Transcending the tribalism of the culture wars spectrum

ABSTRACT

In this article, I lament, problematize and illustrate the inviolability of the culture wars spectrum(s) as a modernist/ubermodern matrix in which we’re trapped in ideological groupthink and exclusion of the other. Intrinsic to the binary language constructs of left-right, liberal-conservative, etc. is an us-them assumption of polarization that is impotent in creating a justice society or achieving a greater good. The spectrum is ideological, depending on demonizing the other, in the name of opposing notions of ‘freedom’– a euphemism for autonomous self-will. The self-will and othering of any us-them cannot be resolved by changing sides without changing spirits. ‘Calling out’ is easy; ‘calling in’ much harder. Having grieved and critiqued spectrum ideology, I propose an alternative vision adapted from George P. Grant (Canadian political philosopher) and Simon Weil (French philosopher/activist/mystic). To do so, I appropriate Grant’s interpretation of the Socrates’ ‘Good’ fulfilled in Christ’s such that Love/the Good are given primacy rather than freedom as self-will. That vision attempts to transcend spectrum groupthink and strives for an alternative society that invites divergent streams beyond their partisan zeal to draw near for a conversation concerning the greater goods of restorative justice and inclusive care.

KEYWORDS:

• Culture wars
• political ideology
• spectrum politics
• identity politics
• critical theory
• George P. Grant
• Simone Weil
• Jordan Peterson

View responses to this article:

Neo-Gnosticism, ideology and the culture wars: the contemplative antidote – perennial tensions: a reply to Jersak

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Katie Skurja is an innovative therapist based in Oregon. https://www.idmin.org.

2. Senate Hearing on Bill C16 (2017).

3. A compromise was eventually reached in Vancouver (Vancouver Sun 2017).

4. I am also interacting with older works by Steven Lukes (2003) and Detlev Jahn (2011).

5. A double entendre, addressed to the moral power of peacemakers who risk their lives resisting violence and to militarist leaders who would never put themselves on the front lines.