Recursive Social Darwinism and Threats to Diversity
In the last post, we discussed the illusion of difference, and how corporate greed has promoted and exploited group identity in order to increase and profit from hate, grievance, and paranoia. We also discussed how the unsung heroes of the nascent field of anthropology disproved the tenets of Social Darwinism, as well as the biological concept of race. Through comparative cultural analysis, ethnography, and participant observation studies, anthropologists showed that race (just like gender) is a sociocultural concept, not a biological fact.
Yet modern social movements cling to the illusion of race despite the centuries harm it has caused, and despite the fact that it does not exist—except in our minds. Why is that?
The reason why people continue to treat race as a biological fact rather than an outmoded concept is the same reason it was invented in the first place: power. People invented the concept of race to create the illusion of difference, supported by the lie that one group is superior to another, and then used this lie as a means of justifying inequality, depriving other groups of power, agency, wealth, land, and other resources—and sometimes their lives.
It is tempting to equate race with color, but color can also be used to deconstruct just how capricious and arbitrary the race concept is. At the turn of the twentieth century, Irish people were referred to using the same deplorable pejorative terms that had been used to denigrate African Americans.
White Europeans were the most “successful” in exploiting the race concept to their advantage, and in using racist ideology to justify crimes ranging from slavery to genocide, but they are far from the only group to do so. It is an oft-repeated mistake to blame “whites,” or “white Europeans,” or even “white supremacy” for the ills of racism. As Boas, Mead, and Benedict proved, racism is a-historical. Prejudice and ethnocentrism are universal human traits, and thus the capacity for racism is universal as well. This may sound like a pessimistic observation—at least until one realizes that while we all have the capacity for racism, we also have within us the capacity for tolerance and colorblindness as well. We may not be able to direct the social forces that already shaped us, but all human beings can choose how we want to move forward from among infinite paths. We can shape our destiny as active participants, or we can give up and let “fate” and other people decide our future—either way, the choice is ours.
Whether we choose to recognize it or not, we are all equal in our capacity for good and evil (should you wish to view the world in those terms)—and for a great deal of nuance between extremes. This too, is a hopeful, optimistic observation, because it humbles simultaneously as it enlightens. We are all members of the same human race, and no culturally constructed subgroup is superior or inferior to any other. To assert otherwise is racist.
Yet, an increasingly totalitarian social movement is asserting otherwise, and doing so in a manner that will cause cultural and societal disintegration if left unchecked. This movement is media savvy, cloaking itself in the robes of a social justice crusader, deploying pseudoscientific jargon, and the language of grievance to establish moral credibility. Underpinned by the postmodernist pseudoscientific claptrap known as “Critical Race Theory,” this movement calls itself “anti-racist” without a hint of irony, and its core values are best summed up by its leader Ibram X. Kendi, who stated, “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination.”
On the surface, Kendi’s movement purports to address unresolved historical grievances against white Europeans, but in practice it amplifies victimhood mentality and manufactures additional grievances. However, the purpose of the reductionist “anti-racist” movement is not ending racism, or reaching any kind of resolution. It promotes vengeance as a shortcut for justice through deploying an-eye-for-an-eye mentality. It seeks the destruction of current institutions (which are all dismissed as irredeemably racist) without offering any replacement. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) departments in government institutions as well as many universities support and enforce the exact opposite. Mired in a culture of outrage, “equity” has become a code word for replacing white supremacy with black supremacy. “Inclusion” represents segregation and exclusion, and “diversity” is the aegis beneath which monolithic, censorious, ideological conformity is rigidly enforced.
Social Darwinism and “anti-racism” both misconstrue race as a biological fact, and since “anti-racism” represents a return to Social Darwinist thinking, it will be referred to henceforth as Recursive Social Darwinism (RSD) in this publication. As outlined by Kendi and his followers, Recursive Social Darwinism assumes that by default, the majority (if not all) “white” people are racist, and that racism must be turned on them and used against them in order to achieve “justice.”
The supreme irony is that the Recursive Social Darwinists use the term “anti-racist” to describe themselves, yet even as they brand most white people and anyone else who disagrees with them as “racist,” they openly and unashamedly deploy totalitarian racism as their only tool for enacting social change. Furthermore, their actions in promoting intolerance, segregation, and hate are doing more to unravel the work of seventy years-worth of past civil rights struggles against these very forms of oppression than the few, scattered actual right-wing racists could ever hope to achieve on their own. Through the use of Critical Race Theory to dismiss and de-legitimize decades of hard-won progress towards equality, the “anti-racists” have attempted to render the bloodshed and sacrifice of previous generations of civil rights activists as essentially meaningless.
By replacing the progressive values of tolerance, free speech, and diversity with universal blame, intolerance, censorship, and character assassination, the RSDs empower truly sinister groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and the state and any governmental apparatus that promotes intolerance. Thus, not only will the “anti-racists’” racism be their own downfall by making enemies of potential allies, they also boost the legitimacy of the other hate groups whom they claim as their arch-adversaries.
But this is what the Recursive Social Darwinists are hoping for. There are some intellectuals who have suggested co-opting and redefining the term “anti-racism” so that its definition is aligned with the sentiments of those of us actually opposing racism—but here we disagree. “Anti-racism” was defined of those who wield the term like a club, and they have already tainted it beyond all possible rehabilitation. Reflecting the intellectual failings of its users, the term “anti-racism” lacks the potential to define any constructive, coherent ideal to emulate or be inspired by. It is a term with militaristic overtones that reflects the martial philosophy of those who deploy it, and their warmongering intentions. As such, its rightful place is consignment to the dustbin of history along with other failed social movements defined by their one-dimensional determinism, zealotry and lack of vision. Any movement that defines itself only by what it opposes, ultimately fails to represent anything besides ignorant indignation.
Aside from the negative reasons outlined above, there are three positive reasons why “anti-racism” should be rebranded as Recursive Social Darwinism. First, it represents a return to Social Darwinist belief in in-group racial superiority. Second, “anti-racism” can only be used in double quotes (i.e., ironically) to describe a proudly racist social movement—and ironic definitions can only serve to increase cynicism and mistrust. Third, this flavor of Social Darwinism is “recursive” by dint of the fact that it is a repetition, repackaging of, and return to old, ugly, outmoded theories that denigrate all humanity by their reductive properties.
It is also recursive in that it is a self-consuming mechanism for hate dissemination. By promoting intolerance, and taking a hostile, adversarial, oppositional stance towards even mild disagreement, they increase the likelihood that they, in turn, will be opposed. This, in turn, serves to feed their narrative of unabated, ceaseless injustice, of being beset by faceless enemies—in other words, the set of anger-inspired false-justifications known as the victimhood narrative. Politically speaking, although the origins of this movement begin with the so-called ideological left, this is an inherently conservative social movement (not a progressive one in any meaningful sense of the word) whose racist, authoritarian tactics run parallel—not perpendicular—to their ideological enemies on the right.
In this sense, the most apt symbol representing this phenomenon is the ouroboros, the mythological, auto-cannibalizing snake destined to destroy itself. The head of the snake is Recursive Social Darwinism, and the tail is the intolerant conservative, right-wing religious and political movement, but make no mistake, they are both part of the same monster, and both ends of this beast are equally destructive.
In future posts, we will discuss the societal fallout from RSD in the 21st century, how this American movement threatens to plunge all humanity into a cesspool of iron-fisted, enforced ignorance. We will also examine how people are beginning to organize and resist the resurgence of racism and race essentialism spawned by RSD in order to transcend identity politics, and move toward a truly colorblind society where people are judged by their actions and merits, not their immutable characteristics, a world where it is easier to find common ground than it is to sow discord.
We have a long way to go. There are still many ugly truths that must be revealed to get there, but together we can reject the “anti-racist” philosophy that humanity has a fixed destiny, and that we are doomed to mistreat and misunderstand each other. Our future remains malleable, but to thrive in it one thing is certain: we must be able to respect one another as equals if the world we bequeath to our children is one that will be worth inheriting.