether it engages with the concept of the bourgeoisie (Black or otherwise) which seems to be a missing element in revisiting the what happened of the past decade with a new interest in what Adolph Reed was saying all along. If the conversation ought to have been about class, it is interesting that the managerial ranks had no interest in the Black bourgeoisie -- it was never about that.
Kierkegaard writes somewhere that to do the opposite of something is a form of imitation. And I have often thought of that line while watching the rise of anti-woke; which is why I really appreciate Geoff outlining “non-woke” as a route out of these symplegades. I would be very keen to see him elaborate on this notion(s) in a full length piece on the subject some time in Compact’s pages. Additionally, I wonder to what extent one might conceive of a “non-woke” approach to the arts; one that isn’t attempting to be apolitical, or woke, or anti-woke — but rather “non-woke.” Interesting.
Yes I think non woke is a fine way to put it 😎
Execute all the parasites. All these useless bureaucrats cannot be fixed: have them shot.
Capitalism is definitionally anti-woke, G… so…?
(Hope you Substack gig is humming)
<<As Reed, Johnson, and others have pointed out, the transition from Black Power to the black political class was a transition from black politics—the politics that engaged black people (often with white allies)—to black ethnic politics—an identitarian politics of “race relations” and Democratic Party “racial brokerage” (Reed). “Race” relations (a Booker T. Washington term), eclipsed all discussion of economic stratification, where “white” society’s class contradictions were mirrored in “black” society. The same thing is still in effect, with “racial equity” training for corporate HR departments, conducted by “race relations technicians” (Reed).>>
https://stanleyabner1951gmailcom.substack.com/publish/post/161089296