A Conversation with We Have Never Been Woke Author Musa Al-Gharbi (Part 2 of 2)

The sociologist talks to Michael E. Hartmann about what happened in previous Great Awokenings, the choice before symbolic capitalists in the face of growing populist reaction against them, the similarity of symbolic capitalists in conservative philanthropy and the rest of philanthropy, and recommendations for how they should all defend themselves and their position during the coming years.

---

In Musa al-Gharbi‘s well-received new book We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite, he develops the ideas of Pierre Bourdieu about and critiques the work of “symbolic capitalists”—elites who work with words, ideas, images, and data, most of whom are very likely to identify as allies of antiracist, feminist, LGBTQ, and other progressive causes.

“The problem, in short, is not that symbolic capitalists are too woke, but that we’ve never been woke,” according to al-Gharbi, a sociologist and assistant professor in Stony Brook University’s School of Communication and Journalism.

The problem is not that causes like feminism, antiracism, or LGBTQ rights are “bad.” The problem is that, in the name of these very causes, symbolic capitalists regularly engage in behaviors that exploit, perpetuate, exacerbate, reinforce, and mystify inequalities—often to the detriment of the very people we purport to champion. And our commitment to social justice lends an unearned and unfortunate sense of morality to these endeavors.

It sure seems to us as if al-Gharbi is basically describing Big Philanthropy and the well-credentialed elites working in and being supported by it, along with those furthering its interests and protecting its privileged prerogatives. And some specific grantmakers and nonprofit grant recipients are, in fact, covered in the book—written before, and released just weeks prior to, last November’s election.

In the wake of the election, We Have Never Been Woke is being cited often in the discourse about what happened and why. Al-Gharbi was kind enough to join me for a recorded conversation last month to talk about that and how symbolic capitalists, including those in philanthropy and the nonprofit sector, should react moving forward.

During the first part of our discussion, which is here, we talk about symbolic capitalists, how they exacerbate a lot of problems, and why the growth in their numbers has been making things even worse.

The 14-minute video below is the second part, during which we discuss what happened in previous Great Awokenings, the choice before symbolic capitalists in the face of growing populist reaction against them, the similarity of symbolic capitalists in conservative philanthropy and the rest of philanthropy, and recommendations for how they should all defend themselves and their position during the coming years.

Distance, Disagreement, and a Dynamic

“[T]he distance between us” symbolic capitalists “and ordinary Americans is big under ordinary times. It grows bigger during these periods of awokening because of how we conduct ourselves, because we become more confrontational with people who disagree with us and more interested in coercion and so on,” al-Gharbi tells me. “This creates an opportunity for political entrepreneurs, usually associated with the right, to basically campaign on the basis of bringing us under control.

“One unfortunate dynamic that often takes place, and that’s been increasingly pronounced to my mind,” he says, is

when we’re confronted with the kind of populist critique about how our institutions are out of touch, how growing numbers of people are alienated from us in our institutions, they don’t feel like they have a voice or a stake in the things that we’re doing …. We tend to reflexively try to defend our institutions.

In response to the critique, in fact, “you have two groups—one of them saying there’s nothing to see here, don’t believe your lying eyes, everything’s great, it’s wonderful,” according to al-Gharbi, and “you have another group of people who are saying, ‘Yeah, you’re right. Actually, there is this real big problem. These people are out of touch and you actually can’t trust them to reform themselves. They’ll never reform themselves. … What we need to do is just burn it down.’”

In the public discourse, “If those are the two messages people are presented with, it’s pretty straightforward which of those is going to win,” he continues.

The burn-it-all-down people are going to win. It’s actually incumbent on us to take these concerns that people have seriously and engage them in a serious way, in a way that helps build their confidence in these institutions, bridge some of these sociological gaps, and so on. It we just keep defending defending defending, denying denying denying, that only adds more fuel and power to the very people who are talking about burning our institutions down. This is a miscalculation that a lot of us end up making in these kinds of moments.

Moral and Intellectual Charity

On-the-defensive establishment institutions and those at the top of and in them should instead “recognize some of the problems and concerns that people have about our institutions and agree to make some reforms that might be painful or annoying, but would be less painful or annoying than if we just try to stick with our current maximalist position, which is probably a loser,” al-Gharbi says.

Elite symbolic capitalists don’t have their “privileges and rights and freedoms just because we’re special, amazing people who are entitled to having more autonomy than other workers,” he goes on.

The idea behind giving us these freedoms and privileges is that they’re supposed to empower us help us to help other people. Freedoms come with responsibilities, privileges come with duties, rights come with obligations. To the extent that people don’t perceive us to be fulfilling our duties, engaging in a responsible way, living up to our obligations, then of course the natural and normal response is for them to come for our rights and freedoms and privileges.

Al-Gharbi laments that symbolic capitalists “often don’t extend moral or intellectual charity to people who disagree with us. We often don’t talk to other people in terms of their own values, their own narratives, their own priorities. We insist upon our own framing and preferences … That’s not persuasive. …

“We need to persuade,” he says.

---

This article first appeared in the Giving Review on January 14, 2025.

Source: https://capitalresearch.org/article/a-conversation-with-we-have-never-been-woke-author-musa-al-gharbi-part-2-of-2/