PERHAPS the most effective political technique to have been deployed in the rise of the social justice movement’s capture of mainstream politics over the last decade or so has been the idea of ‘unconscious bias’. The consequences of this particular strategy have meant that, if the woke witch-hunters are unable to find any obvious evidence of hate, intolerance or bigotry, then it must be lying dormant, ready to be triggered at any moment in those who are the target of scrutiny. As Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay argue in their widely acclaimed book Cynical Theories, it is as if only those who see life through the lens of woke, who have privileged access to reality ‘who have awakened to the true nature of social injustice’.
In a previous TCW article I argued that one of the most influential movements behind the progressive left – the Frankfurt School – incorporated Freudian psychoanalytic theory into their updated vision of the political left, which came to be coined ‘Cultural Marxism’. Freud of course had gained much of his reputation around a series of groundbreaking psychological propositions, particularly the prioritising of the role of unconscious drives and motivations in explaining human behaviour. The members of the Frankfurt School themselves reasoned that this was one of the principal reasons why the project of the left had either stalled or had morphed into tyranny (the Russian Revolution), or Fascism (Nazi Germany). They suggested that the mass culture characteristic of western capitalism – essentially the media, entertainment, and mass commodity fetishism – effectively controlled the masses, channelling or quelling dissent. It was perhaps ironic that with this very same idea, the Frankfurt School and those who followed had also hit on a more effective way for their ideas to gain a previously unanticipated foothold – by targeting mainstream institutions for long-term educational reform.
Freud had proposed that a large percentage of our beliefs, values and behaviours are hidden from awareness at the subconscious level and are triggered or activated by certain situations or encounters. His account of the unconscious, termed the ‘iceberg theory’, continues to be a well-recognised and pretty much standardised model for understanding the operation of the human mind – both in the field of psychology and in the social sciences in general. According to Freud, the mind consists of three levels: the conscious, preconscious and subconscious mind. Just as only a small proportion of an iceberg is visible above sea level, he argued that human awareness – the conscious mind – only constitutes about 10-15 per cent of rational awareness. The rest of this resides in the unconscious. Freud argued that this was an evolutionary survival mechanism – filtering practical need-to-know information to the conscious mind from the vast amount of data stored in the subconscious.
His theory is that much of the conflict we see in society arises from unresolved memories – often those that have originated in childhood but sometimes form in later years – which have been sublimated and repressed rather than integrated and resolved. Repressions or sublimations may occur due to a trauma or a negative incident that is too painful for an individual to re-experience consciously, because it might evoke unwanted emotions such as shame, fear or anger. This ‘psychological defence mechanism’ can also occur due to being exposed to negative stereotypes formed from cultural judgments, prejudices and resentments towards certain groups and individuals. Whilst not overtly expressed, such emotions, behaviours and beliefs may subconsciously drive ‘projections’ or ‘micro-aggressions on to those groups and individuals in the everyday world.
Freud’s argument that many of the conflicts, tensions and traumas which shape human behaviour originate in the unconscious mind became an attractive idea to institutions such as the Frankfurt School and all who followed. The progressive left eagerly drew upon these insights to make a convincing political case that the reason injustice, prejudice and inequality are so ingrained in society is that they go mostly unrecognised. It was up to the new left to point out that they exist and then to do something about it.
The ways in which these ideas have been integrated into the current woke left was clearly highlighted in a speech by Prince Harry in a talk he gave to a group of young Commonwealth leaders and anti-racism campaigners in 2020 where he stated: ‘When it comes to institutional and systemic racism, it’s there and it stays there because someone somewhere is benefiting from it. We can’t deny or ignore the fact that all of us have been brought up and educated to see the world differently. However, once you start to realise that there is that bias there, you need to acknowledge it.’
The problem with all this of course is that the idea of unconscious bias is, well . . . unconscious. A bit like asymptomatic covid, or climate change, it is hard either to prove or disprove it. In this world, injustice, prejudice and inequality are ultimately presented and defined by those in whose interests it is for these concepts to be made visible. The use of political triggers such as ‘white privilege’, ‘institutional racism’ and ‘toxic masculinity’ as subconscious primers has been a masterstroke by which to cover all the bases of the new left project and to counter dissenting voices. It is also proving to be an excellent way of instigating pre-emptive action – evidenced for example by the increasingly ominous rollout of online safety and the incoming digital ID. Problem-reaction-solution.
The new left has been able to build an incredibly durable power base in recent times, constructed around the subtle influence of ‘isms’ that are not necessarily articulated, but are nonetheless evidence (to it) of intended malice at some level. Therefore, environments, people and institutions must be constantly monitored, judged and brought into alignment with ‘new left progressivism’. If we take Freud’s theories to hold water (and his ideas have been challenged on many levels), then would it not be reasonable to suggest that, whilst the social justice movement has been very good at finding prejudice even where it doesn’t exist, it has been far less willing to reflect on its own hidden biases and unexamined assumptions in a world which is supposedly constructed around the primacy of race, gender and identity injustice? After all, there seems to be a clear intolerance for alternative views, and it seems to be OK to bait or provoke reactions from those who are being scrutinised – for example on issues around immigration, where any reaction is interpreted as being evidence of bigotry, hatred or prejudice.
