Infinite Shades of Liberalism or “Cancel Culture” as Anathema in the Religion of “Woke”

Modern society faces a crisis of meaning, prompting reflections on the future and the role of traditional values in a rapidly changing world. Liberalism and its neoliberal development have reached their limits, leading to criticism of woke ideology, seen as a source of moral decay. In countries like Azerbaijan, it has become evident that the pursuit of maximum individual freedom undermines traditional social institutions, highlighting the need to reassess their significance.

Alekper Aliyev
Alekper Aliyev
Author: JMacPherson from Calgary, Canada. Wikimedia Commons

Upon reading Sevda Sultanova’s critical article “Gender, Equality, and Free Speech: A Look at Mammadyarov’s Controversial Remarks” in Azerbaijani media, I reflected on how the seemingly age-old questions about the future of society and humanity as a whole are, in fact, reflections of frequent contemplations about societal progress and gender equality. These questions are particularly relevant to those living in the West or following Western models in their lives. We are facing a crisis of meaning, and this article seems to be a vivid testimony to this crisis, despite its emotional tone, and for some, the lack of “convincing arguments.”

After reading the work of my Azerbaijani colleague, I asked myself: “So what lies ahead for us? Should we rid ourselves of the values and traditions of our ancestors, like heavy ballast, or, on the contrary, preserve and cherish them in this rapidly changing world?” 

Moral Compass in the Age of Likes

With the reader’s permission, I would like to give a brief overview of the aforementioned article. Gender confrontation is discussed in Sevda Sultanova’s article, which addresses the recent scandal over Azerbaijani grandmaster Shahriyar Mammadyarov’s statements about gender differences, specifically that “In chess, the factor of male versus female is very significant. Women are much weaker than men. It’s true that this opinion won’t be liked by many women now, but not one of the world’s top one hundred chess players is a woman. That is, no female chess player can compete with men.” The scandal that erupted after his interview in Azerbaijani media and social networks vividly illustrates the intense control and heated debates that such opinions can provoke.

Sultanova touches on the essence of this contentious issue, highlighting the dynamic tension between conservative values and the ultraliberal ideals dominating contemporary discourse and armed with the culture of exclusion. Her analysis not only reflects the current state of Azerbaijani society but also serves as a compelling commentary on broader global trends. She asserts that so-called “neoliberals” show a worrying tendency to suppress opposing views through emotional and psychological pressure, rather than engaging in rational and respectful discussion. This, in her view, is a form of modern fascism disguised as progressive values. 

Sultanova’s perspective is based on her extensive experience as a film critic, adding an element of objectivity to her argument. She argues that despite the recognition of women’s rights and their active participation in cinema, significant achievements in this field still belong to men. She provides the example that if a list of the world’s best directors were compiled, female directors would hardly make it into the top 50. 

Furthermore, Sultanova draws attention to the broader consequences of strict ideological conformity. She cites the provocative manifesto by Russian theater director Konstantin Bogomolov, “The Rape of Europe 2.0,” to underscore her point about the oppressive nature of the “new ethics.”

Released in early 2021, Konstantin Bogomolov’s manifesto, “The Rape of Europe 2.0,” criticizes the West for its relentless pursuit of political correctness, imposing uniformity of thought, and calls the West a “new ethical Reich.” He argues that the West has succumbed to the trends of political correctness and thought control, leading to the suppression of freedom of speech and thought. According to Bogomolov, such tendencies suppress the complex and multifaceted nature of humanity. The manifesto sparked widespread resonance and discussion, not only in Russian society. Bogomolov believes that social networks and tech giants have become instruments of a new totalitarianism, where society actively participates in suppressing dissent. He also expresses dissatisfaction with how Europe addresses issues of sexuality and ethics, citing the anti-harassment and anti-racism movements as examples. In his view, these efforts lead to restrictions on personal freedoms and control over people’s emotions.

Sultanova supports this view, arguing that true freedom of speech should allow the expression of all viewpoints, including those that may be unpopular or controversial.

Towards a New Ethics?

However, on the website of the Simone Weil Center for Political Philosophy, which I believe was the first to publish the English translation of Bogomolov’s article, there is also an editorial comment titled “An Introduction to Bogomolov’s ‘The Rape of Europe, 2.0’,” which expresses a nuanced view of the essay.

The authors of the editorial note that Bogomolov’s essay divided Russian liberals. Most liberals in Russia criticized it, and only a minority supported his concerns about modern European trends. This, the authors suggest, indicates the unpopularity of Bogomolov’s views. They also criticize his analogy with Nazism in his article (referring to the “new ethical Reich”). The authors consider the comparison of modern progressivism with Nazism to be excessive and clichéd. It is hard to argue with this—constant reminders to Europeans, especially Germans, about Hitler and the more than 50 million killed indeed seem worn out and often inappropriate.

However, to their credit, the center’s authors do not only criticize Bogomolov but also offer a more adequate analogy in their opinion with Marxism, as proposed by Italian philosopher Augusto Del Noce. They argue that Europe’s problems stem from secularization, not Nazism. Furthermore, the center’s authors note the lack of clarity in Bogomolov’s alternative, a point many of his other critics also raise. Despite his clear criticism of “progressive movements,” Bogomolov does not offer a clear alternative or social structure to replace the current order.

The authors also question the historical roots of the problem, considering whether modern Europe’s issues are the result of aberrations or the logical continuation of philosophical and social changes that began before World War I. Thus, the authors of the editorial debate with Bogomolov, acknowledging the significance of the issues he raises and the importance of discussing them but disagreeing with his methods and proposed analogies.

What I found interesting and why I dwelled so extensively on this editorial article is that Bogomolov’s opponents at the Simone Weil Center have to agree with him on one point: to solve modern problems, the West needs to pay more attention to religion, philosophy, art, and education. And all of this, forgive me, is traditional.

Struggling with Uncertainty: The Path to a Post-Liberal World

In this cacophony of contradictions and heated discussions, I hear a cry of despair. The destruction of the familiar world instills fear and low tolerance for uncertainty in us, thinking people. This rebellion against the dominance of woke ideology, liberal, and neoliberal values, which we observe to varying degrees in different geographies, is essentially an approach to a post-liberal world that brings with it frightening uncertainty. Bogomolov’s article, in my view, was an attempt to tackle this dilemma. It is a cry of the soul, not “servitude to Putin,” as some of his detractors believed. I see Bogomolov’s manifesto as a search for balance between black and white, striving to improve humanity while simultaneously acknowledging its limited nature. No more, no less.

We are all products of modernity, let’s not deceive ourselves. But critics of modernity are right in one thing: modernity, with its emphasis on continuous progress and technological development, has created the illusion that humanity is inevitably moving towards a better future. However, the history of the 20th century shows that such a belief, rejecting critical thinking, can lead to catastrophic consequences. Progress, viewed as a linear and inevitable process, does not account for the complexity of human nature and the social constraints that cannot be overcome by technology and political reforms alone.

Today, Azerbaijan is also entering a post-liberal phase of its development. Liberalism and its neoliberal upgrade have reached the limit of their influence and significance in the country. In our time, woke ideology is subjected to widespread harsh criticism and is viewed as a source of moral decay. We see the events happening in neighboring Georgia. And Armenia, with its Pashinyan, is friends with the West only for show. Armenia is a traditional, Asian society, and this, forgive the harshness, is beyond doubt.

In the South Caucasus, it is already understood that liberalism, aimed at maximizing individual freedom, leads to the destruction of traditional social institutions such as family and religion. Azerbaijan has taken this issue particularly seriously, with the country’s leadership in the late 2000s starting to eliminate the liberal agenda, seeing it as a potential for the moral disorientation of society. If a joke is allowed in such a situation, the conditional culprit can be named John Locke, for his contribution to the flourishing of egoism and the loss of traditional moral values.

Woke – Harmless Only on the Surface

It is obvious that even with its corporate kingdom, capital, and ideology, neoliberalism would have no significance without globalization. Globalization leads to the unification of cultures and the devaluation of local traditions and values. In the global market, cultural products become commodities, which levels their uniqueness and significance. This is not just the whim of elites, but a necessity for promoting ideas of inclusiveness and diversity aimed at undermining traditional values and institutions. Under the banner of progress and the fight for minority rights, the structure of society is radically changed, significantly impacting demographic trends. Stable social norms and traditions are undermined, causing resistance not only from conservative forces but also from liberal views that see these changes as a threat.

So why does the seemingly harmless word “woke” pose such a danger? After all, it describes people who are aware of social and political issues such as racism, inequality, discrimination, and social justice. These are the “woke,” those who recognize these problems and actively seek to solve or minimize them. Friendly, colorful activists in oversize clothes. Who do they bother?

By themselves, no one, just urban eccentrics? They could be dismissed as urbanization quirks and go on living their lives. But not so fast. Corporate capitalism and woke ideology have created a symbiotic relationship where ideological slogans are used for marketing and PR campaigns without having a real impact on solving the social problems that activists loudly proclaim. For example, large companies support LGBT rights merely to create a positive image, while continuing to exacerbate economic inequality and exploit labor resources. Money for us, and entertainment for you.

Woke ideology, aimed at infantilizing people (Bogomolov calls it “simplifying the complex person”), encourages immediate gratification of desires: “Everything should be the way you want it. Right here and now!” The concept of “living for pleasure” is propagated as the norm, and any difficulties or delays are perceived as negative phenomena. This infantilization undermines society’s ability to think critically. A beautiful picture becomes more important than meanings. One can be a good person simply by joining the woke ideology. A few posts on social media, and you are already in the club, leaving no time or desire for deep analysis and reflection. You have ready-made stigmas and clichés for all occasions. Digital technologies, such as social media and algorithms, play a central role in shaping and spreading this ideology. These technologies manipulate information flows, pushing users towards certain beliefs and behaviors. An “echo chamber” is created where alternative opinions are suppressed, and the dominant ideology gains even more traction.

Fighting Neocolonialism and Woke

Returning to Azerbaijan, one can see that today the country is fighting not only against the literal neocolonialism of France, which is present with its flags in New Caledonia and gathering oppressed peoples in Baku, but also resisting the ideology of woke on all fronts. All of this is part of Azerbaijan’s new foreign policy strategy.

It is noteworthy how, just recently, President Ilham Aliyev expressed his stance on the pressures on Hungary from the European Union for supporting traditional values. He noted that Hungary is protecting its national interests and youth from harmful influences, causing dissatisfaction among some Western countries. Aliyev sharply criticized the European Union’s colonialist policies, accusing it of hypocrisy and interference in the internal affairs of other states:

I know that you came under a lot of pressure in the European Union. This is a complete violation of the democratic principles declared in Europe. If you are a member of NATO, if you are a member of the European Union, if you are located in the heart of Europe, sanctions are applied against a country that wants to conduct its own policy. So where is democracy? We are based here, we are not European, we don’t want to join the European family, but even if we wanted to, no one would let us in there. This is why we live here, we don’t listen to anyone’s orders, we don’t allow anyone to come here and interfere in our work. Don’t hit me and I won’t hit you. If you are going to hit me, then you will also get a headache.

Let us return to the authors of the introduction to Bogomolov’s article. They, as we recall, agree with him on one point – Western neoliberalism, promoting ideas of progress and modernization, often questions the traditional values that have served as the basis for social and moral order. This position leads to deep cultural and moral shifts, where the past is seen as a source of evil and the future as the embodiment of good and justice. So-called progressive neoliberalism undermines international stability and exacerbates global tensions, disregarding cultural and historical nuances. It is not surprising that societies and states react to this with growing antagonism, perceiving such policies as a threat to their sovereignty and cultural identity.

Neoliberalism, with its woke ideology essentially standing guard over capital, ultimately leads to the loss of important moral guidelines, contributing to the growth of nihilism and moral disorientation in societies. People become more vulnerable to manipulation and ideological influences. Traditional values no longer fulfill their function of maintaining moral order. This creates conditions for the spread of superficial moral norms, such as woke ideology, which cannot ensure long-term stability and justice in society.

In conclusion, I will drive the final nail in the coffin of our familiar life from which we are tired. It is evident that the post-liberal era will also become a post-human transition and, finally, the long-awaited end of history. According to woke ideology, human nature must be transformed. For survival and progress, humanity must overcome its biological limitations and move to a new level of existence. This transition will be painful and difficult for us. But for future generations (I hesitate to predict their essence and appearance), our current experiences and fears will likely be incomprehensible.

Share This Article