Mediaboss Marketing

The term woke has its roots in Black culture but has since been removed from this origin and been co-opted a symbol by those who push back against social justice progress. Staci M. Zavattarowrites that for policymakers and activists to affect change, it is important to understand how the social constructions of woke and Critical Race Theory, more specifically, have changed.

During her Senate confirmation hearings for the US Supreme Court this week, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson endured a series of questions from lawmakers about race, religion, and policing. In several instances, she was asked about Critical Race Theory or more appropriately CRT. Culture wars questions always seem to play out live during US Supreme Court confirmation hearings, and the latest version has focused on CRT and anti-racism.

Why is this sloganeering happening? One explanation is that the word woke has moved from its rhetorical roots in the Black community to become weaponized today to pass legislation undoing much of the social justice progress benefitting marginalized populations. Words like woke and associated imagery including CRT become catalysts to carry out culture war policies harming and aliening people from full participation in democratic society.

In our research, we chose the word woke because it came to prominence in the American lexicon after police murdered George Floyd in Minnesota in May 2020. The murder at the hands of the state seemed to set off a reckoning, especially among White people, about racism and its deadly effects. Corporations jumped into the movement, turning social media profile pictures into black squares to ideally bring attention to these structural issues. Yet with not much long-term change, such pronouncements often seem like mere marketing ploys.

And that was our point. The word woke and its associated imagery became political calling cards for certain lawmakers to pass legislation curbing voting rights, prohibiting transgender women from competing in womens sports, changing school curriculum so it does not hurt feelings, and banning and burning books. In this way, we can see how the word woke moved from its roots in Black culture to todays symbolic politics needing no real meaning anymore because the symbols and words are so powerful.

To better understand how the word woke has changed, we use a theory called phases of the image. That theory from French philosopher Jean Baudrillard explains how something starts with a clear connection to reality then through time can progress into what is called hyperreality. Any connection to a former reality dissipates, allowing a new, socially constructed reality to emerge. A concrete examination of this theory took place in the popular movie The Matrix. In one scene, Morpheus quotes directly from Baudrillard when he says: Welcome to the desert of the real. The movie plays between reality and simulation, as do places such as Las Vegas and Walt Disney World. Virtual reality tools popular today also blur these lines. The simulations become the reality.

The term woke was brought to prominence by William Melvin Kelley in a 1962 New York Times essay, meaning the word was birthed in Harlem, the epicenter of Black culture in America. Kelley argued that when words in Black culture are co-opted by White people, they lose their real meaning. The term became popular in 2008 as singer Erykah Badu used it in the chorus of her song Master Teacher, and in 2015 Google searches for the word increased after police killings of Black people throughout the US. Today, the term woke is removed from its roots in Black culture to a symbol people use to push back against social justice progress.

With its roots in the Black community, wokeness meaning to be awake to social oppression helped bring about legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Learning about and being aware of structural racism led to passage of the (albeit flawed) legislation attempting to dismantle some of those barriers to entry for Black individuals. As the word woke floated from its foundations, the term led to backlash against symbolic activism acts with no real change but meant to make people feel good, such as the aforementioned social media black photos and painting streets with Black Lives Matter. Symbolic acts are hugely powerful, of course, but in our work, we argue how symbolic acts also need accompanying policy change to have any connection to reality. Otherwise, someone might think painting a street in and of itself is enough to move the needle on social change.

The most visible way the term woke has moved into hyperreality is through its rhetorical use in contemporary society. All one must do is look at news outlets to see how the word is being used to denote opposition to any meaningful social justice efforts, indeed even being used as a reason to pass legislation stripping away social progress or putting back into place systemic barriers meant to preserve White power structures. Indeed, using the word woke is a purposeful, powerful tool of mostly right-leaning lawmakers to invoke images of puritanical nostalgia being dismantled by liberal activists.

This is why we chose to use CRT as an example in our work. Critical race theory is an academic field of inquiry that began from a legal perspective to interrogate structural, systemic barriers to equal access and treatment. CRT and woke as symbols and rhetoric are lumped in together to mean anything someone sees as threats to an idealized image of America. When asked to define either term, lawmakers cannot which is exactly the point. In a hyperreality, the image is more important than reality. A pundit summed it up nicely: We have successfully frozen their brand critical race theory into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category.

From a public administration perspective, the implications of our work are clear: understand the power of symbolic politics to affect change. Our research focused on the term woke and its unmooring from roots in the Black community as a mechanism to understand some of the public battles playing out today. Knowing rhetorical roots allows public administrators, stakeholders, and activists to learn the symbolic rules to play a similar game.

Please read our comments policy before commenting.

Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics.

Shortened URL for this post:https://bit.ly/3IKFA7I

Staci M. Zavattaro University of Central FloridaStaci M. Zavattaro, Ph.D., is professor of public administration at the University of Central Florida. Her research focuses on the lived experiences of public managers. Her latest research examines the role of deathcare and death management.

Visit link:
How woke became weaponized in the culture wars - London School of Economics

AMAC Exclusive By Daniel Roman

For the first time in decades, it is conservatives, not liberals, who are on the offensive in the culture wars. There are a number of things conservatives have done well this time around, including picking their battles, building broad coalitions, and trying to unite rather than divide parents. But a key force in the Rights cultural resurgence is ultimately the Left itself, which has shockingly forfeited the debate. For most of the last year, there has been little to no effort to actually defend the merits of left-wing positions. These days, leftists seem only capable of hurling invective at those attacking them. The American people are not responding well.

It really is not worth dignifying the arguments over whether Lia Thomas should or should not be allowed to compete as a woman by calling it a debate as even those on the Left seem to know better than to deviate too far from absolutist talking points, lest the absurdity of their position becomes evident to all. There is little better evidence that even many liberals dont have their hearts in the fight; they are kept in line by the threat of cancellation, but reveal their private reservations by how they publicly repeat rote lines like no one actually knows what gender really is.

All of this is a consequence of the Left creating an echo chamber where their positions are justified not on the basis that they are well-reasoned or produce good outcomes, but because they are simply asserted by everyone on the Left as the right thing to do. Because they are right, by definition, they should be done, and further debate about drawbacks is not genuine debate but a bad-faith effort to delay the right thing to do. At the root of this twisted logic is an insidious form of identity politics which states that if any marginalized group makes a demand, that demand must be treated as legitimate. This is true even if other members of the group contest it.

For example, even the most extreme demands made by groups such as Black Lives Matter are held to be the legitimate demands of the entire African American community. Those opposing the demands are either racists (if not African American) or not legitimate representatives of the community (if they are African American). The Left has long practiced this with Jews, labeling prominent senior Trump administration officials as Nazis even if they were Jewish. They are now turning this thinking against other groups, such that any woman who is pro-life is no longer considered to be on the side of women. Any gay or lesbian individual who is not supportive of the most extreme demands for sex and gender education in schools is self-hating. A transgender individual who does not believe it is fair for biological men to take part in womens sports, such as Caitlyn Jenner, or one who has serious doubts about childhood transition, is now labeled a transphobe.

Solidarity with any identity group is defined as solidarity with the most extreme left-wing elements of that group.

Politically, this line of thinking has led the Left into a dead-end of policies supported only by the most extremist elements of the communities in question. Hence why Democrats associated the defense of Critical Race Theory with supporting African Americans, when the vast majority of African American parents want their schools teaching math and science, not radical social theories, or why Democrats believe that placating open-border advocates is the key to winning over Hispanic voters.

Perhaps even worse than causing Democrats to push unpopular policies, this line of thinking has prevented them from realizing why they even need to persuade anyone at allwhich is having all sorts of insidious effects on American society.

Conservatives are now winning because they have spotted this vulnerability and seized it. The battles over CRT and reopening schools were a practice-run. Both provided compelling issues for conservatives and had broad appeal to the American public. Significantly, however, the opposition never figured out what their position was. On CRT, was it bad, but not being taught? Was it good, not being taught, but should be taught? Did it exist at all? Should it? Many on the Left tried to hurl these questions back at conservatives, suggesting they lacked a clear definition of CRT, but conservatives could at the very least point to things that were being taught that they wished to stop. The Left, unable to decide whether CRT existed or not, never mounted a coherent defense.

This dynamic extended to the Supreme Courts oral arguments over Mississippis 15-week abortion ban. Lawyers for the plaintiffs repeatedly insisted the law violated the precedents set by Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood but refused to be drawn into discussions about whether those cases were correctly decided to begin with. This purely procedural approach extended outside the court system, where the Left has argued that Roe is under threat, without explaining why a 15-week ban would be harmful or wrong.

With the current debates over Floridas so-called Dont Say Gay bill and transgender issues, the Left has fallen into similar logical black holes. In the former case, Democrats have been maneuvered either to point out problems that might arise in hypothetical situations (which would often require active malice from teachers) or attempting to mobilize high school students and activists against a bill which only applied to students from pre-school up through third grade. There may well have been logistical and legal issues with the drafting, but if there was a case against the bill, it was not one the Left made. Instead, they focused on arguing that this cannot be done, not that it should not. Polls suggest that they lost.

The most extreme example of the Lefts failure to make any real arguments is the fight over the inclusion of transgender individuals in competitive sports. It is an issue that the Left themselves would say effects only the privileged. The demographic of individuals, especially younger biological males, who can attend elite institutions, receive the financial and familial support required to transition at a young age, and would seek to compete against women is a heavily wealthy group. Yet somehow, the Left has decided that the civil rights issue of our time is the right of a specific Ivy League student to win college athletic competitions as their preferred gender. There is no effort to explain why this is more important than any of the other concerns raised (such as biological women having to compete against an individual with a clear biological advantage). There is simply the assertion that it is necessary, and that anyone who disagrees is a bigot.

Cancel Culture worked best for the Left when it was pushed with a mixture of persuasion and force. For the last two years, the mask of persuasion and argument has dropped. The Left has begun treating everyone like they treated their own adherents for the last decade. The result is that they have helped defeat themselves in effect accomplishing what social conservatives have struggled to achieve for half a century: making ordinary Americans hate them.

Daniel Roman is the pen name of a frequent commentator and lecturer on foreign policy and political affairs, both nationally and internationally. He holds a Ph.D. in International Relations from the London School of Economics.

We hope you've enjoyed this article. While you're here, we have a small favor to ask...

Support AMAC Action. Our 501 (C)(4) advances initiatives on Capitol Hill, in the state legislatures, and at the local level to protect American values, free speech, the exercise of religion, equality of opportunity, sanctity of life, and the rule of law.

See the rest here:
The Left is Their Own Worst Enemy in the Culture Wars - AMAC

No governor has drawn more national attention than RonDeSantisof Florida. And sinceDeSantisis a Republican and in the mold of Donald Trump, that coverage has been decidedly negative.

The topic could be his handling of COVID-19. Or his decision to open businesses and beaches earlier than most other governors. Or vaccine distribution. Or his Parental Rights in Education bill (dubbed the Dont Say Gay bill by Democrats and echoed by many in the press). Or banning most abortions after 15 weeks. Or approving an immigration measure that doesnt allow state entities to do business with businesses and companies that transport migrant children who crossed the border illegally into Florida. Or signing a proclamation declaring Emma Weyant the true winner of a U.S. national college swimming title after she lost to transgender athlete Lia Thomas.

You can agree or disagree withDeSantisand the Florida legislature on any of these moves, measures and proclamations. What makes the governor popular among his supporters is that he doesnt appear to give a damn about what the Florida press or the national political media think about how hes leading his state. He has a plan and principles that appear to be unwavering.

Consider a recent exchange the governor had with WFLAs Evan Donovan after the reporter referenced what critics call the Dont Say Gay bill.

Does it say that in the bill?DeSantisshot back, refusing to allow his critics to frame the bill as homophobic.Does it say that in the bill? Im asking whats in the bill because you are pushing false narratives. It doesnt matter what critics say.

It says classroom instruction on sexual identity and gender orientation, Donovan replied while leaving out a very key detail.

For who? DeSantisretorted. For grades pre-K through three, no five-year-olds, six-year-olds, seven-year-olds. And the idea that you wouldnt be honest about that and tell people what it actually says, its why people dont trust people like you because you peddle false narratives. And so we just disabused you of those narratives.

And thats true: The bill applies to kids in kindergarten through second grade being taught sexual instruction. Sounds like something that a parent of a kindergartener or first- or second-grader would support.

Understand, if you are out protesting this bill, you are by definition putting yourself in favor of injecting sexual instruction to 5-, 6- and 7-year-old kids,DeSantissaid during another recent press conference. I think most people think thats wrong. I think parents especially think thats wrong.

The national press is largely against the bill, and headline after headline refers to it as the Dont Say Gay bill, in an apparent effort to push a false narrative.

Take this framing by NBC News: Its headline read, Florida Gov. RonDeSantissignals support for Dont Say Gay bill, followed by a subhead The bill, which would bar the discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in primary schools, passed the Florida Senate Education Committee on Tuesday.

The headline itself was misleading, because thats not what the bill is called; its what critics call it. And the story itself, which wasnt an opinion piece, never once mentionedDeSantissmainpoint that the bill bars sexual instruction to 5-, 6- and 7-year-old kids.

Why omit that crucial element of the legislation?Unless, of course, a narrative is being peddled.

Despite all the negative press, Florida voters support the bill as it pertains to banning theteaching of sexual orientation and gender identity from kindergarten through third grade by a solid margin. Per recent Quinnipiac polling, 51 percent of voters there support it while just 35 percent oppose and 15 percent have no opinion.

Overall,DeSantis is leading his Democratic challengers in this years governors race.

If Charlie Crist captures the Democratic nomination in Florida, DeSantiswould beat him 55 percent to 34 percent if the election were held today,according to a pollreleased by the Public Opinion Research Lab at University of North Florida. If matched up against Nikki Fried,Desantishas a 55 percent to 32 percent lead.Other pollsalso showDeSantiscomfortably ahead.

Overall,DeSantis, an Iraq War veteran and Harvard Law graduate, sits at 54 percent while President Biden is at 39 approval in Florida.

Hell almost certainly win in November to capture a second term as governor, which could serve as a springboard to a 2024 presidential run.

When 2024 rolls around, Donald Trump will be 78 years old; DeSantiswill be 45.

A recent CPAC straw poll showed Trump winning the nomination easily, with 61 percent of the vote.DeSantiswas second with 28 percent,up 7 points from last year. No other candidate got more than 2 percent.

But if Trump doesnt run,DeSantisgets 61 percent of the vote. His next-nearest potential competitors, Donald Trump Jr. and Mike Pompeo, each get 6 percent.

RonDeSantisis a culture warrior, just as Trump was before him.His positions may be unpopular with Democrats and the press but if Florida is an indication of sentiment in other swing states, such as Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio, this will serve him very well if he becomes 2024 GOP nominee.

Joe Concha is a media and politics columnist.

The Hill has removed its comment section, as there are many other forums for readers to participate in the conversation. We invite you to join the discussion on Facebook and Twitter.

Continue reading here:
Ron DeSantis is winning the culture wars - The Hill

There is a gathering, and very significant, storm growing on social media to rename the town of Woking, and to change its name back to its Anglo-Saxon form of Wohingas. Superficially, this battle has erupted because the towns name has the term Woke in it. More significantly, however, the row points to greater themes at play within Western society, the media and the culture wars. April is the cruellest month and on such a significant day as today, it would be foolish indeed to ignore the threat faced by Woking.

When you look up the cultural contribution of Woking, it packs a surprisingly large punch for a town which is a byword for the London commuter belt. For example, H.G. Wells set Horsell Common in Woking for the Martians first landing in War of the Worlds. Now cultural fact is stranger than science fiction. Arthur Conan Doyle lands Sherlock Holmes in the town for an investigation in one of his short stories. More recently Woking was compared to Standing in the kitchen wondering what you came in here for by Douglas Adams in The Deeper Meaning of Liff. In February 1982 The Jam reached number 1 in the charts by writing A Town Called Malice about Woking. A town called malice aforethought, indeed.

So perhaps Woking is overdue a bit of the limelight. Now, though, it is caught in the glare of cultural conflagration.

Dig a bit deeper into the political make-up of Woking and the place turns out to be fertile ground for a culture war. The town has a Liberal Democrat Mayor, but a Conservative MP. The Torys have 20 seats in the council while the Liberals have 18. In the last General Election, the long-standing Conservative MP was returned to Westminster, but lost 5.2 percent of his vote while the Liberal Democrat candidate increased vote by a staggering 13.2 percent.

The Tories need culture wars in places like Woking to hold onto power in the Southeast, while pork-barrelling money into the Red Wall. These sorts of conflicts dont do the Lib Dems any harm either; getting them much-needed attention and manufactured relevance for the community they should be serving.

To really understand how Woking could be caught up in a wave of Anglo-Saxon reactionary rage, look no further than the Brexit referendum of 2016. Traditionally the town was the very definition of true blue, but voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union (51.2 percent). Up until the Brexit referendum this was a town which oozed middle class stability, but is now ripping itself apart over what it should call itself.

The Brexit debate polarised everything it touched. To understand this, we must get to grips with the figure of Nigel Farage, who looms so large in the leafy suburbs such as Woking. His personality, more than anyone else in modern political culture, polarised every tacit of British life. Brexit was his Pandoras Box, which lit the tinder chest of culture wars, creating an earthquake to shake the very foundations of what it is to live in a town like Woking. From this spouted the fountainhead of polarisation to create the divided society we live in today. For Brexit, read controversy over trans, BLM, lockdown, anti-vaxers, the BBC, climate change or indeed the woking classes.

Society is now so divided that we cant even agree on names of the places we live in. The Woking controversy is evidence of a collective collapse in Western culture. No wonder Putin is so emboldened. Just imagine what his trolls and bots could do with this war of the worlds: Woking versus Wohingas.

All of this is deeply problematic and goes to the root of who we are and where we want to go. Unless we can rely on what our communities call themselves, how can we avoid a return to Anglo-Saxon attitudes? Not much can be expected from our political overlords. Boris the Deceiver Johnson and Sir Keir Captain Hindsight Starmer are hardly the people to take us forward, but make us look back into an abyss of culture wars constructed for their own ends. With such medieval jesters and knights of the realm in charge, what hope for Woking? As Shakespeare has his fool, Feste, tell Malvolio in Twelfth Night: Then you are mad indeed, if you are no better in your wits than a fool.

We are the only publication thats committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one thats needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation.

Read the original:
The culture war fight to rename Woking - TheArticle

It is not clear if a 25-year-old postal employee named William Cuthbert Faulkner was among the readers who accepted the literary challenge thrown down 100 years ago, in the spring of 1922, when James Joyce released his avant-garde epic, Ulysses. What we do know is that Faulkners Southern twist on Joycean modernism has made for popular reading in the wake of the U.S. Capitol insurrection and other spasms of red-state rage.

The Pulitzer Prize-winning critic Hilton Als declared that Faulkner foresaw the age of Trump and Derek Chauvins trial, and the Gordian knot of race that continues to choke large portions of our country. Michael Gorra, in his recent book The Saddest Words: William Faulkners Civil War, added that while Faulkners early readers saw a quarrel in his work between...the Old South and the New, this now seems like pocket change, and the story he offers instead is that of the nation itself.

In a day and age when Confederate monuments are falling and the author of a best-seller called Hillbilly Elegy is running for Senate, Faulkner is unquestionably relevant. But the fog of our culture wars may be so thick and hazy that we also need some Joycean fireworks to guide us through the Faulknerian backwoods.

For all their differences, Faulkners Yoknapatawphans and Joyces urban Catholics and Jews actually share quite a few traits. They all live in the tall shadows of gunmenhaunted by historical ghosts of rebellion and war, steeped in cultures prone to romanticization. For many characters in both Faulkner and Joyce, history is a nightmare from which they cannot awaken. And their social orders are dominant in some ways but subjugated in others, jumbling our conventional understandings of oppression and dominance, even of resistance.

A revolution must come on the due instalments plan, Joyces wandering Dublin Jew Leopold Bloom declares late in Ulysses. It is an ironic statement in an ironic scene, in a novel that often treats oppression, nationalism and political violence in deeply ironic ways. There are cultural lessons in such passages as timely and valuable as anything in Faulkner.

Upon its release, Ulysses dazzled and confounded readers with its kaleidoscopic array of political, sexual and intellectual escapades, unfolding on a single fictional dayhenceforth to be known as Bloomsday. Often forgotten is that on the actual Bloomsday, June 16, 1922, Irelands revolutionary movementa prominent presence in Ulysseswas decisively split in two when voters approved the terms of a contentious Anglo-Irish peace treaty.

By then, Irelands nationalist movement had been supporting political candidates under the banner of Sinn Fein, while simultaneously waging guerilla warfare against British colonial forces.

Oft-mentioned throughout Ulysses is a shadowy nationalist group called the Invincibles, which murdered Lord Frederick Cavendish in Dublins Phoenix Park in 1882. Sinn Feiners would later claim the assassination was justified by recurrent British atrocities. It was as if the English felt themselves absolved from all ethical restraints when dealing with the Irish, Julie Kavanagh writes in her 2021 book The Irish Assassins: Conspiracy, Revenge, and the Phoenix Park Murders That Stunned Victorian England.

Joyces alter ego, Stephen Dedalus, even has gruesome visions of the behung...corpses of papishes as he reflects upon the close, complicated ties between Irish nationalism and the Catholic Church. May the God above/ Send down a dove/ With teeth as sharp as razors/ To slit the throats/ Of the English dogs/ That hanged our Irish leaders, Joyces rebel Citizen rhapsodizes at one point.

But Joyce also explores resistance to oppression in ways that might seem out of fashion today. With his huge emerald muffler and shillelagh, the Citizenand nationalism itselfis portrayed with heaping doses of irreverence. Scholars have noted that, in fashioning Ulysses after the Odyssey, Joyce links the Citizen with Homers one-eyed Cyclopsas in: a monstrous figure who doesnt see things very clearly.

Then there are the piteous lamentations over the grave and ghost of the uncrowned king of Ireland, Charles Stewart Parnell, whose towering memory is contrasted with the none-too-inspiring presence of his brother, John. Finally, Robert Emmets impassioned proclamations are also juxtaposed with Leopold Blooms uncontrollable flatulence.

At one point, the Citizen himself starts gassing, going on and on about the Invincibles and the old guard and the men of sixtyseven. Talking about new Ireland he ought to go and get a new dog so he ought. Mangy ravenous brute. Perhaps most unsettling, after confronting Bloom in a pub, the Citizen rants: Ill brain that bloody jewman, then shouts: Sinn Fein!Sinn Fein amhain! The friends we love are by our side and the foes we hate before us.

For Joyce, nationalism may have been a necessary response to oppression, but it is not without its own shortcomings. Exploring these does run the risk of undermining powerful goals of resistance and of being a loyal enemy of my enemy. Looked at another way, though, confronting the fallibilities of the persecuted or their allies might be the ultimate acknowledgement of their humanitya status never granted by oppressors.

The very year in which Ulysses is set, a Catholic priest named John Creagh brewed up an antisemitic furor in Ireland. Joycewho was in Paris as the Dreyfus Affair unfoldedreturned to Dublin just in time for[this] boycott of Jewish merchants in Limerick, Richard Ellman notes. The 1904 campaign was short-lived and laudably condemned by many Irish Catholicsbut not by Arthur Griffith, who was not only among Father Creaghs supporters, but founded Sinn Fein.

To ignore this about Griffith or the likes of John Creagh, simply because they also happen to have been aligned with the anti-Brits, would be absurd. So would labeling Stephen Dedalus some kind of quisling or traitor because of his lament that he is a servant not just of a single colonial ruler, but two masters, an English and an Italian. Would that more readers and writersthen and nowcould wrestle with this Italian churchs monumental flaws, but also its virtues; its historic protection of the persecuted, along with its persecutions.

Like the Citizen, too many culture warriorsthen and nowsee only friends or foes, useful idiots or scapegoats, in social conflict. Complicating things any further veers close to giving succor to the enemy.

Meanwhile, 100 years later, the party now bearing the name Sinn Fein has moved from the radical margins to the very center of political life in Ireland. The nationalists are well positioned to be the top vote-getters in the upcoming May 2022 assembly elections in Northern Ireland. In fact, Sinn Fein is also on the verge of becoming the ruling party down south in the Republic of Ireland.

In short, after a centurys worth of bloodshed and growing pains, the Irish nationalist revolution has made its way into the nations respectable ruling class.

As evidenced by the January 2021 storming of the U.S. Capitol, Yoknapatawpha Countys 21st-century offspringnationalist in their own wayare looking to take a different route to power. And William Faulkners relevance in 2022 seems indisputable.

To Carl Rollyson, the recent biographer of Faulkner, novels like The Sound and the Fury offer a stunning rebuke to a society built on segregation and on the ideology of white supremacy. The literary scholar Myka Tucker-Abramson notes that when a new cycle of wealth extraction...on the battlefields of real estate and oil beckoned in the United States, Donald Trump answered [the call], one whose blueprint and history Faulkners postwar fiction provides. The critic Philip Weinstein could just as easily be talking about the former president when he observes that Faulkners drifter-turned-magnate (and later, dynastic powerbroker) Flem Snopes is there to fan [chaos] into action and exploit its consequences.

Flem gets his comeuppance at the end of The Mansion (1957), the third and final book in Faulkners newly relevant Snopes trilogy. But Thomas Sutpen in Absalom, Absalom! is also an illuminating MAGA surrogate. As a young boy, Sutpen famously tried to enter the opulent Pettibone mansion, only to be rebuffed by a Black servanta perfect storm of class and racial grievance that drives Sutpen for the remainder of his restless, maniacal life.

Sutpen himself meets a gruesome end with its own toxic blend of rage and poetic justice. Eventually even his beloved estate, Sutpen Hundred, is destroyed, torched by his traumatized biracial daughter.

More and more reactionaries, though, are also turning to language and actionsany means necessary, you might even saythat seem more Weathermen than Rotarian. How are we to combat this unlikely turn of events?

Too often, amid the shock and horror of the past five years, the progressive resistance has relied upon fighting strident, inflexible fire with its own strident and inflexible fire. There is a reluctance to scrutinize familiar ideas or allies or look inwardeven with Joycean irreverenceamid fears that such reflections might amount to punching down or being told that this is not a space for intellectualizing the topic, as Cambridge academics were warned during a recent workshop.

And so, rather than take an opportunity to distinguish between more and less urgent ideas, hone arguments or perhaps even develop new coalitions, there is faith that poetic justice is nigh, because we are on the right side of history and they are not. Thomas Sutpen, after all, was dispatched, even if the slam of that Pettibone mansion door continues to ring in many ears.

Flem Snopes, too, was consigned to the dustbin of Confederate historyby a relative, no less. Yet there are many other members of the extended Snopes clan. One might even call them a dynasty.

In another ironic twist, some thoughtful observers are now worried Yoknapatawphan rage might lead to Irish-style nationalist violence in the United States. While the United States obviously has not descended to the level of present-day Iraq or Lebanon or Troubles-era Northern Ireland, Jonathan Stevenson and Steven Simon wrote in The New York Review of Books last year, these are ominously suggestive examples. Efforts to confront armed, far-right militants with laws more clearly defining domestic terrorism and strengthening the means to combat it might only burnish their status as freedom fighters.

This, Stevenson and Simon argue, is what happened when the Provisional Irish Republican Army rose to prominence in Northern Ireland. They also worry about American militias attempting high-profile assassinations, while also whipping up populist fervor through strategically calculated hunger strikes...as the IRA did. All of which only made it easier for them to gain political traction as principled revolutionaries through Sinn Fein, their political counterpart.

At least in Ireland, it took decades for the nationalist rebels to make their way to the mainstream. There was, if you will, a due instalments plan. Here in the United States, it turns out the Q-Anoners were already in elected office and since 2016 have set about tracking the muck of the swampy margins all the way into the White House and onto the steps of the Capitol.

And can we not love our country then? one nationalist character wonders in Joyces first novel, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. It is a question that hovers over much of Joyces and Faulkners work, and our own moment.

Such love can take many formsincluding, of course, hate. Which brings to mind a hunting trip in Faulkners second Snopes novel, The Town. A noise in some shrubbery compels one character to speculate that it might only be a rabbit, or it might be a bigger varmint, one with more poison or anyhow more teeth. And you can watch the bushes shaking but you cant see what it is or which a way its goingat least, not until it breaks out.

But by then it may be too late.

Read more:
In an age of insurrections and culture wars, Joyce and Faulkner are increasingly relevant - America Magazine