Since the turn of the millennium, an identity-based ideology has been gaining ground in public opinion, and unfortunately also in a growing number of academic institutions. In the name of an indiscriminate moral imperative of non-discrimination, it tends to replace the rights of the individual with those of collective belonging to an ethnic, religious, sexual, or gender group. By collectively attributing the blame for social, racial, or sexist discrimination not to personal responsibility but to the ethnic or sexual group to which an individual belongs, specifically the original sin of white males, the so-called Woke (or "politically and socially vigilant") ideology advocates, based on current moral evidence, the blacklisting and erasure of the historical, artistic, and cultural memory of past eras and personalities, and the denial of freedom of speech (along with blackmail and severe retaliation, sometimes even physical violence and death threats) for those who do not subscribe to Woke thought or approve of its implementation. All this at the expense of a pluralistic, tolerant society and free debate.
But can having white skin and being born in a given country or continent rationally mean ipso facto that one is guilty of racial discrimination, homophobia, or Islamophobia? And isn't the banishment of a skin color and sexual group like white males a form of racism? Reducing individuals (and the fundamental value of personal responsibility) to their group betrays a neo-tribal ideology—premodern and pre-democratic—that heralds serious conflicts, wars between clans. To understand the extent of this neo-tribal mentality, it's helpful to cite some illuminating examples.
At the inauguration of US President Joe Biden, a young African-American poet, Amanda Gorman, urged the United States to leave racism behind and embark on a common journey. Following the Black Lives Matter protests and the clashes following the police killing of African-American George Floyd, her poem called for an end to the climate of civil war gripping America. Dutch publisher Meulenhoff asked writer Marieke Lucas Rijneveld to translate Amanda Gorman's verses. After a barrage of hysterical criticism from activist Janice Deul and the Woke movement , who deplored the choice of a "non-Black" translator ("How can a white person, too white, convey experiences she hasn't lived through into another language?"), the publisher and the Dutch poet relented, abandoning the translation. If woke logic were consistently applied , a heterosexual could not translate Proust or Verlaine and a non-Jewish male could not translate Anne Frank's testimony.
The case reveals a blatantly irrational extremism, but what makes it serious is the fact that the violence of criticism (amplified by social media and a press at the mercy of algorithms and the pursuit of views) is pushing writers—and their publishers—to self-censorship. A self-censorship in the service of the great standardization that George Orwell denounced in the preface to Animal Farm . The case of British writer J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, raises serious questions about the methods used to condemn those who do not share woke thinking , particularly in the field of sexuality. She has faced unjustified accusations of transphobia from LGBTQ activists, summary trials, and severe threats even on issues that should be considered debatable or open to free discussion. Her guilt?
Having publicly stated that “when it comes to determining the legal status of gender, self-reporting gender identity is insufficient”; citing the claims of radical feminist and lesbian Magdalen Berns that she dared to say to a transgender woman “you are not a man”; having supported the right for women (biologically such) to have spaces dedicated only to them in reception centers for abused women or in prisons. Or respond to those who consider sex only a choice and not a reality that «if sex is not real, then there is no such thing as same-sex attraction either; if sex is not real, then the reality experienced globally by women is erased». "Saying these things is not hate - says Rowling - it's just telling the truth."
In a documented article that appeared in the New York Times which meticulously analyzes all of Rowling's statements, Pamela Paul affirms, in defense of Rowling (who has also received death threats), that «nothing the writer has said qualifies her as trans- phobic. She denies neither gender dysphoria (the suffering caused by feeling one's gender identity is different from one's sex), nor the transgender right to exist, to specific medical care and equal wages. There is no confirmation of her accusation of "endangering transgender people". A judgment that confirms that of the journalist EJ Rosetta, who had criticized her in the past: «I didn't find any trans-phobic message in what Rowling said. You're burning the wrong witch!"
This conclusion clearly clarifies a threat that must be taken seriously: the advent of a new inquisition. Nobody denies (not even - and she says it explicitly - JK Rowling) that transgender people are still sometimes the object of ridicule or discrimination, which must be fought and abolished. But this does not authorize ostracism and death threats against those who declare that they do not share, for example the opportunity to authorize minors to change their gender with a simple self-declaration of gender identity. An event that occurred at the University of Geneva last year is worrying: masked LGTBQ activists interrupted two conferences dedicated to this issue, even snatching the microphone from a speaker shouting "a non-transgender white woman has no right to speak on such an issue". The freedom of academic research is threatened by violent censorship. Not only in the United States but also in Switzerland.
Confirming the seriousness of these trends for society and for universities (which train the future ruling class), in June 2020, one hundred and sixty academics and writers wrote a manifesto letter "On Justice and Open Debate." The letter—signed by professors from MIT, Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and other prestigious universities, such as Francis Fukuyama and Noam Chomsky, as well as writers such as Salman Rushdie and J.K. Rowling herself, and feminist activists like Drucilla Cornell—is a call for action in defense of freedom of speech and research, the central points of which are worth repeating. "The powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to demands for greater equality and inclusion in our society. But they have also intensified a new set of attitudes that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and tolerance, encouraging ideological conformity. We must oppose the climate of intolerance that has developed everywhere. The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is becoming more restricted every day. Censorship is also spreading more widely throughout our culture: intolerance of opposing viewpoints, public shaming, ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex political issues into blinding moralistic certainties . Panicked institutional leaders are meting out hasty and disproportionate punishments rather than thoughtful reforms. Publishers are fired for authorizing controversial pieces; books are recalled for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are banned from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting literary works in class; a researcher can be fired for disseminating a peer-reviewed academic study. The result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We reject any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. If we don't defend what our work depends on, we shouldn't expect the state to defend it for us." Words that sound like a call to action against the threat of a tribalization of society and the advent of a new Inquisition.
