Is ‘wokeness’ really the new religion? I find that hard to believe – The Irish Times

Some comparisons conceal more than they reveal; others tell us more about the people making the comparison. Consider the modern fashion for declaring other people’s beliefs to be “like a new religion.” Comparing your opponents to dogmatic fanatics is not intended as a compliment. Making this comparison often reflects a very limited understanding of religion. The emphasis is on blind faith, eliminating heretics and moral crusades, rather than on the complexity of different beliefs.

Ironically, this accusation is mainly aimed at those who consider themselves non-religious. Andrew Doyle’s book The New Puritans: How the Religion of Social Justice Captured the Western World describes what he calls “the religion of critical social justice.” Likewise, John McWhorter’s Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America focuses on anti-racism. These authors and many others declare that those with whom they disagree are not only mistaken, but cling to their opinions as if they were “gospel.” The “woke” or “social justice warriors” supposedly adhere to mantras, follow theoretical high priests, and are on a holy crusade to convert everyone.

As early as 1983, Tim LaHaye, in his book The Battle for the Public Schools, compared secular humanism to a new religion that infiltrated education and insidiously changed people’s moral values. Since then, the analogy has become a staple of America’s culture wars; the left, feminism, political correctness and more have been dismissed as ‘new religions’.

Analogies can be illuminating and reveal the character of complex situations. They can also be reductive. An idea that has recently become popular among the political right is that the left’s notion of “privilege”—that is, an accident of birth confers unfair advantages—is a new version of original sin. This analogy equates the recognition of social disadvantage and the attempts to reduce this lottery of birth with Augustine’s idea that we are born guilty and continually sin.

Crucially, comparing your opponents to dogmatic fanatics makes it unnecessary to engage with them. Critics call themselves liberal pluralists who enjoy debate, but insist that their opponents are trying to impose a belief system on others. This opposition is presented as akin to theocracy or medieval Christianity. Ironically, free speech advocates effectively instruct their readers to ignore competing ideas and not even attempt to reason with their opponents. This gesture is common on blogs and social media platforms and is a dismissive end to all discussions. Surprisingly, those who use this comparison often say that real religions are more open than the so-called ‘new religions’. In a BBC radio documentary The Church of Social Justice Helen Lewis interviewed many faith communities that were open to feminist, queer or trans issues. By comparison, she found some social justice activists to be intolerant not of different faiths, but of different political beliefs.

Analogies don’t always work; they often combine subtly different things. Social justice is far from the only idea that seeks to transform society rather than accept the status quo; nationalism, neoliberalism and environmentalism have similar ambitions. For those making the comparison, religion is a private matter that should be kept separate from politics, and social justice should be similarly limited. Clearly, this perspective also ignores the transformative ambitions of many religions.

In essence, comparing it to religion amounts to declaring that people you disagree with are either delusional or deliberately manipulative. Those on the left, feminists, anti-racists, and so on, don’t often use the analogy of religion, probably because those they oppose are often explicitly religious. For example, it would be a direct insult to the beliefs of most, but not all, to call pro-life activists “religious fanatics.”

( A question for Willie O’Dea and Sharon Keogan: What exactly do you mean by ‘wake up’? )

This accusation – that the opponent believes in myths and misplaces religious beliefs – has a long history. Ironically, it even has religious roots. Moses destroyed the “golden calf” that his followers made while he was away. Old Testament prophets railed against false prophets. Jesus criticized the Pharisees and overthrew the temple. Accusing others of being idolaters who blindly believe in false gods is central to the Judeo-Christian religion. Iconoclasm – literally the breaking of images – has transformed history. Those at the forefront of the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the revolutions declared that their opponents believed in false myths – from superstition to the divine right of kings. Today, iconoclastic gestures are almost routine.

Ironically, the comparison I am making here is also an analogy with religion. However, it does not reduce religion to the absence of thought, but recognizes the iconoclastic tradition that animates our public discussions today. My analogy does not dismiss anyone’s beliefs as “blind faith,” but it does challenge the dismissal of opponents as thoughtless.

Religion is part of our intellectual heritage. Moreover, religion is varied. Wouldn’t it be better to forgive opponents rather than iconoclastically condemn them? To recognize that they too have good intentions and values. Today we can still learn from a wisdom that is two millennia old: ‘Judge not.’

Tom Boland is a senior lecturer in sociology at UCC

Listen to our Indoor Politics Podcast for the latest analysis and chat