Liberalism Archives - Bob on Books

Cover image of "Woke' by John G. Stackhouse, Jr

Woke: An Evangelical Guide, John G. Stackhouse, Jr. THINKBETTER Media (ISBN:
9781738098316) 2024.

Summary: A brief and balanced introduction and response to the terminology associated with being “woke.”

Our contemporary political discourse throws around variety of terms, often as epithets, including Critical Race Theory, socialism, liberalism and diversity, equity, and inclusion. Often these come under the umbrella of the culture of “woke.” Often the use of these terms initially had a positive association. For Blacks, in particular, it meant being awake to systems of injustice, often identified by Critical Race Theorists, allowing them to advocate remedies for those injustices. But they have increasingly been used pejoratively by those pushing back against what they perceive as self-righteous excesses.

Historian John G. Stackhouse, Jr. argues that often those who throw around the terms don’t understand the ideas behind them and certainly do not understand the terms as those who originated them do. In this book, he offers a concise guide that seeks to define various terms associated with “wokeness,” assessing both the commendable aspects of the ideas behind the terms as well as the aspects in need of critique. He writes as an evangelical for evangelicals and observes that evangelicals should be familiar with turning good terms into epithets. Whereas many who self-identify as “evangelical” understand the term as meaning “gospel-centered,” in contemporary parlance the term means “religious political conservatives” or something even more derogatory.

The first part of the book takes seven terms, and defines and offers a balanced appraisal of the significance of each. They are: postmodernity; critical theory; liberalism, socialism, and communism; diversity, equity, and inclusion; critical race theory, anti-racism, and political correctness. For example, on its face, anti-racism seems to make sense. Racism does need to be actively opposed. Furthermore, there is good evidence through our history that racism is baked into our societal institutions in ways that advantage whites. To not recognize, and act against this is to collude with the system. Where pushback occurs is in the extreme assumption that if you are white, you are irredeemably racist and there seems to be no way to move forward. As you can see, Stackhouse says uncomfortable things for both those who are on “conservative” and progressive ends of the spectrum.

The second part moves from understanding and critical appraisal to engagement. For example, with regard to “liberal politics” he would observe that liberal politics doesn’t equal liberal Christianity. Often, it is associated with liberty and justice for all, including those on the margins, values consonant with biblical Christianity, while drawing the line art true communism. Likewise, the Christian doctrine of total depravity would expect the pervasive influence of sin in systems and structures as well as individual lives, mirroring Critical Race Theory. We can embrace calls for action against these things while drawing the line at coercive or censoring actions.

As for diversity, equity and inclusion, it would be distinctly un-Christian to support sameness, unfairness, and exclusion. But our efforts shouldn’t result in segmentation rather than community, complaint instead of justice, or grievance instead of reconciliation. Finally, Stackhouse notes a shift from the relativism of post-modernity to a “new moralism” in which different “tribes” have their truth of which they are convinced and willing to go to war over. This calls for great skill and creativity and integrity in relating the gospel, which Stackhouse calls “the Big Story.”

As I’ve contended elsewhere, Stackhouse is advocating that we be “third way people” who do not join the partisans on either side but rather become bridgebuilders and reconcilers. To do this means to understand both the language of one and the critiques of the other. It means weighing all things by the scriptures and finding common ground wherever we can with our calling as kingdom people. As one who stands between, Stackhouse may find criticism from both sides. And that might be an interesting conversation if they hear and understand each other.

[Note: It came to my attention after posting this review that the author was discharged from his position at Crandall University in November of 2023 for inappropriate conduct toward students including inappropriate jokes, behavior, and treatment and an email exchange that amounted to sexual harassment. There was a pattern of similar complaints to his previous employer. I do not usually check the reputation of authors of books, preferring to allow the book to speak for itself. But after becoming aware of this information, I felt it necessary to disclose it so you can take it into consideration in deciding to read the book. There has been too much covering up of this kind of thing in Christian circles, protecting perpetrators to the harm of victims. An article (no paywall) was published in Christianity Today on the author that discusses both the allegations and his attorney’s response if you wish to learn more.]

What’s Liberal About the Liberal Arts?, Michael Bérubé. New York: Norton, 2006.

Summary: This is a spirited defense of liberalism and the liberal idea by a literature professor against accusations of “liberal bias”. The argument includes extensive description of the author’s own classroom practice.

Beginning perhaps with William F. Buckley’s God and Man at Yale, there have been numerous attacks on the “liberal” university. The defenses of the university have been far fewer. By and large, this book could have been subtitled “what’s right with the liberal university?”

Michael Bérubé, a literature professor at Penn State (he holds the Paterno Family chair), argues that the conservative charges of liberal bias are largely groundless. [Correction: The information about his holding the Paterno Family chair was taken from his bio on Goodreads. He resigned this chair in 2012 following the Penn State football scandal and wrote about this in the Chronicle of Higher Education and is now the Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Literature at Penn State.] He would contend both that the procedural liberalism that values all serious argument and scholarly inquiry, and substantive liberalism which with its commitments to universal human rights and defenses against authoritarian control by any single group within a society, are positive values that the university upholds which are central to a democratic society.

He begins with his own experience of dealing with a contentious and sometimes obnoxious conservative student in one of his classes and his efforts to take his arguments seriously, to challenge them where faulty, and to take class texts seriously on their own terms, culminating with granting the student an “A” grade for his efforts.

He moves from this to complaints from conservatives that “liberal professors” have abridged students’ academic freedom. He argues that the most notorious cases actually turn out to reflect not “liberal bias” but appropriate grading down poor academic efforts or even instances of plagiarism. It is true that politically liberal faculty outnumber conservatives significantly in the liberal arts but he argues that this often is offset by the views of faculty in the sciences, technology fields, and business, and overlooked in what he argues are cherry-picked statistics. He also argues that some of the issues is conservatives simply not being willing to do the hard work to obtain positions in liberal-dominated fields

The next three chapters focus on Bérubé’s own practice in teaching. He begins with his general classroom practices including classroom discussions and what he looks for in papers. Here he writes:

“…I tell students that it often helps to develop a thesis by imagining other readers who might disagree with it. What, I ask them, do you want to tell us about the book in question, and why should we believe you? Is there another way to read the book, a way you find mistaken, partial, or downright unsavory? Do you want to make sure we aren’t persuaded by that other way, with all the consequences it might entail, whatever those might be? My most important criterion is that of plausibility; I want to see how judiciously and carefully students cite the text in order to bear out their assertions or to direct their hypothetical readers’ attention to what they think are a text’s crucial passages….I tell students straightforwardly that I tend to be especially impressed by papers that ask the simple but profound question, so what?” (p. 110).

He proceeds in the next two chapters to describe two of the classes he has taught, one on American Fiction Since 1865, and the other on Postmodernism. In the former, he goes into significant length describing his discussions of The Rise of Silas Lapham and its explorations of class. In the latter, he describes his interactions with a conservative student, Stan, and the vigorous arguments they had around questions of foundationalism versus anti-foundationalism. Once again, the outcome was that the two still differed, Stan received a “A” in the course, and eventually the two conducted an independent study course together.

He concludes by returning to his original argument that it is vital to protect the kind of liberal education and liberalism he is talking about against efforts that suppress argument and inquiry (he uses the ID movement as an example of the latter). He also argues that liberal ideas such as universal, egalitarian human rights and safe-guarding the university from control of any particular part of society is vital to the broader aims of democratic society. He points out that the interest of people from other countries in attending our institutions and the fact that affluent conservatives will choose Harvard or Yale over Hillsdale or Mount Olivet Nazarene points to the effectiveness and success of liberal education.

I found myself torn in reading this account. Bérubé sounds like someone who I’d love to take a course with–a good and diligent teacher genuinely interested in teaching the material of a course and engaging students in critical thought and argument around what is most worthy in these courses. I’ve also seen the truth of his arguments against some conservative complaints about bias. Rarely have I seen instances where students who wrote quality papers differing from professor’s viewpoint be graded down solely for their viewpoint.

There is a more subtle issue that Bérubé does not adequately address. It is the liberal control of many liberal arts disciplines. Working in graduate student ministry, I would attest to how hard it is for students to sustain a basic viewpoint at variance with the reigning paradigms of their discipline, and even harder for such students to be hired into tenure track positions except in conservative or religious institutions.

While Bérubé vigorously defends open argument and enquiry, at one point he describes facing charges of racism because he gave a low grade to a poor quality essay. He describes these as “Star Chamber” proceedings and what is striking is that even progressive faculty like himself are not immune to such charges. Erika Christakis’s resignation from her teaching post at Yale because of a carefully reasoned email in response to the outcry over Halloween costumes is the most recent example of a thoughtful and indeed, progressive, academic sacrificed to what appears to many “political correctness gone amuck”. Among her contentions was whether students really wanted to set up institutional controls over costumes, and posed other questions based on her area of research, child development. This is not the consequence of attacks from the conservatives Berube rails against.

What this points up to me is that there may be a moment where all those who truly prize open discourse and inquiry might come together, whether “liberal” or “conservative”. The real issue, which I think Bérubé missed in this book, is that we have moved from an age of reason and argument, to the empire of desire, and the rule of sentiment; and from the reasoned argument to the soundbite and slogan. We have moved from what we hold in common as humans across cultures and centuries, to the politics of identity and incommensurability. Might this be the moment where all who value the classic liberal ideal of the university come together to conserve what is good, and perhaps most critical, to help us compose our differences as a nation committed to e pluribus unum?