All We Are • Dispatches from the Ground Experience
Personal reflections on contemporary social theories and how they disconnect us from ourselves and one another.
Introduction & Table of Contents
Note to Readers: This is the first draft of the Introduction and Summary as of Thursday, July 4, 2025, a national holiday in the U.S. known as Independence Day. As the project continues, new events unfold, and the themes further evolve, this introduction will be updated to reflect that. The project is essentially an online book being written in real time in front of a readership whose comments, critiques, and ideas are regularly considered in the updating of posts, titles and images as well as in the development of future content. Readers are encouraged to check back to this page every now and then for updates and additions.
Project Summary
This collection of writings explores the problem of ideological rigidity in social theories, the concept of "lived experience" (including my own), and the argument for using empowerment as a basis for education.
How The Project Began
In the spring of 2020, I started this project as a single piece reviewing the books Cynical Theories by
and Critique of Anti-racism in Rhetoric and Composition: the Semblance of Empowerment by , President of . Initially, the review was intended as a summary that I hoped would be useful for the organizations and communities I consulted with, including Buddhist and other spiritual practice communities, and in my work as an Academic Affiliate and caseworker for Counterweight, an organization set up earlier that year to support individuals facing ideology-based attacks in their communities and workplaces.A secondary purpose was to build a foundation for my advocacy of freedom of speech, thought, expression, and conscience as an educator collaborating in various educational contexts, including my role as a Professor in the Department of General Education at the Benjamin Franklin Cummings Institute of Technology.
Over time, the review evolved into a multi-chapter work elaborating on social theories, political polarization, rhetoric and communication, workplace ethics, and cultural change. Drawing from the research of academics, social critics, journalists, and my independent research, the project includes anecdotes from my personal and professional life (respecting confidentiality when required) to add a human element to what might otherwise have been a dry, theoretical analysis.
Three years later, the project has developed enough coherence for a provisional title: All We Are: Dispatches from the Ground Experience.
The title is inspired by Nellie Bowles' Morning After the Revolution: Dispatches from the Wrong Side of History, which chronicles the ideological monoculture that took over the New York Times newsroom during her time as a reporter there in the mid 2010’s and early 2020’s. While the All We Are project covers similar themes, my own dispatches are not a "tell-all" but a contemplative exploration of how ideological rigidity has influenced some of my relationships across friendships, acquaintances, and family, colored my interactions with strangers on social media and in real life, and upended the original mission and goals of spiritual practice communities, activist organizations, and the field of education.
The Revolution is Decentralized, and We’re All Adjacent Thought Partners
I have been fortunate to have had some help along the way from editors, friends, influences, and mentors, including Joshua Peterson,
, Michael Makowski, RobertaVogel-Leutung, Bruce Alderman, , Bryan O'Doherty, , Alex Pfeiffer, , Jenny Gardner, Eric Pierce, Greg Scorzo, and several others who wish to remain anonymous for now, including, above all, a very dear friend with whom I have had the pleasure to discuss the issues covered in this writing by phone on an almost daily basis for almost a decade. This friend wishes only to be described as being “connected with spirit”, which is something I can also say about the rest of those who have advised me so far.The greatest form of advice offered by these people and many others has often come in the form of a useful way of framing a question, situation, or problem—usually with a single word or phrase that really captured the framing I was looking for.
In a simple bullet point list, here are a few of those phrases, words, and ideas:
The Revolution has been decentralized. The revolutions and counter-revolutions, whether political, secular, or religious, lack a central leadership or formal doctrine. They are a collective hydra, making it challenging to combat. Sometimes, the best we can do is navigate the tide and recognize those moments when we can break free or break through.
We are all thought partners. Even those with influence are more thought partners than the more popular phrase, thought leaders. Our understanding is shaped by interactions with our environments, not by individual greatness alone.
We are all adjacent. In today's climate, it's easy to be maligned because of people we know and mislabeled with erroneous reputation-damaging epithets1 when we do not fall perfectly in line with received doctrines. This has led many people to distance themselves from what they consider “bad” associations and to engage in self-censorship2 to avoid being attacked. In the long run, it's more productive to acknowledge that everyone is adjacent to groups and individuals who have some views that are considered “bad” by others. We can’t control that reality, and there is no use trying.
Freedom of Inquiry and Liberal Progress
Liberal Independent Comes Closest
Labels don't define us, but in an era of rampant labelism, sometimes we must accept them. I identify with liberal independent3, which strives for balance between enterprise and innovation and human rights. This is a political orientation that emphasizes open, ideologically unconstrained dialogue that is also sensitive to the rights of others. Whatever label I go with, my political orientation and approach can be summed up in the following way:
I want myself and others to have the freedom to inquire into, think and learn about, uncover, analyze, and freely share discoveries about issues in ways that balance the values of cognitive and perceptual liberty (freedom to think original thoughts and to openly acknowledge what we are perceiving) and respect for others (commitment to be considerate of others when we speak or write). It is a combination of the liberal values of epistemic humility, courage, and empathy.
To sum it up, open inquiry and freedom of exchange on a regular basis form the foundation of my political orientation. I call it liberal because there is freedom there. I call it progressivism because there is room for progress that transcends and includes conservative principles such as the preservation of some traditions and institutions even in the midst of great projects that progress us further in science, clean technology, equality and justice for all, and other advancements.
By maintaining my commitment to liberality, I am free to consider all options for progress, unencumbered by strict doctrine, and free to explore those options with people across the political spectrum. This freedom of thought and association makes it possible for me to learn from others and to work with them to come to the best possible solutions to problems we discover together.
Liberal vs. Critical Social Justice
In an insightful 2022 piece called “What is Woke: From progressive liberalism to post-liberal progressivism,” independent writer and former political science professor Carol Horton distinguishes between the open inquiry orientation of liberal progressivism and the more constricting “post-liberal progressivism”, which is an aggressive brand of progressivism synonymous with “wokeism” or Critical Social Justice-CSJ4.
Whether we follow the beliefs and practices described by the terms Critical Social Justice, wokeism, or post-liberal progressivism or any of its more open and liberal counterparts, it’s important to acknowledge that while they are different in some fundamental ways, they do share the same overall goal of building what each path conceives of as a just and benevolent society that benefits all people.
For the most part, in writings specifically related to social justice, I will be focusing on Critical Social Justice (CSJ), as this framework has come to dominate in societal discourse and policy in recent years. In an era of intensity and fear when many people believe they are witnessing the rise of fascism, CSJ has come to represent one of the most seductive answers to the clear ideological battle of good versus evil, a zero-sum political program designed to defeat fascism once and for all.
Critical Social Justice and the Fear of Fascism
At a time in which conservative forces are openly marshaling their resources, political positions, and networks to undo many progressive advancements and seize the helm of government and culture on all levels—for example the Heritage Foundation’s initiative known as Project 20255, which openly declares these aims and the methods to achieve them—CSJ is an ideology that magnetizes the public into its fold by offering the following:
The comforting simplicity of an all-pervasive, all-bad force of malevolent power6 that we must search for and stand against at all times (white supremacy, patriarchy, cisheteronormativity)
Often in popular forms, a clear hierarchy that splits us into “good” groups and “bad” groups
Legitimate sounding academic language and jargon, which lends credibility
A culture of censorship and punishment that crushes dissent, engendering both fear and comfort
I am aware that some or all parts of the description above could be said of those behind Project 2025. This is not surprising because offering people certainty beyond all questioning and the promise to protect and empower the “good people” against the “bad people” is part of the DNA of all political, social, and cultural movements that seek to gain power.
And given the very real policy wins of the conservative side of the spectrum in recent years such as the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, the passage of conservative education laws, such as mandates to post the 10 commandments in government funded classrooms, school district policies for teaching the Bible, and other policies in the works, it is understandable that many people would gravitate to the certainties of CSJ ideology.
However, the ideological rigidity of CSJ is not helpful in the long run, which is why many of us are beginning to write more publicly about it.
Concluding Thoughts: Thinking Aloud, Allowed
My aim in this project is to think aloud in front of others. While I will do my best to stay within the bounds of honest scholarship, using reliable sources, respecting the well-being and dignity of those who disagree, and questioning myself to make sure I am not falling into confirmation bias, I will also allow myself to experiment with ideas and to openly share them to find out where they might lead.
I believe thinking aloud is a good practice if we’re serious about learning and inquiry into truth. And if we are sincere and rigorous enough and willing to stick it out long enough to discover something, we might have an opportunity to offer something of value that could make a positive difference in the lives of others, whatever the scale.
And fortunately, I am not alone in this belief.
In a June 2024 podcast by the Institute of Liberal Values, Professor Elizabeth Spievak and the founders of the liberal advocacy organization 1776Forward discuss David Bromwich's essay “Private Thought and Public Speech,” which underscores the importance of public discourse for deepening our understanding of the world. One key point Bromwich raises is how the culture of ideological conformity, peer pressure, and surveillance on social media has contributed to a "drastic reduction of the natural energetic contact between private thoughts and public speech" and a "loss of the virtue of sincerity, without which all thought and all speech are worthless."
Amid vast cultural shifts governed by a complex labyrinth of theories that threaten to disconnect us from our own experiences and identities, I write with sincerity and optimism, hoping to contribute to the reestablishment of that energetic contact.
Most importantly, I hope that the writings that follow will help others build a strong foundation that is free from ideological capture and that connects us with our own and others’ humanity.
Table of Contents
**Each of the chapters below can stand alone by themselves. If the reader prefers the longer arc of a nonfiction narrative, then reading from the beginning might be the best choice. It will help to keep in mind that I am writing all three main sections simultaneously so the flow from one on the three main sections to the next might not be as well developed as it will be once more chapters are added.
I. The Wages of Disembodied Theory
Part 1 • Contemplative Writing in the Age of Ideology Evangelism
Part 2 • Challenging the Belief in a Pervasive Malevolent Force
II. Beyond Cynicism
Part 1 • Introduction: Empathy for All
Part 2 • The Problem of Group Identity Essentialism
Part 3 • How Chloé Valdary’s “Theory of Enchantment” Empowers Communities
Part 4 • Mutual Trust is Essential in Workplaces and Communities
Part 5 • Critical Thinking vs. Critical Theory, and the Episteme
Part 6 • How We Got Here: The Practice of Applied Postmodern Cynicism
Part 7 • The Impact of Cynical Theorizing
III. Carrying a Message Further:
Part 1 • Why Educators Must Read Erec Smith
Part 2 • The Problem of Bullying in Social Justice Activism
Part 3 • The Ground Experience in a World of Ideological Capture
Part 4 • Authentic Inclusion: Investing in Minority Serving Institutions
Part 5 • The Primacy of Identity: Rescuing Anti-oppression from the Sacred Victim Narrative
Part 6 • Sacred Victims and the Land Acknowledgement
Part 7 • Sacred Victims and the Grand Acknowledgement
Part 8 • Sacred Victims and Bridging Ideological Divides
FOOTNOTES
This Powered by Rainbows video describes the perception that the 2024 LGBTQIA+ Pride Month was full of hate, lamenting that social media groups are not censoring what is described as “hate groups and terrorist group leaders like Matthew Walsh and Libs of TikTok”. While I often disagree with these two conservative voices, I don’t think that the phrase “terrorist group leaders” applies to them.
Until the late spring of 2024, people were not allowed to acknowledge the Covid-19 lab link in China. Those who uttered this opinion (which is now established as a near fact by the mainstream media) before 2024 time were called racists and branded as conspiracy theorists.
I had originally used the term “liberal progressivism” as a counter-term to Carole Horton’s term “post-liberal progressivism” to distinguish between open inquiry oriented progressivism and dogmatic progressivism (what progressivism turned into after the prhase of liberal progressivism in which people were allowed to ask questions and consider alternative perspectives, approaches, and solutions). But, after some feedback, I realize that the political word “progressive” evokes a cringing response in the too many people, as it is often associated with dogmatism, anti-objective reality, punishment, scorn, contempt, condescension, and cancel culture. No matter what prefix I could have come up with, it’s hardly worth the risk of being mis-identified as supportive of these things.
The paper, “Critical Social Justice Subverts Scientific Publishing” is one that I will be referring to in an upcoming piece on the growing influence of what I am calling disembodied theories on education. This paper explores, among other things, the difference between liberal epistemology (the study of learning and knowing fueled by open inquiry) and Critical Social Justice (CSJ) epistemology (the imposition of pre-determined frameworks and interpretations in place of open inquiry).
For some guidelines on how to study Project 2025, I recommend “Let’s Read Project 2025 Together” by Joyce Vance, a legal expert who works on progressive causes.
Psychologist Andrew Hartz, Ph.D has written several articles on the connection between extreme identity politics and the psychological process of “splitting”, including this piece on polarization, in which he defines splitting as the tendency to see people as “either good or bad, a saint or a demon, perfect or worthless, all one thing or all the other.”
NEXT: The Wages of Disembodied Theory, Part 1 • Contemplative Writing in the Age of Ideology Evangelism