“This symbolic nonsense” – American professor Musa al-Gharbi takes aim at the woke elite

Musa al-Gharbi repeatedly bursts out laughing during Zoom calls, but his office at New York's Stony Brook University, in contrast, has a sober, intellectual feel. His new book, "We Have Never Been Woke," sits on the shelf. In it, the professor of communications and journalism analyzes a left-wing, predominantly white, well-educated, and wealthy elite that wants to be especially woke.

He criticizes a "symbolic class" of capitalists who, through their commitment to anti-racism, the advancement of minorities, and social justice, primarily seek power and influence. This class, he argues, primarily improves its own quality of life, but not that of the socially disadvantaged. Al-Gharbi, 42, considers himself part of the symbolic class. His rise to this stratum, however, took a roundabout route.

His father was in the military; in Arizona, al-Gharbi worked as a shoe salesman, among other things, and considered becoming a Catholic priest. After the death of his twin brother while serving in Afghanistan (2010) and his conversion to Islam, al-Gharbi began studying philosophy at the University of Arizona, eventually switching to sociology, where he earned a doctorate from Columbia University in 2023.

Mr. Al-Gharbi, in your book you argue that we were never woke – what does that mean?

The book's title alludes to Bruno Latour's 1991 essay "We Have Never Been Modern." Latour argues that our philosophical approach to modernity prevents us from accurately understanding the modern world and its problems. Similarly, symbolic capitalists themselves prevent us from recognizing the origins of social problems and what might be done about them.

So the woke capitalists are not woke at all?

Our commitment to social justice may be sincere, but we are equally committed to our status as representatives of the elite. We give our perspectives and needs more weight than those of the supermarket cashier. We expect a higher standard of living than the pizza delivery driver, and we want our children to have the same or higher social status than we do. But egalitarians cannot be both social and professional careerists. When these two drives compete with each other, the elite drive determines our view of social justice. Therefore, we pursue justice only with minimal cost, risk, or sacrifice, without compromising our standards or our lifestyle. This way, we are unlikely to change the distribution of wealth and power.

Why is the woke struggle for elite status a competition over who will campaign most for social justice?

Since the advent of symbolic capitalism, we have believed that we should enjoy special privileges and elite status precisely because we vow to use these advantages for the benefit of the marginalized, disadvantaged, and poorest in society.

What's problematic about that?

Let's take the way we deal with disabilities. If a mechanic has irritable bowel syndrome but can do his job, he never identifies as disabled, doesn't constantly talk about it, or demands concessions. Not so the symbolic capitalist: He craves to identify as disabled or limited because of irritable bowel syndrome and demands help and special conditions from the state. Our employers even encourage this – because the state offers subsidies. They can also celebrate themselves because, as a benevolent institution, they give disabled people, neurodivergents, and otherwise disadvantaged people a chance. This moral culture justifies our claim to more power, status, and resources.

And that harms those who are truly in need?

I saw this after Donald Trump's first election at Columbia University, an Ivy League and elite university that exists to groom elites for elite careers—and thus reproduces and legitimizes social inequality. The students saw themselves as socially just leftists and protested against the rise of the rich and powerful under Trump. They were completely incapable of seeing themselves as members of a rich and powerful elite that would benefit from Trump's election. Instead, they presented themselves as vulnerable victims of Trump's exploitation of the underclass. They sobbed in the cafeteria and demanded help. In contrast, cafeteria workers, security guards, janitors, and cleaning staff simply went about their jobs. Most of these people are truly representatives of minorities.

Is this behavior cynical or stupid?

I don't think it's about cynical manipulation. Cognitive and behavioral sciences suggest that we believe in our convictions with genuine passion. Symbolic capitalists may be highly educated and smart, but that's precisely why we're susceptible to blind spots. The more we formally pretend to be woke and the more we signal egalitarian and socially just beliefs, the more self-righteous we become. Studies show that white people who are firmly convinced of their anti-racism prefer other white people in hiring procedures. This is precisely because they consider themselves, their colleagues, and their institutions to be staunchly anti-racist. The fact that they are not actually acting in a socially just or anti-racist manner goes unnoticed. Others are to blame.

Through so-called "awakenings," activists aim to awaken people from their slumber, as during the Black Lives Matter protests. Where does the term "woke" come from?

Young anti-slavery activists in the Northern states called themselves "Wide Awakes" as early as 1860. Accordingly, according to the Google N-Grams search engine, the word "woke" was in common use in the 1870s. "Stay woke" was adopted as a slogan by Black workers in 1940. "Woke" truly became a mainstream buzzword in the 1970s, originating with the play "Garvey Lives!", which was dedicated to the Black civil rights activist Marcus Garvey. It gained renewed popularity through Erykah Badu's refrain "I stay woke" in 2008. Similarly, "political correctness" is an older term, first used among communists in the 1930s, then as "politically incorrect" in the Black Power and New Left movements of the 1970s, finally by feminists in the 1980s, and finally to the ironic or critical meaning of the word more recently.

In light of Donald Trump's aggressive anti-DEI and anti-woke policies, some people claim the era of wokeness is over. Do you agree?

In my book, I conclude that something changed after 2010, but that this wave has been subsiding since 2021.

What has changed this woke wave?

"Awokenings" usually don't change much for truly marginalized or disadvantaged segments of society. You don't see any major redistribution of resources, opportunities, or legislative changes. Sure, there are now more minorities on corporate boards. But to get on the board of McKinsey, you need a degree from an elite university, a long, successful career at elite companies, and you're probably already a multimillionaire. While there are more minorities on boards, they are highly educated and extremely wealthy elite representatives.

And that's bad?

No, but the "awakenings" do little to help truly poor, vulnerable, and disadvantaged people. Rather, they lead to distancing and alienating the ruling elite from ordinary people—and other elites. These elites create alternative knowledge infrastructures. Fox News, for example, is a news alternative to the mainstream media; there are also new right-wing think tanks and alternatives on social networks. Donald Trump and Elon Musk own platforms like Truth Social and X, and Peter Thiel is involved in Rumble. Ultimately, you see political gains for the right. That's usually the result of an "awakening."

Woke strengthens the right?

Ordinary people don't want to wage culture war every day. They're frustrated that "awakenings" care less about earning a living and everyday life. Recently, the Trump administration pushed through the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. Under Joe Biden, there were discussions about renaming schools and military bases named after Confederate generals. This symbolic nonsense further alienates ordinary voters on both sides.

When will the next woke wave come?

Two conditions are necessary for this. First, a virulent overproduction of elites, which leads to elite aspirants not receiving the expected six-figure salary plus home ownership and family due to an oversupply, despite graduating from the "right" schools and universities. Second, a certain degree of impoverishment or impoverishment of the population. Then, an "awakening" directed against the prevailing social order and the existing elites is likely. As soon as socioeconomic conditions improve, it subsides. "Awokenings" occur approximately every twenty-five years. Perhaps the anti-woke elite is already preparing the ground for the next "awakening."

So we can never be sustainably woke?

As desirable as some goals of social justice may be, the mixture of rhetorical egalitarianism and brutal elitism has been part of symbolic capitalism from the beginning. That's why we have never been woke and never will be.

Musa al-Gharbi: We Have Never Been Woke – The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite. Princeton University Press, 2024. 432 pp., Fr. 31.90.