What do you think?
Rate this book
Left Is Not Woke
If you're woke, you're left. If you're left, you're woke. We blur the terms, assuming that if you're one you must be the other. That, Susan Neiman argues, is a dangerous mistake.
The intellectual roots and resources of wokeism conflict with ideas that have guided the left for more than 200 years: a commitment to universalism, a firm distinction between justice and power, and a belief in the possibility of progress. Without these ideas, Neiman argues, they will continue to undermine their own goals and drift, inexorably and unintentionally, towards the right. In the long run, they risk becoming what they despise.
One of the world's leading philosophical voices, Neiman makes this case by tracing the malign influence of two titans of twentieth-century thought, Michel Foucault and Carl Schmitt, whose work undermined ideas of justice and progress and portrayed social life as an eternal struggle of us against them. A generation schooled with these voices in their heads, raised in a broader culture shaped by the ruthless ideas of neoliberalism and evolutionary psychology, has set about changing the world. It's time they thought again.
The intellectual roots and resources of wokeism conflict with ideas that have guided the left for more than 200 years: a commitment to universalism, a firm distinction between justice and power, and a belief in the possibility of progress. Without these ideas, Neiman argues, they will continue to undermine their own goals and drift, inexorably and unintentionally, towards the right. In the long run, they risk becoming what they despise.
One of the world's leading philosophical voices, Neiman makes this case by tracing the malign influence of two titans of twentieth-century thought, Michel Foucault and Carl Schmitt, whose work undermined ideas of justice and progress and portrayed social life as an eternal struggle of us against them. A generation schooled with these voices in their heads, raised in a broader culture shaped by the ruthless ideas of neoliberalism and evolutionary psychology, has set about changing the world. It's time they thought again.
154 pages, Hardcover
First published March 20, 2023
About the author
Susan Neiman
24 books198 followersSusan 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.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 118 reviews
July 11, 2023
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.
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.
April 11, 2023
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.
August 28, 2023
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
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
July 10, 2023
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.
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.
June 22, 2024
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.
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.
March 18, 2024
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.
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.
May 29, 2023
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.
November 5, 2023
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.
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.
April 25, 2023
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.
September 30, 2023
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.
December 25, 2023
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.
Al bij al doet het voor mij niet wat het belooft op de cover noch de achterflap.
June 15, 2024
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.
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.
July 20, 2023
Zeker een erg stimulerend en prikkelend boek. Susan Neiman gaat in op de achterliggende filosofische ideeën van de ideologieën van vandaag de dag. Deze uiteenzetting van verschillende ideeën is erg interessant en relevant in het hedendaagse politieke veld. Toch mist er wel meer een terugkoppeling van de abstracte ideeën naar de wereld van nu, de sociologie:). Ondanks de titel focust het boek meer op het verdedigen van de ideeën van de verlichting en het bekritiseren van Foucault.
July 15, 2023
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.
December 18, 2023
I can’t even begin to describe how angry this book made me.
June 13, 2024
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.
March 7, 2024
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.
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.
March 27, 2024
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!
February 28, 2024
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.
August 8, 2023
Left is Not Work (2023) by Susan Neiman compares the Universalist Left with the critical theory and identity theory driven left. Neiman is a moral philosopher.
There is a very good interview with Neiman about the book on Andrew Sullivan’s podcast.
First Neiman addresses Universalism and Tribalism and points out how the woke left is making tribal arguments which some of the far right also echo. This is contrast to the unversalist left that has emphasized the unity of humanity.
Neiman then makes the point that the woke left’s position on justice and power echos older claims that Justice is just the enforcement of the powerful. Neiman looks at Foucault and how he was not interested in prison reform and his views ignore the decline of torture and the improvements in prisons due to the prison reform movement.
Then there is a chapter on Progress and Doom where Neiman discusses the claim of Foucault and others that there has been no progress and just how the philosophers of the Enlightenment saw the potential for progress and through their arguments did indeed make progress themselves and helped others to do so. Neiman points out how in her own lifetime attitudes have changed and improved greatly.
Neiman doesn’t just criticise the woke. She also attacks evolutionary psychology and the ill defined neoliberalism. She acknowledges that there are big challenges to overcome but makes the point that the universalist left is best positioned to make progress. Alas she goes on too much in some of these critiques and professes anger at loud music in restaurants and what she perceives to be the excessive choice in washing powder available in the US.
Left is Not Woke is a good, short book and Neiman makes her points well. It is refreshing to see someone criticise woke beliefs from a left wing perspective.
There is a very good interview with Neiman about the book on Andrew Sullivan’s podcast.
First Neiman addresses Universalism and Tribalism and points out how the woke left is making tribal arguments which some of the far right also echo. This is contrast to the unversalist left that has emphasized the unity of humanity.
Neiman then makes the point that the woke left’s position on justice and power echos older claims that Justice is just the enforcement of the powerful. Neiman looks at Foucault and how he was not interested in prison reform and his views ignore the decline of torture and the improvements in prisons due to the prison reform movement.
Then there is a chapter on Progress and Doom where Neiman discusses the claim of Foucault and others that there has been no progress and just how the philosophers of the Enlightenment saw the potential for progress and through their arguments did indeed make progress themselves and helped others to do so. Neiman points out how in her own lifetime attitudes have changed and improved greatly.
Neiman doesn’t just criticise the woke. She also attacks evolutionary psychology and the ill defined neoliberalism. She acknowledges that there are big challenges to overcome but makes the point that the universalist left is best positioned to make progress. Alas she goes on too much in some of these critiques and professes anger at loud music in restaurants and what she perceives to be the excessive choice in washing powder available in the US.
Left is Not Woke is a good, short book and Neiman makes her points well. It is refreshing to see someone criticise woke beliefs from a left wing perspective.
June 7, 2023
The title is misleading in that the book is arguing for what the left should be, and the fact that woke is not a part of that is more the consequence of the previous reasoning. She is quite thorough on certain topics, though sometimes dismissive of subjects she doesn’t agree with, without the solid reasoning one could expect (for example her critique of evolutionary psychology). I did like most of the reading experience overall.
On a side note, for someone that is arguing against tribalism, she is quite firm in her unidimensional usage of the political spectrum and the idea that only the left vies for a better world, as opposed to “the racist right”, in her own words. One might argue that she did not intend to use such words as strongly as seems but this view is quite pervasive in the rest of the book, and she herself argues that the literal meaning of words is vital to understanding someone’s convictions when she critiques Foucault and Schmitt. It sometimes felt like a drawn out pat on the back for her own convictions, and the left as a whole.
On a side note, for someone that is arguing against tribalism, she is quite firm in her unidimensional usage of the political spectrum and the idea that only the left vies for a better world, as opposed to “the racist right”, in her own words. One might argue that she did not intend to use such words as strongly as seems but this view is quite pervasive in the rest of the book, and she herself argues that the literal meaning of words is vital to understanding someone’s convictions when she critiques Foucault and Schmitt. It sometimes felt like a drawn out pat on the back for her own convictions, and the left as a whole.
October 9, 2023
I would appreciate clearer formulation of the ideas and more on point chapters. Woke itself is quite in the background of the discussion. Instead author is focusing a lot on the “left” itself. Interesting reading, but as for someone who never studied philosophy was sometimes pretty difficult to go through (a lot of googling of cited philosophers included 😅).
I would recommend this book for someone who has some experience with reading philosophical pieces. I can confirm that this is not the most difficult one, but for “normal” reader (whatever that means) it requires more focus.
I was really looking forward on her conclusion, but it feels like she didn’t grab it that deeply as she could have. It almost feels like not finished, but maybe my critique would be dismissed by someone with bigger experience in philosophy. 😊
I would recommend this book for someone who has some experience with reading philosophical pieces. I can confirm that this is not the most difficult one, but for “normal” reader (whatever that means) it requires more focus.
I was really looking forward on her conclusion, but it feels like she didn’t grab it that deeply as she could have. It almost feels like not finished, but maybe my critique would be dismissed by someone with bigger experience in philosophy. 😊
June 3, 2023
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.
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.
August 4, 2024
Der Abschnitt über "Wokeness" und deren Zusammenhang mit der politischen Linken oder dem Fehlen eines solchen Zusammenhangs wurde partiell ausgelassen. Infolgedessen näherte ich mich dem Thema mit einer modifizierten Erwartungshaltung, was dazu führte, dass mir das Buch nicht zusagte. dnf'd.
September 17, 2024
Depois de ter considerado 'A Religião Woke' demasiado ressabiado à direita, este 'A Esquerda não é Woke' é, sendo a autora de esquerda, muito mais equilibrado (e sustentado).
Sendo eu muito crítico do movimento Woke (nomeadamente quanto à cultura de cancelamento, apropriação cultural e policiamento da linguagem), reconheço méritos quanto a algumas intenções do movimento. Mas, quer quanto a boa parte do conteúdo, e sobretudo quanto à forma, o movimento distingue-se pouco de práticas e ideologias fascistas e a autora explora esse ângulo no seu ensaio.
Este assenta em três vertentes da esquerda que l Woke, na visão dela, perdeu: universalidade (versus tribalismo), movermo-nos por justiça (versus por poder), e a valorização do progresso (versus a contínua menorização de um mundo que está longe de ser perfeito).
Temas como a premiação da vitimização em vez de virtude (vejam-se os concursos televisivos onde o concorrente com o história de vida mais dramática marca logo pontos, independentemente da qualidade da actuação) ou o olhar a política como um jogo de amigo/inimigo (corporativismo/tribo) são abordados.
Duas notas:
1. Sendo a autora assumidamente de esquerda (ainda bem que o fez), não foi tão longe na crítica quanto eu esperava;
2. É um livro a espaços difícil (para mim, pelo menos), tendo tido que reler várias passagens para apreender os conceitos.
Dito tudo isto, é um prazer ver este tema tão fracturante tratado de uma forma tão elevada.
Muito, mas mesmo muito interessante, pese abordar, do ponto de vista filosófico, muito mais a esquerda do que o wokismo. Aqui o título engana um pouco. Mas é um daqueles livros que nos abre os olhos; ajuda-nos a crescer.
Sendo eu muito crítico do movimento Woke (nomeadamente quanto à cultura de cancelamento, apropriação cultural e policiamento da linguagem), reconheço méritos quanto a algumas intenções do movimento. Mas, quer quanto a boa parte do conteúdo, e sobretudo quanto à forma, o movimento distingue-se pouco de práticas e ideologias fascistas e a autora explora esse ângulo no seu ensaio.
Este assenta em três vertentes da esquerda que l Woke, na visão dela, perdeu: universalidade (versus tribalismo), movermo-nos por justiça (versus por poder), e a valorização do progresso (versus a contínua menorização de um mundo que está longe de ser perfeito).
Temas como a premiação da vitimização em vez de virtude (vejam-se os concursos televisivos onde o concorrente com o história de vida mais dramática marca logo pontos, independentemente da qualidade da actuação) ou o olhar a política como um jogo de amigo/inimigo (corporativismo/tribo) são abordados.
Duas notas:
1. Sendo a autora assumidamente de esquerda (ainda bem que o fez), não foi tão longe na crítica quanto eu esperava;
2. É um livro a espaços difícil (para mim, pelo menos), tendo tido que reler várias passagens para apreender os conceitos.
Dito tudo isto, é um prazer ver este tema tão fracturante tratado de uma forma tão elevada.
Muito, mas mesmo muito interessante, pese abordar, do ponto de vista filosófico, muito mais a esquerda do que o wokismo. Aqui o título engana um pouco. Mas é um daqueles livros que nos abre os olhos; ajuda-nos a crescer.
September 4, 2024
The book has a lot of interesting reflections. Anyway, there's no difference nowadays between left and right if we talk about the workers rights, it's all just propaganda. Hopefully, neoliberalism will die of success, but not because of the politicians.
November 1, 2023
Duidelijk betoog. Wel ietwat versimpeld, daarbij haalt de auteur de ene na de andere bron aan zonder context te geven, en vaak ook nog eens extreem kort.
January 12, 2024
La izquierda no es woke es un libro que recurre a lo filosofico y a lo historico. Es un libro que toda persona que le guste la politica pueda leerlo. Va dejar mucho que hablar este libro porque será el eje del futuro de la izquierda en el mundo. Un libro contingente y muy ameno que cualquier lector de izquierda pueda leerlo.
August 20, 2023
De titel van het boek lijkt misleidend, omdat het boek voor het grootste deel een kritiek op alle verschillende werken van Foucault lijkt, maar dit wordt in de conclusie wel mooi samen gebracht. Op dat moment werd me ook pas duidelijk wat de drie grootste verschillen zijn tussen links en de woke beweging. Het is ook niet anti-woke, maar een goede analyse van de verschillen die wel ver de geschiedenis van filosofie ingaat. Daarbij moet ik zeggen dat de uitleg van links veel dieper gaat en de analyse over de woke-beweging redelijk aan de oppervlakte blijft.
Ik wou dat ik het boek in het Engels had gelezen, want de vertaling vond ik onnodig lastig (zeg ik als bestuurskundige/politicologe).
Ik wou dat ik het boek in het Engels had gelezen, want de vertaling vond ik onnodig lastig (zeg ik als bestuurskundige/politicologe).
August 20, 2023
Great Book. Necessary in this era. Strange, she herself is a social democrat and writing this.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 118 reviews