The Victims’ Revolution

Harley J. Sims

by Harley J. Sims on November 14, 2012 · 2 comments

Bawer, an English PhD who is openly gay and argued for cooperative coexistence in his book A Place at the Table: The Gay Individual in American Society, has a unique and patient perspective on the issues he raises. He does not, for example, reject the legitimacy of identity-based studies in general, recognizing a place in History, Anthropology, Literature, and other, established disciplines for studies of various group, subcultures, and populations. What he denounces in The Victims’ Revolution is the grotesque state of affairs in which identity studies truly exist in various Arts departments and as their own disciplines—as dogmatic cults of Marxist and progressivist extremism, jargon-parroting and victim-breeding, for whom even the faculty of reason is often dismissed as a tool of heterosexual white patriarchy.

In some cases, as with Women’s Studies and Black Studies, pre-existing academic inroads were commandeered by radical activists; in the case of Queer Studies, they were completely appropriated (“Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant”). Whatever the name of the program, however, each seems eerily compatible with the other, defined mutually by the intersectionality that allows constituents to pluralize and at times prioritize different aspects of their victimhood. It is something we have all heard parodied, but which remains central and earnest to identity-studies castes—the gay white man has nothing on the fat disabled black transgendered woman. In many of the academic conferences Bawer describes, participants who do not fully fit the victimological mold apologize or express guilt for their more conventional traits—being white or straight, for example. One does not begin to understand how perverse it all is, however, until, at a Disability Studies conference, a speaker suggests that abortion is genocide, but only because abortion can be used to kill unborn disabled people.

“The Victims’ Revolution:The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind” by Bruce Bawer, New York: Broadside, 2012

The author’s patience is the stuff of legend; no matter how egregious the evidence he uncovers, he stolidly continues to attend the conferences, cite the canonical texts, and report the activities of those under his surveillance. He does not, in other words, descend into the indignant screed for which conservative social critics are often caricatured, no matter how justifiable it might become. Instead, he continues to serve as a messenger of the damned, from reporting that Queer Studies pioneer Judith Butler declined a reward in 2010 from a German gay organization which she accused of ‘Islamophobia,’ to relaying the victimological inventories proclaimed by participants at a Fat Studies conference the same year (including one who described herself as a  “‘self-identified queer, fat, vegan, feminist professor’ and whose topic is ‘inclusionism’—meaning the rejection of allisms from looksism to ableism”).

The formality and professionalism of The Victims’ Revolution makes it one of the most powerful indictments yet published on its subject. Bawer is no TV talking head or right-wing radio firebrand. He is a poet, an essayist, a literary critic, and a translator who cherishes the arts and humanities, and who understands what is happening—indeed, what has already happened—to their institutional study. His message is nevertheless hopeful and as respectful as possible given his position; for the most part, he pities the people he observes, particularly the students, who come to university seeking an education, and who emerge worse than if they had never attended at all. Bawer can be debated, but not refuted. While it can be argued that ‘Theory’ (as Bawer and many others have narrowly defined it) has also provided arts scholarship with some extremely stimulating avenues—particularly as regards subjectivity—there is simply no defending the particular personalities, ‘scholarship,’ and other excesses Bawer identifies. In this sense, the book works like a dog whistle—those who can’t hear its message are part of the problem.

Pages: 1 2

  • http://www.facebook.com/jake.duncan.144 Jake Duncan

    With everything that was said in this article, I zeroed in instantly on the part about Harvard Business School treating introversion as a “maladjustment,” probably because I’m an introvert myself and always have been. Even as a small child, I was happiest when playing alone.
    In the workplace today, it’s the introverts who have the hardest time. Today’s workplace is all about the “team,” and introverts, by their very nature, are not, and can never truly be, “team players.” But many of the jobs that let them shine in solitary performance no longer exist. The army of bookkeepers who once hand-wrote tiny numbers in tiny columns has been supplanted by computers; one computer can do in minutes what the entire bookeeping department would do in eight hours.
    Those jobs that have not yet been completely supplanted, and are well suited to an introvert’s nature, have become places where introverts are forced into the extrovert mold, by being required to attend endless department meetings that really accomplish nothing that couldn’t be done with a memo. We regard these meetings as a waste of time, time that could be more profitably spend getting the job done. For this, many of us have been exiled to the “telecommute,” and even there, we’re not allowed to remain alone for long; even when such a staff is scattered all over the world, we are constantly being bombarded by demands to participate in conference calls – most of which take place during our time off.
    Yes, we are in the minority. Extroverts cannot understand introverts, but the converse is also true. “Introverts unite,” however, will never become a slogan, because it’s a contradiction in terms. Yet all of us are puzzled by the same inconsistency: For a society that prides itself on its diversity, we STILL tend to marginalize those who are “different.”
    THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH US!!!

  • nah

    The irony of multiculturalism is that it defines and divides, usually along lines of antagonistic grievances, instead of unites along common bonds of humanity. Tolerance rhetoric is the stick used to beat the message home to the reasonable mind, yet in reality intolerance is an acceptable means to the idealogical end. Once an institution of education stops teaching you how to think, and instead, teaches you what to think, education ends and indoctrination begins.