I read this book a few years ago and was disappointed that the author had spent the latter half of the book talking about something irrelevant (exercise) and not progressivism/wokism. But I realized that the author probably has sympathy toward this group which is why there is such a glaring omission.
Although a fascinating book, the author's political leaning throughout the book was quite apparent. She definitely took some jabs toward Trump. Which made me glad the reviewer I linked to pointed out that gap.
I wish people would use Chomsky as an example. A prominent scientist and a prominent activist who kept his science and his activism separate, and therefore maintained credibility in both.
The cultish language is such a giveaway. And it's funny, that these people are talking about helping marginalized groups but they use pedantic obfuscated language that only people with graduate degrees understand.
I'm not too familiar with Chomsky (I know of him, but haven't read much of his stuff), but good to hear that he is a model of someone who can keep both ideas separate.
The split between the language perpetuated in the ivory tower and the clients I regularly see in front of me has been incredibly apparent and stark. It reminds me of the thesis al-Gharbi puts forth in "We Have Never Been Woke." It's a very elitist and infantilizing kind of mindset these people have.
It's quite the hefty book, but well worth it. If your friends have any interest, feel free to share my original article I based this essay on. I include a list in Appendix B of other books worth reading as a way to "rebalance" the dominated critical social justice ethos: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08841233.2025.2469539#appendixes
I read this book a few years ago and was disappointed that the author had spent the latter half of the book talking about something irrelevant (exercise) and not progressivism/wokism. But I realized that the author probably has sympathy toward this group which is why there is such a glaring omission.
Although a fascinating book, the author's political leaning throughout the book was quite apparent. She definitely took some jabs toward Trump. Which made me glad the reviewer I linked to pointed out that gap.
I wish people would use Chomsky as an example. A prominent scientist and a prominent activist who kept his science and his activism separate, and therefore maintained credibility in both.
The cultish language is such a giveaway. And it's funny, that these people are talking about helping marginalized groups but they use pedantic obfuscated language that only people with graduate degrees understand.
I'm not too familiar with Chomsky (I know of him, but haven't read much of his stuff), but good to hear that he is a model of someone who can keep both ideas separate.
The split between the language perpetuated in the ivory tower and the clients I regularly see in front of me has been incredibly apparent and stark. It reminds me of the thesis al-Gharbi puts forth in "We Have Never Been Woke." It's a very elitist and infantilizing kind of mindset these people have.
Thanks for mentioning that book. It sounds right on the money. I may recommend it to my irritating fake woke friends.
It's quite the hefty book, but well worth it. If your friends have any interest, feel free to share my original article I based this essay on. I include a list in Appendix B of other books worth reading as a way to "rebalance" the dominated critical social justice ethos: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08841233.2025.2469539#appendixes