I read this article earlier this week and thought it was perfect for this 
mailing list.

---

https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/the-age-of-kayfabe

The Age of Kayfabe
the struggle isn't real

Freddie deBoer

Kayfabe is a treasured part of pro wrestling culture. Kayfabe refers to the 
commitment of everyone involved (the wrestlers, the refs, the announcers, and 
to a certain degree the fans) to maintaining the shared fiction that pro 
wrestling matches are unscripted. (Wrestling is real, in the sense that the 
athletes are taking real punishment and risk really getting hurt, and there is 
a degree of improvisation, but the outcomes are predetermined.) Kayfabe has had 
a kind of mythical importance to many in the pro wrestling community: you keep 
kayfabe no matter what, even in the event of serious injury, out of a sense of 
sacred commitment. Crucial to understanding kayfabe is that it is not an 
attempt to deceive the audience. Modern wrestling is in some ways perfectly 
open about the scripted nature of the matches. Fooling people is not the point. 
If every fan signed an affidavit saying they knew the outcomes were 
predetermined the wrestlers would still keep kayfabe, out of commitment to the 
culture. Kayfabe is a mutually-approved illusion. It is artifice, but it is 
mutually agreed upon artifice, a consensual fantasy.

Our current political culture is kayfabe.

The illusion that we pretend to believe is that we are in some sort of uniquely 
politically fertile moment for progressivism and social justice, that we are 
experiencing a social revolution or “Great Awokening.” Further, we keep kayfabe 
by acting as if we believe that certain policies like police abolition or 
abolishing border enforcement (or if you prefer utterly meaningless 
sloganeering, “abolishing ICE”) are tangibly viable in anything like the near 
future. I say that these are kayfabe to emphasize my belief that most people 
who endorse these beliefs are well aware that they are not true, and to 
underline the sense in which the commitment to unreality is mutual, an 
expression of a strange kind of social contract. Most thinking adults 
comprehend the current moment and understand that the hand of establishment 
power and the influence of social inertia are as strong as ever. (Why would you 
feel otherwise?) But because people have understandably been moved by recent 
righteous calls for justice, they feel they must accept the fiction of a new 
awakening to show solidarity with the victims of injustice. This is emotionally 
understandable, but strategically counterproductive. And indeed one thing that 
has defined these new social movements is their relentless commitment to the 
emotional over the strategic.

I do not share the belief, whether sincerely held or not, that there is a 
social revolution occurring. I see no reason to believe that we’re facing 
anything other than a continued trudge through America’s long phase of 
declining unipolar dominance, decadent neoliberalism, and spiraling social and 
economic inequality. Nothing of material importance has changed thanks to the 
current “awakening,” save perhaps more enthusiastic and brutal enforcement of 
liberal discourse norms in public life. There’s no reason to believe anything 
will meaningfully change soon. Tomorrow will be much the same as today. I’m 
very sorry to say.

Living in a culture of political kayfabe is a strange experience. It feels the 
way that, I imagine, it feels to live under a truly authoritarian government, 
where you’re constantly having exchanges where everyone involved knows that 
what they’re saying is bogus but you push right through the cognitive 
dissonance with a smile on your face. Only you’re not compelled by the fear of 
torture or imprisonment but of vague-but-intense social dictates, of the 
crucial priority of appearing to be the right kind of person. So often 
political conversations today have this dual quality where you feel forced to 
constantly evaluate what your interlocutor actually believes even as propriety 
compels you to take seriously what’s coming out of their mouth.

A major negative consequence of our commitment to kayfabe lies in our 
acceptance of behaviors we would ordinarily never accept, under the theory that 
this is such a special time, we need to shut up and go along with it. Take our 
broken discourse, as frequently discussed in “cancel culture” debates. My 
experience and my intuition tell me that almost everyone in the 
progressive/left/socialist world knows that our discourse norms and culture are 
totally fucked up. Trust me: most people in liberal spaces, Black and white, 
male and female, trans and cis, most certainly including people in academia and 
media, are well aware that we’ve entered into a bizarre never-ending production 
of The Crucible we can’t get out of. They’re probably just as sick of Woko 
Haram as I am.

But they’re either empowered and enriched by this state of affairs, and don’t 
want the party to end, or they’re holding on for dear life trying not to get 
their lives ruined for speaking out of turn. Look past self-interest and 
self-preservation and you’ll find that everybody knows that the way left spaces 
work now is horribly broken and dysfunctional. The problem is that thinking 
people who would ordinarily object don’t because they’ve been convinced that 
this is some sort of special moment pregnant with progressive potential, and 
that is more important than rights, compassion, or fairness. So we maintain a 
shared pretense that things are cool the way you go through the motions on an 
awful date where you’re both aware you’ll never see each other again.

If I say “cancel culture,” normies indeed don’t know what I’m talking about, 
because they are healthy, adjusted people with a decent set of priorities who 
value their own time and lives too much to get caught up in all of this 
horseshit. But if I say “cancel culture” in front of a bunch of 
politics-obsessed professional-class shitlibs they will pretend to not know 
what I’m talking about. They’ll put on a rich fucking show. They do an 
impression of Cletus from The Simpsons and go “cancel culture?!? Hyuck hyuck 
what’re that? I’m not knowing cancel culture, I’m just a simple country lad!” 
These are people who have read more about cancel culture in thinkpieces than I 
read about any topic in a year. But pretending you don’t know what cancel 
culture is happens to be a key part of the performance, a naked in-group 
signifier, so they pretend. The “I don’t know what cancel culture is” bullshit 
performance is kayfabe at its most infuriating. I know you know what cancel 
culture is because you’re currently using it to demonstrate your culture 
positioning by pretending you don’t know what it is. You fucking simpleton.

People say and do weird shit and it’s all wrong but you just pretend like it 
isn’t. Who wants to be the one caught making waves? When you’re in a group of 
people and someone engages in something patently ridiculous - when, for 
example, someone says “AAVE” in an ordinary social situation with no academic 
or political reason to use jargon, even though everyone there knows the phrase 
“the way Black people talk” is more elegant, useful, and true - and the moment 
passes and there’s this inability to look each other in the eye, when everybody 
starts studying their drink and clearing their throat, that’s life under 
kayfabe.

Getting to this is not normal. It’s not a healthy state of affairs. It can only 
happen when people come to believe that self-preservation requires pretending 
things are OK.

The sudden rise (and sudden death) of “Defund the Police” was, to me, one of 
the most uncanny political moments of my life. You had a slogan which implied 
something radical and which, at first, meant something radical. Then the slogan 
quickly spread from those who had been using it for years to the entire 
activist class. From the activist class it spread to the liberal media. Then it 
began to take over some think tanks, foundations, schools, and other 
institutions. From there it began to ensnare a small but influential group of 
partisan politicians, until finally it crossed the leftist blood-brain barrier 
and became a rare but real corporate position. Like so much of our political 
moment there was a profound sense of consensual delusion about this. Anyone who 
understood the basic material priorities of many of these institutions and 
people should have known that this could never have been a meaningful 
commitment; policing was central to the system that maintained their grasp on 
power. But then this is the whole game, right? They knew backing Defund the 
Police was risk-free because there is just about zero chance of large-scale 
significant reduction in police resources in this country, and market analysts 
say #BLM is very hot right now. So why not say something that you don’t believe 
and that nobody believes you believe?

It is at this point that people say that “defund” does not mean “abolish,” 
which is true, and Defund the Police indeed does not mean “abolish the police.” 
Defund the police means nothing, now, though I’m sure that the people who 
started using it had noble intentions. At this point it’s a floating signifier, 
an empty slogan that people rallied around with zero understanding of what 
semantic content it could possibly contain. If it’s meant to be a radical 
demand, why use the vocabulary of an actuary? If it’s meant to mean a 
meaningful but strategic drawdown of resources, why use it interchangeably with 
“abolish”? I cannot imagine a more comprehensive failure of basic political 
messaging than Defund the Police. Amateur hour from beginning to end.

I take the political concept of alternatives to policing seriously, in the same 
way I take many political ideas seriously that are not likely achievable in my 
lifetime. I know there are deeply serious people who are profoundly committed 
to these principles and who have thought them through responsibly. I appreciate 
their work and become better informed from what they say. But their ideas did 
not reign last year. A faddish embrace of a thoughtless caricature of police 
abolition reigned, pushed with maximum aggression and minimal introspection by 
the shock troops of contemporary progressive ideas, overeducated white people 
with more sarcasm than sense.

Policing will not end tomorrow or next month or next year. And whoever you are, 
reading this, you are well aware of that fact. The odds of police abolition in 
any substantial portion of this country are nil. Indeed, I would say that the 
likelihood of meaningful reduction in policing in any large region of this 
country, whether measured by patrolling or funding or manpower, is small. 
Individual cities may reduce their police forces by a substantial fraction, and 
I suspect that they will not suddenly devolve into Mega-City One as a result. 
(Though I can’t say initial data in this regard is encouraging.) I hope we 
learn important lessons about intelligent and effective police reform and more 
sensible resource allocation from those places. But the vast majority of cities 
will not meaningfully change their policing budgets, due to both the legitimate 
lack of political will for such a thing - including in communities of color - 
and broken municipal politics with bad incentives.

I think real, meaningful, comprehensive police reform is possible, reform that 
increases police accountability, balances municipal budgets in a slightly more 
sane direction, and reduces police violence against everyone, with 
disproportionate benefits for Black people. And eventually I think the 
relationship between police and poor communities can be improved, principally 
through the harm reduction of keeping the police at arm’s length. In the long 
run we do have to think about more radical alternatives because there’s 
inherent violence in the cop-community relationship. But to get there you have 
to think carefully and to think carefully you have to live in reality.

Well, in the “Defund the Police” debate eventually reality intervened. The 
lunatic, don’t-ask-any-questions period of early summer 2020 started to loosen 
its grip on what you were allowed to say thanks in large measure to the 
upcoming presidential election, one represented (as all elections are) as 
uniquely important. With Donald Trump proving surprisingly resilient in the 
electoral math, the broad left of center started to fret about THE OPTICS, and 
the funding apparatus of progressivism that helped drive #BLM’s marketing 
pulled back. The Democrats had selected too-cool-to-be-woke-Joe-Biden and his 
interests came first. See, an organization like Planned Parenthood could 
release an overwrought pro-Defund statement (despite that topic having nothing 
to do with their actual purview) because nobody in their donor base was going 
to object. But once people within the Dem establishment started to get cold 
feet it was over; the party controls the orgs that hand out the grant funding 
that manipulates the prorganizers who bring the movement back under control, 
and that’s how you get that very weird, sudden turn from “Defund or you’re 
racist” to “Defund? Oooh, hmmm, sheesh, that’s a toughie, can we talk diversity 
pledges?” we got last year. Support for defunding was lustily advocated until, 
suddenly, the wind changed and it wasn’t. When nothing’s real, no commitment is 
authentic, certainly not to an idea, a slogan.

Living under kayfabe makes you yearn for plainspoken communication, for letting 
the mask fall. The professed inability of progressives to understand why 
woke-skeptical publications like this one keep succeeding financially is itself 
a slice of kayfabe. They know people are paying for Substacks and podcasts and 
subscribing to YouTubes and Patreons because it’s exhausting to constantly 
spend all of your time pretending things that don’t make sense make sense, 
pretending that you believe things you don’t to avoid the social consequences 
of telling the truth.

When you’re someone who spent the past several decades arguing that the 
American university system is not hostile to conservative students, that it 
doesn’t try to force extremely contentious leftist views onto students, and 
then you watch this video, how do you react? I think many people, most people, 
even most people committed to the BLM cause, see that video and wince. That is 
not how we get there. Browbeating 20 year olds for not parroting your politics 
back at you is not how racial justice gets advanced. But if you’re caught in 
this moment, how do you object? Acknowledge that, yes, in fact, it is now 
plainly the case that many professors see it as their job to forcefully insist 
on the truth of deeply controversial claims to their students, berating them 
until they acquiesce? Well that would be an unpleasant conversation with the 
other parents when you pick up your kid from Montessori school. So you just 
choose not to see, or keep you mouth shut, or speak in a way that maintains the 
illusion.

I mean there is the absurdity of what she’s saying to contend with - the now 
fairly common view that policing was literally invented in the antebellum South 
purely to enforce slavery, because in ancient Rome if someone came in your 
house and stole your stuff you’d just be like “oh damn, that sucks.” Is there a 
relationship between modern policing and slavery? Of course. Does the legacy of 
slavery and Jim Crow infect modern policing at every point? Sure. Should we 
make political and policy decisions that recognize that historical influence on 
policing, especially given the racist reality of policing right now? Yes. But 
what good does it do anyone to pretend that the concept of “the police” is 250 
years old? Why on earth would we get the correct shit we do believe tangled up 
with this bizarre shit we don’t believe? (The professor in that video does not 
herself honestly believe the police were invented to support African slavery in 
18th and 19th century America.) Because this utterly ahistorical idea is being 
promulgated by people who claim to speak from a position of justice, we are 
forced to assign seriousness to it that it hasn’t earned, seriousness that it 
could never deserve. Because we live in a world of mutual delusion. Because of 
kayfabe.

What are the material consequences of this supposed social revolution, the 
actual brick and mortar change that has occurred in regards to racial justice, 
feminism, LGBTQ rights, disability advocacy, and so on? What has actually 
changed? Nothing but discourse. Nothing but Goldman Sachs diversity statements 
and university websites. Nothing but Robin Diangelo and Ibram Kendi’s bank 
accounts. Nothing but slogans and signs and symbols. You may remember that a 
comprehensive national police reform bill was seen as the minimal first step in 
transforming our country’s relationship to race. But even the George Floyd 
Justice in Policing Act, already considered watered down by many activists, 
seems unlikely to pass. Does that speak to a racial reckoning, or to the fact 
that one is not happening? The world spins on and injustice grinds along and 
people speak of a great awakening and no one can answer basic questions about 
what the goals are or how many of them have been achieved. Look, progress is 
possible and in many arenas slowly happening. I do believe in the possibility 
of revolutionary political change, and I agree with those who say that justice 
can’t wait. But you can say that all you please. The world doesn’t have to 
care. And pretending change is happening when it’s not just makes our job 
harder.

And the fact that some will wrinkle their noses about this piece and its 
arguments, go about their days of progressive performance art, and pretend they 
don’t believe every word they just read? That’s kayfabe, my friend. That’s 
kayfabe. And we’re trapped in it, all of us, you and I. You know it’s all 
bullshit. Will you keep the code anyway? I’m willing to bet that the answer is 
yes.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#8708): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/8708
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/83027969/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy 
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Reply via email to