Why sociologist Musa al-Gharbi says social justice elites value performance over progress
47:14 Share

This episode is brought to you by Dutch Bros. Big smiles, rocking tunes, and epic drinks. Dutch Bros is all about you. Choose from a variety of customizable, handcrafted beverages like our Rebel Energy drinks, coffees, teas, and more. Download the Dutch Bros app for a free medium drink, plus find your nearest shop, order ahead, and start earning rewards.

Offer valid for new app users only. Free medium drink reward upon registration. 14-day expiration. Terms apply. See DutchBros.com. This is On Point. I'm Meghna Chakrabarty. Some of the most high-profile social movements in the past decade began as impassioned calls for elemental change in this country. Think Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, Me Too. The images you recall, nationwide protests, online campaigns and messaging, so many yard signs...

But what were the tangible, the concrete changes that these movements produced? Did income inequality shrink in the U.S.? Did homicide rates for black Americans meaningfully drop? Did the billions of dollars spent on workplace anti-harassment training create cultures where powerful men think twice?

Well, author and sociologist Musa Algarbi argues, no. More pointedly, he said, these social movements, once co-opted by what he calls the woke elite, these social movements were actually doomed to fail. Because the woke elite transformed these efforts into mass movements to make themselves feel good,

Algarbi says the woke elite go even further than that, in fact. They build social status for a small size of Americans while actively, if unconsciously, making life materially worse for the genuinely disadvantaged. Well, Algarbi is a sociologist and assistant professor of communication and journalism at Stony Brook University.

He lays out this argument in his new book, We Have Never Been Woke, The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite. And he joins us now. Professor Algarbi, welcome to On Point. Thanks so much for having me. Okay, let's start with an example. It's one that you lay out in the book where you witnessed a Black Lives Matter protest in New York. Tell us about that day, what you saw and what happened.

Well, so after George Floyd was murdered, on Fridays in the medians of Broadway Boulevard, they, you know, as long as the weather was good, there were these demonstrations that would occur where people,

Professionals who were associated with the knowledge economy, it looked like most of them were probably college professors and so on, would stand in the medians of Broadway Boulevard and wave signs that said things like Black Lives Matter. And the cars that were passing by would honk at the signs and then the people holding the signs would cheer like, woohoo. And this was kind of the demonstration. And again, they would happen basically weekly.

And there were a few things about these demonstrations as I was observing them that stood out to me.

in a strong way. First, the people taking part in the demonstrations were almost exclusively relatively affluent whites. There were a lot of working class Black and Hispanic people. The Upper West Side of Manhattan is right next to Harlem. Those were not the people taking part in the protests. They weren't taking part in these demonstrations. It was near exclusively affluent people associated with Columbia, typically older whites. Okay. Another thing that stood out to me

is that in many cases people were taking part in these demonstrations, sharing the median with homeless Black people who didn't even have shoes in some cases, and they would step over these homeless people to wave their signs to make sure that they didn't fall down as they were shaking their signs. They would kind of have to look and try to not step on these folks and their stuff. And there were two things about that that were striking to me. The first

being that in their in the quest to fight this kind of and to engage in this cosmic struggle against an abstraction like racism or to help an abstract entity like black people in the abstract They were ignoring the concrete individuals who are right in front of them who had actual problems that they actually could do something to help in principle and

And then the last thing that struck me about these scenes that, again, replayed weekly was that there didn't seem to be any tight correspondence between what people were actually doing and what it was they wanted to accomplish. Which is to say, I couldn't tell a plausible story about how people shaking the signs in the media at Broadway Boulevard and going, woo, when cars honked. I couldn't tell a meaningful story about how that would say something.

get anyone released from prison or save anyone's life from police violence. There didn't seem to be a correspondence between what people were doing, what they wanted to accomplish, between the gravity of the problem that they were concerned with and the ways that they were conducting themselves. And so this led me to ask a question, a question that started haunting me as I started seeing these demonstrations every week was,

Who are these demonstrations for? What purpose are they actually serving? Because the purpose, again, that there didn't seem to be serving was saving anyone's life from police violence, getting anyone released from prison and so on. But it wasn't for people in prison because people in prison couldn't see this and also couldn't weren't standing to benefit from it in any practical sense. So who was it for questions like these? You know, once I started wrestling with them, um,

they kind of haunted me, haunted a lot of my interactions, haunted my own plans for life because I was also there at this Ivy League university to take part in, uh,

these knowledge professions with the goal of helping promote various forms of social good and so on and so forth. And so these weren't just kind of empirical questions or kind of like interesting mental puzzles. They were also really existential questions about, well, what am I doing here and what do I want out of my life? Yeah. So in a couple of minutes, I want to dive in.

deep into how you define the woke elite, right? I mean, you use the phrase symbolic capitalist, and we will talk about that in a second, but I'm very engaged by this example of yours. So, okay, so first of all, the...

The example of these protesters stepping over people who are homeless at that moment, don't even have shoes on, is quite jarring. What would you have had them do instead that would have been more effective? Yeah, so I'll say two things to that. First, as a bit of a spoiler for people who pick up the book, the book ends on a kind of willfully unsatisfying note because what I...

what I don't do. Usually at the end of the book, you know, it's like five chapters laying out a problem. And then the sixth one is like, here's my 12 steps. Here's my advice for how to solve this problem. And I just willfully declined to do that at the end of the book, in part because I wanted readers to kind of sit with the weight of some of these problems. And because I also am just not interested in kind of

becoming some kind of secular priest. But that said, the bit of advice that I would give folks in general is to really take seriously this question of, is there a tight correspondence between what I'm doing and what I want to accomplish? If I can't tell a story about how what I'm doing will actually advance the cause that I want to advance, will actually do something in a practical way,

then you should maybe consider doing something else. And you should really ask yourself this question of, well, okay, who am I doing this for? Any social justice movement worth its salt would need to help real concrete people in the world, in real circumstances, deal with actual problems. If your social justice movement isn't doing that, then it's not clear, then what it's

then it's not really a social justice movement. I mean, it's, again, it might be accomplishing other things for the people taking part, but what it's not doing is helping people who actually need help. So I have to say, I wanted to love your book. And I...

Because I am very sympathetic to this essentially shining a bright light on the profound hypocrisies that elite in any society dwell in. And so that's why I'm going to let you lay out your argument in detail as we discuss more. But I'm also quite excited for our vigorous intellectual debate with you, Professor, if I may. Yeah.

Because I actually have to say I was disappointed that you fell short. You willfully fell short of saying, well, actually, what those folks should have done is instead of stepping over a homeless person who has no shoes, they should have put down their signs saying,

put their hands down, lifted that person up and said, come with me to the store. I want to buy you a pair of shoes. I want to buy you a meal. I want to get to know who you are and what you need. Why can't you just say do that? Focus on the problems right in front of you. And even if it's just,

Giving one person a meal or showing one person a moment of human empathy, that that is more meaningful than getting other people in their BMWs driving down an avenue to honk at you. Yeah, I mean, I agree that it's more meaningful and in fact... Or purposeful or concrete even. I mean, it's not about personal meaning. Maybe meaning was the wrong word for me to use, but effective. Well, and even, you know, one of the things that people sometimes say is that

even if some of these kinds of protest gestures don't change anything in a practical sense for the people being protested,

you know, that we're supposed to be representing and supporting, at least they helped them feel seen or validated or something like that. But in this case, in the case of this example that I just described, for instance, that homeless person didn't feel seen. That homeless person was literally not seen or was seen only in a peripheral sense in order to avoid stepping on them while you're waving your sign, right?

And actually, one of the things that I argue in the book is that there are a lot of cases like this where we purport to represent or to stand for

various populations, but the things that we are trying to do in their name and on their behalf are just demonstrably out of sync with what those people actually want, what they perceive their interests and values to be, and so on and so forth. Now, the reason why I stopped short of providing this kind of advice, well, one reason, is because in a deep sense, the project of the book is

Is to study the kind of the history and the political economy of the knowledge profession. So which which is to say how the changing role of people who take part in fields like journalism and education and, you know, consulting and finance and so on, how our changing social position relates to our changing lives.

political alignments and are changing moral narratives and so on. So that's what the book is. It's a study of these kinds of nerdy things. Well, look, I appreciate the project. I think it's an important one. But you are putting the project where...

within the context of the very thing that you're studying and critiquing and therefore limiting, I believe, the potential impact of that project. I'm asking you to be more courageous with your fundamental analysis is we have to take a quick break here for for for about a minute, Professor Algarby. And when we come back, instead of needling you.

With my little responses, I'll let you lay out what the fundamentals of your project are a little more in your analysis of this hypocrisy and this actually damaging hypocrisy that you say the so-called woke elite have in this country. So we'll do all that when we come back. This is On Point. Support for the On Point podcast comes from Indeed.

Are you hiring? With Indeed, your search is over. Indeed doesn't just help you hire faster. 93% of employers agree that Indeed delivers the highest quality matches compared to other job sites. And listeners get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com slash on point. That's Indeed.com slash on point. Terms and conditions apply. Need to hire? You need Indeed.

You're back with On Point. I'm Meghna Chakrabarty, and today Musa Algarbi is with us. He's author of We Have Never Been Woke, The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite. We have an excerpt of the book, by the way, at onpointradio.org. He's also author of a sub-stack called Symbolic Capitalism. And Professor Algarbi, that phrase, symbolic capitalist, plays a central role in your book. So what is symbolic capitalism? Who are symbolic capitalists?

Yeah. So the we and we have never been woke is this constellation of elites that I call symbolic capitalists. So the nutshell version of them, the nutshell definition is that they're people who make a living, whose elite position is defined by what they know, who they know, and how they're known, which is by producing and leveraging what they're

Pierre Bourdieu called symbolic capital, which is why I call them that. But a nutshell version is that they're people who work in fields like journalism, arts and entertainment, consulting, finance, science and technology, and so on and so forth. People who make a living by manipulating symbols and data and images and rhetoric and things like this instead of providing physical goods and services to people.

And one of the things that's interesting about symbolic capitalists and about the professions that we belong to is that we tend to have much higher pay than most other workers in America. We tend to have much more autonomy in how we structure our times and the way we pursue our goals. We tend to have a lot more social prestige. And from the beginning of a lot of our professions, the way we've justified these things

We've said, you should give us these things. We should give us this pay, this prestige, this autonomy, and so on, not for our own sake.

But because if you give us these things that will be to the benefit of everyone in society, including and especially the marginalized and the disadvantaged, and a lot of our fields are explicitly defined in terms of altruism and serving the common good. So journalists, for instance, are supposed to speak truth to power and be a voice for the voiceless. Or academics are supposed to follow the truth wherever it leads and to tell the truth without regard to anyone's political and economic interests and so on and so forth.

And if you look at, even in the contemporary context, if you look at which slice of America is most likely to self-identify as anti-racist, as feminist, as allies to LGBTQ people, as environmentalists and so on, it's the same slice of America that tends to dominate the symbolic professions, highly educated, relatively affluent, urban and suburban folks, especially whites. And so what you might expect is,

and what we sort of pledged would happen is that as more resources and influence and power were consolidated in our hands, in the hands of symbolic capitalists, what you might expect is that a lot of inequalities would be shrinking, other social problems would be ameliorated. We would have growing trust in institutions because of all the great work that we're doing and so on and so forth. Instead,

Over the last 50 years, as the global economy has shifted away from industry and towards the symbolic professions, what we've seen instead is actually growing inequalities, increasing institutional dysfunction, reduced trust in institutions, reduced trust in each other, growing affective polarization, and so on. And so one of the core puzzles that the book is trying to wrestle with is

Why is that? Why do we see what we actually see instead of what we had maybe hoped or expected or promised that we would see if people like us had more power and influence over society? Because we do in fact have more power and influence over society. It is the case that influence and affluence have been concentrated into our hands over the last 50 years. It's just...

The outcomes of that have not been what we had promised to anticipate. Yeah. So I suppose I should speak now saying I'm Meghna Chakrabarty, symbolic capitalist. I have another question for you. I mean, I do take your point, right, about the –

People in the knowledge elite, knowledge economy, whatever you want to call it. I think that argument is very well laid out in your book. I just want to acknowledge that I'm aware of my role in that world that you're talking about. You do actually spend a few pages, and I was very grateful for this.

When you're describing symbolic capitalists, it's pretty easy to gather the data to show that this slice of America that you're talking about tends fairly strongly towards identifying with a democratic party or having purportedly progressive beliefs. However, you also talk about the fact that it's not exclusively that, right? I mean, when you're looking at some of the engineering professionals,

Finance, I'd say, is also a big one, that there is a more, let's say, politically conservative strain of knowledge elites who are also symbolic capitalists. You say that they also behave with that same hypocrisy, though, that presumption that their behavior, their beliefs, their choices, their knowledge superiority is what would guide folks to have better lives if only their ideas were followed. Right.

Which turns out to not be true. I wanted you to just talk about that a little bit as well. Yeah, absolutely. So one of the things that the book stresses in a way, like one of the important points of the book is

is that what matters for understanding a lot of these social phenomena is how people behave, is what their lifestyles are, how they interrelate with other people, with allocations of resources and opportunities and so on, rather than focusing on people's hearts and minds and beliefs and things like this.

an argument that I make in the book is that when you look at conservative symbolic capitalists or anti-woke symbolic capitalists and so on, they tend to live similar lifestyles in similar communities. They take part in similar institutions and so on and so forth. And so there's not really any reason to analyze them in a systematically different way. Everything that I say in the book about how mainstream symbolic capitalists

benefit from many of the, and perpetuate and exacerbate many of the social problems that they condemn. All of these realities hold justice true for conservative or anti-woke people. Believing something different in your heart or mind doesn't change any of these empirical realities. And on top of that,

Even if you look at things like our psychological dispositions and so on, so people who take part in the symbolic professions, for instance, because we make our lives and our livelihoods around symbols and data and rhetoric and so on, we tend to take symbols very seriously to the point where engaging in these cosmic struggles over abstractions and so on ends up often crowding out

addressing more practical material concerns that motivate a lot of other people to participate in politics to the extent that they participate at all. Right. Because you have the luxury of narrowing your focus that way.

Absolutely. And critically, though, this is just as true of folks on the right who also, who, for instance, even as it relates to wokeness, who view wokeness as some kind of major threat to Western civilization that must be stopped, even to the point of, again, kind of putting on the back burner, kind of the real problems that ordinary people have to deal with in their lives and things like this. And even, last thing I'll say on this, even when you look at political engagement, so one thing that I highlight is

in the book is that in a lot of, for instance, anti-woke spaces,

You'll hear things like, well, you know, Ibram X. Kendi and those people, Black Lives Matter and so on, they have it all wrong. I prefer the Martin Luther King style approach to social justice and racial equality and so on. And it's like, well, great. OK, cool. Are you organizing or taking part in any Martin Luther King style ecumenical social justice movements to address racism?

Income inequality, war, you know, any of the kinds of things that Martin Luther King was advocating for over the course of his life. And the answer to this, of course, is no. They're sitting in their armchairs just like mainstream symbolic capitalists and they're substituting, criticizing how other people are doing it wrong as a problem.

Instead of actually doing anything themselves, which is to say they're participating in politics in this purely symbolic, discursive way at the expense of actually doing things in the world. In this, they're no different than the people that they're criticizing. Totally. But professor, they're collecting likes.

They're collecting honks, right? They're able to say, don't say that. By saying whatever, X, Y, Z, you are a racist. You are supporting systemic racism or systemic sexism or whatever have you. I mean, I want to get straight to your very profound criticism that

This is purely—it becomes, whether consciously or not, an act of self-aggrandizement. It becomes very much about making oneself feel good about supposedly having this special knowledge about how to live versus actually living. Yeah, and, you know, part of what—

generates this impulse is that, again, because a lot of our professions are oriented around serving the common good and helping the least among us, that creates this kind of unique moral culture within our professions and this unique mode of status competition where people seem especially worthy of status and of well-paying careers and so on to the extent that they

really effectively model themselves as the kind of people who hold the right views or have the right motives or are oriented and committed towards helping the right people and so on. And if you're successfully painted, you're

as not having the right motives or as being too cozy with the rich and powerful or of having the wrong kind of thoughts about the wrong kind of people, you can find your position in these professions really precarious or can even lose your job. And this has been true for a century now, as I show in the book. It's not something that started with Twitter. This is something that's baked deep into how our professions and the ways that we engage in politics and things like this. And I think one of the ways that the discourse about

these issues sometimes goes awry, is there's a tendency in some circles to say, if you can show that someone has an interest in believing or articulating something, if you can show that it in some way improves their status, improves their material well-being or so on, then you go, aha, see, I have exposed you. You're cynical. And I think that that's actually kind of a bad way

to think about thinking as I illustrate in the book and as I show on my substack in my latest article on my substack. In fact, humans' cognition and perception seems to be fundamentally geared towards helping us advance our goals and further our interests. There's just a ton of empirical literature that shows that the ways that we perceive the world in a very fundamental way and the ways we think about the world in a very fundamental way are oriented this way.

And if we take that literature seriously, and we should, then

there actually isn't a deep contradiction between believing something sincerely and using it instrumentally. If you have an interest in believing something, you would actually be more likely to believe it sincerely and be more likely to try to get other people to believe it too. Yeah, I mean, none of this is, frankly, none of this is surprising, right? All we have to do is observe our own behavior or the people around us. What you're talking about is what it means to fundamentally be human. The more you believe in something,

The more you're going to act on it, especially if it makes your life better. I mean, like, that is human selfishness. That is what you're talking about here. Well, and one of the things that's interesting and maybe counterintuitive for some of us is that we –

These general tendencies of human psychology are actually more pronounced with us in some ways, precisely because we're actually – we have more knowledge at our disposal because we're better at arguing and we're more cognitively sophisticated and so on. We're actually much, much, much better at sticking to our guns and defiance of the facts of telling ourselves these kind of –

We're rationalizing stories about how what we're doing is actually fine and okay and how we're actually good people regardless of what we're doing and so on. As I show and as I argue in the book and as I show in that Substack article I mentioned, we're actually some of the people who are most prone.

to motivated reasoning and bias and things like this. And we often have a conception of ourselves that's the exact opposite of that. We think that in virtue of our education and virtue of our intellectual acumen and so on, that we're especially likely to be unbiased and that we make our decisions on the basis of the facts. And if the facts weren't on our side, then we'd change our minds and so on and so forth. In fact, in reality, the opposite is true. Again, if we take seriously

the ways that our brains are functioned, what they're geared to or what they're good at, then if our brains are actually better at doing the thing that they're designed to do, then we would be better at motivated reasoning and things like this. Let me just jump in here for a second and say, I'm Meghna Chakrabarty. This is On Point.

You know, Professor Algarby, what you just said reminded me there's a fabulous YouTube channel that I mean, my kids love. It's called Veritasium and they just dive deep on all things science. And they have a video that shows that the more educated someone is because they just did these experiments.

the more their preconceived biases are actually measurable. They did this experiment with relative amounts of higher education versus how people interpreted data on gun control, for example. It was absolutely fascinating. It was just so well done.

Folks, Google it. Veritasium. And I think it's like Google Veritasium and Bias on YouTube. One of my favorite channels. Look, we have two minutes before we have to get to our next break. I wanted to just give you a second. You rightly said that in your book you talk about sort of the past century and how there have been four great awokenings, as you call them, going all the way back to the great...

And the current one in you say argued began with the Occupy Wall Street movement. Talk about that just for a second here. And then also tell me briefly why you think it failed. Yes. So Occupy is often talked about as being in contrast with Occupy.

The social justice movements like Me Too and Black Lives Matter and so on and so forth. But as I show in the book, they're actually comprised of the same kinds of people. Occupy was not a class based movement. It was comprised of primarily of relatively affluent, highly educated people and knowledge economy hubs. People who could afford to camp out.

Absolutely. And even the narratives of like we are the 99 percent, that's not a real class based analysis. As Richard Reeves points out, in some ways it allows people who have healthy six figure incomes to just say, oh, I'm just an ordinary Joe. I'm just a regular guy. It's just the millionaires and the billionaires are the problem. I don't have anything to do with any of these social issues. But as he shows in the work.

Um, as Richard Reeves shows in his book, dream hoarders and other work, actually, you can't explain declining social mobility, growing inequality, a lot of these other problems by just focusing at the top 1%. And I unpacked this point more in the book and I'd be happy to after the break. Um, but the, um,

Part of the reason that the movement failed, in fact, was because it was dominated by these modes of politics that are really common among people like us, but that alienate normie people. So, for instance, there was this norm called the progressive stack that governed...

who was able to speak and under what circumstances and in what order and so on. So the creation of these kinds of bureaucratic rules and the insistence on these kind of niche norms and so on, this isn't a way that normal people participate in politics. This is a kind of thing that knowledge economy professionals get really excited about. Or even the

Occupy's willful refusal to come up with policy platforms or endorse candidates or things like this, this kind of anti was expressly anti-political. Right.

That's such a good point because I think one of the great lessons to learn from the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s is how profoundly organized it was, hierarchical even, and how concrete the goals were as well, which allowed it to change American history. Musa Algarbi will be back in just a moment. This is On Point. On Point.

You're back with On Point. I'm Meghna Chakrabarty and Musa Algarbi joins us today. His book is We Have Never Been Woke, The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite. Professor Algarbi, I hope you'll allow me to push back a little bit on this sense that most, if not all, of the so-called woke elites are behaving in a way that's simply to sort of amplify their own self-importance. So let's stick with the

the Occupy example for a moment. Definitely a lot of people out there had time and money to protest. Others didn't. Maybe they were out there because they did not have a job. They could not get a job or they were crushed under the weight of their debt or they felt so economically vulnerable that they had no other choices left. I point that out because I also think we're living in a time where the

actual political power to make these structural changes or the kind of concrete changes that we talked about at the beginning of this show, the actual financial power to do so, is so concentrated that truly 99% of people feel utterly powerless. We have been centering our criticism on the cultural elite, but when it comes to

politically changing this country, a lot of people feel all they have left is to go out in the street. Okay? And I, you know, because they can't, they can't call up very few of these culturally that you're, at least elites that you're talking about, can call up the White House or can call up J.P. Morgan's, the CEO office and say, you know, let's, let's deflate that asset bubble a little or, you know, call the Speaker of the House and say, you know, let's pass a

Let's pass a law that increases the capital gains tax. They just can't do that. So all they have left is the kind of protest that you're criticizing. Well, so I think...

So there are a few interesting things here that I – so one, it actually is the case that there's a lot of empirical research that shows that policymakers and other stakeholders actually do care a lot about the views of people like us. People like us actually do exert a disproportionate influence on

over what policymakers actually do. So you can look over the course of the Great Awakening, for instance, this period of rapid shift in how knowledge economy professionals talk and think about social justice. Well, in that case, the protests give voice and public awareness of those views to those very policymakers, do they not? But critically, they give voice to the views of elites, right?

to these policymakers. And you do see them shifting. You can see, for instance, as I show in an essay on my sub stack after the election, the views of highly educated, relatively affluent white people shifted radically after 2010. The views of the Democratic Party shifted in tandem. But I wouldn't describe that as justice-oriented, in part because the

You can look at the very people who we view ourselves as advocates for or allies of. They've shifted aggressively towards the Republican Party the entire time the shift has been underway. Less affluent, working class, less educated voters, racial and ethnic minorities, religious folks.

They've all been moving aggressively towards the Republican Party over the decade, over the last, since 2010. At the very time that the Democratic Party has been seeing gains with relatively affluent, highly educated white people and has shifted their policies and priorities to cater to symbolic capitalist preferences. So this is one of the problems with understanding these protests as being oriented towards

the marginalized and the disadvantaged and so on and so forth, is that the very populations that we view ourselves as advocates for or champions of, they're the people who have been driving a lot of the backlash we're seeing. And I think it's also important to note that

That, you know, so I subscribed before I started on this project, I subscribed to a lot of these same ideas. For instance, I thought that if you had asked me who's responsible for various social problems, I would have been like, oh, well, it's the Republicans, it's the millionaires and billionaires and so on, multinational corporations. The problem was one of the things I realized when I was on the Upper West Side of Manhattan is that in places like Manhattan and in other knowledge economy hubs,

But I'll just stick with New York City for now. If you look at New York City, some of the highest huge concentrations of wealth, some of the largest concentrations of millionaires and billionaires and so on. But you also have really high inequality, huge poverty rates.

Some of the most racially segregated school systems in the country. It's one of the places that folks are fleeing at the highest levels because a lot of people who live there find it unaffordable or unsustainable to live there and so on and so forth.

And who should we blame for this? Well, we can't blame those darn Republicans. If you look at the city council of New York City, it's overwhelmingly Democrats. The governor is a Democrat. The mayor is a Democrat. The state assembly is Democrats, two to one. Almost all are, if you look at our delegation to the federal congress,

Both of our senators are Democrats. Our House representatives are Democrats at more than two to one and so on and so forth. So we can't actually plausibly explain any of these problems, which are more pronounced in places like New York and other knowledge economy hubs that Democrats control with nearly one party rule. We can't explain a lot of this stuff by appealing to Republicans. Republicans just aren't in power in these areas. And there are areas with vast amounts of wealth where we could –

If we allocated the resources that are under our control in areas that Democrats control with one party rule and the institutions that are under our control that are dominated nearly exclusively by Democrats and so on, it actually is within our capacity to radically change a lot of things about how wealth and opportunity are allocated in the country. So that's the first issue. And then the second issue, the millionaires and the billionaires. So there's this great book by...

a non-Jurid Herodotus called Winner's Take All. And in that book, Jurid Herodotus describes how the millionaires and the billionaires

They and their corporations create all of these social problems and this kind of myopic pursuit of maximizing the bottom line. And then they use philanthropy, donating to starting nonprofits, making these big donations and so on, to paint themselves as the solutions to the problems that they themselves created. It's a great book. Recommend it. But then what's interesting is when you really just take a step back,

and think about, "Oh, okay. Well, how is it that the millionaires and the billionaires do this?" It becomes clear that every single step in that process, symbolic capitalists are the ones who actually make the thing happen. So who is it that runs the PR firms through which they launder their reputations? Oh, that would be symbolic capitalists. Oh, okay. Well, who are the journalists that write these fawning profiles after they make these donations that help them launder their reputations? Oh, that would be symbolic capitalists. Oh, okay. Well, who administers the nonprofits

That allow them to do, oh, that would be us too. Oh, who are the finance gurus who help them avoid taxes and move their money around through these nonprofits and so on? Oh, that would be us too. Almost anything that we want to describe about the millionaires and the billionaires and multinational corporations and so on.

It's us who are actually making things happen. These things that happen, they happen with us and through us, and they couldn't happen without us. And so if we only look at the CEOs, if we only look at—then we're actually missing how things actually happen and who actually drives a lot of the things that happen. Yeah. Yeah, no, your point is well taken on that. I mean, I could quibble with some details about—

I was talking with the rest of the On Point staff yesterday about the asymptotic nature of income inequality. The closer you get to that 1 percent and then the 0.001 percent. But that's for another day. But you'll have to forgive me. But I hear you falling into the very same trap again.

that you say symbolic capitalists have encased themselves in, which is just levying criticism after criticism after criticism, but then falling short of saying, and here's what we actually should do to make a real difference. And perhaps I am embodying the very frustration you wanted readers to have, so bravo. You accomplished that. But also, look, my background is actually in engineering, and I kind of just want to fix stuff. And over the past...

15 years or so, I'm going to be perfectly frank. I just feel like, yeah, maybe symbolic capitalists, whether they're left-leaning or right-leaning, like, God, we just got to get over ourselves. It's a common sense issue. People since time immemorial have been both selfish and hypocritical. I mean, we could name...

You know, we could name faith leaders from 2000 years ago who professed to have the one true way to salvation, but then lived completely amoral, immoral lives themselves. I mean, it's just as human as human can be. But I'm also kind of tired of just like talking about the obvious. Do you understand what I mean? It's like one of the one of the great things.

of the particular form of journalism or the particular job I have is I actually get to talk to a lot of normal people. And they're all saying the same things. Get over yourself, folks. We just have to fix stuff.

So I really want to push you. If the heads of the PR firms, if the leadership teams of the not-for-profits, if the deans of the colleges and universities, all of these folks are actively contributing to this world in which self-aggrandizement of symbolic capitalists is the center of their energies. There has to be something that you would recommend to them to do right now to change that.

Well, sure. I mean, I think there are a lot of practical things that people can do. A lot of them are, some of them are kind of institutional dependent. So, for instance, in higher ed, higher ed is a space where you have almost almost everything.

All of us Democrats are outnumbered, outnumber Republicans like five to one overall, 10 to one in a lot of fields like my own field, sociology. But higher ed institutions are also are often extremely parochial and they're some of the most hierarchical spaces in the economy. We basically have a two tiered system, for instance, for faculty where we have faculty.

tenure stream faculty who get a lot of pay, a lot of prestige and so on relative to contingent faculty who have basically no academic freedom, much more precarious contracts and so on and so forth.

I should emphasize that even full-time precarious, that even full-time contingent faculty, as I show in the book, they tend to be better off than a lot of other workers in the economy, which is part of why people stick in these roles. So sometimes people who are in the less advantaged positions within the symbolic professions kind of overdo it by pointing out how they're less well-off than, say, tenure stream professors and ignoring how much better off they are than a lot of other workers in the economy. But let's set that to the side.

Actually, can I just push you on something specific? Because you actually do have some ideas that are even more concrete. I want to take it out of the institutional ether and put it –

hard on the ground because, you know, we started off with this example that you had of people, you know, protesting on the street for Black Lives Matter, but ignoring the homeless black person suffering at their at their feet. Right. And so one of the things that you that leads from that is the simple action of or thought that if what one is doing is

protesting on behalf of some belief, and it isn't actually making any positive change, the null option is always what...

is an option, right? Stop doing that thing. Yeah, yeah. In some ways, the things that we're doing actually make problems worse, and we could just refrain from doing those things, and that would be good as an example. There's a lot of empirical literature that shows that many programs and policies designed to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion in institutions, not only do they not work,

but they actually make things worse. They can increase turnover. And these cases, and in many cases, companies continue to do them, even though there's a lot of evidence they don't work because they feel like they need to do something. But in some cases, actually doing nothing is better than doing something if what you're doing is actually counterproductive and it's creating harm and also blinding people in some cases. If engaging in this action that doesn't help

leads the people who are benefiting from these social problems to be convinced that they're the good guys and to blind them to the rules that they're then in some cases it's actually counterproductive it would actually be better to just not do that thing at all but there are other another thing that we could do but again like

there are also things that we could do. I think one way in which we could change our orientation in some cases is rather than looking at how we can blame or expropriate things from other people, we can look at how we can give of ourselves. I'll give one quick concrete example. So if you look at public schools,

On the Upper West Side of Columbia, where I went to school, there were a number of public schools close by the campus. One of them, PS165, is where I sent my own children. It's overwhelmingly Black and Hispanic, overwhelmingly low income. Almost everyone at Columbia supports public schools in principle.

But that's not where they choose to send their own kids. They don't send their own kids to public schools. They send their kids to private schools, which you often pay tens of thousands of dollars per year to get a really aggressive social justice curriculum, even though the whole point of these schools is to help reproduce inequalities, which is to say to help their own children do better in the knowledge economy and get into Harvard and also to help segregate them from the poors and the browns. So what people could do that would

have no opposition to overcome. There's nothing, there's no Republicans to blame. There's no, you could just send your kid to your zone public school. There's a lot of research that shows that this would actually be game changing for a lot of the students in these schools, not just because they'd get a few more tax dollars for the extra butts and seats.

But because, as Raj Chetty showed in some of his work, these bridging ties with people across class backgrounds, they can impart new forms of cultural capital to less advantaged students. They can give them other models to draw from, other social networks that can help them gain different influences and so on. And so this is something that's really easy on paper.

But it's also hard for a lot of people because it involves investing your own children. And even though there's actually a lot of research that shows it doesn't make as much difference as you think, whether if you're already someone from a relatively affluent, educated background, if you send your kid to the zone public school versus a private school, it actually doesn't make as much change as people assume. These kinds of schools are really important and useful for people from nontraditional elite backgrounds. Separately, I would also eliminate the cult of victimhood.

Yeah, well, um,

Most people, most people, like there are genuine people. There's genuine suffering in this country. Absolutely. But I mean, you write about this in the book. Oh, I'm asking this question now with a minute to go. My apologies. But that the adoption of a victimhood mentality for people who are not victims isn't helping anybody. It's more pronounced among elites, actually. It's people who are relatively affluent, highly educated and so on, who are most likely to think of and talk about themselves as victims.

as marginalized and disadvantaged. A lot of people in non-elite backgrounds just don't see themselves that way, don't talk about that way, don't foreground this in every interaction they have with people about how victimized they are. Yeah, and I agree. That could actually help us perceive the world more accurately and maybe move us to doing things that are more useful to people who really need help.

Well, Musa Algarbi, we needed like three hours together, didn't we? I feel like we only got started. The new book is We Have Never Been Woke, The Cultural Contradictions of a New Elite. Thank you so much for joining me today. It was great to be here. Thank you. I'm Meghna Chakrabarty. This is On Point.