Interesting reading about the "Elite Woke" in the Atlantic, which details an extensive study entitled "Hidden Tribes" about political correctness in America. Particularly interesting to me is the surprising caution for liberal arts organizations found in the study's conclusions. I am thinking of theaters in particular here, but I believe there is broad application.
Some basic math:
Based on the study, of the entire political spectrum, 8% of Americans make up a Tribe called Progressive Activists. This is the only class that supports political correctness -- and still, 30% of this group sees PC-ness as a problem.
The other Tribes identified include Traditional Liberals (11%), Passive Liberals (15%), Politically Disengaged (26%), Moderate (15%), Traditional Conservatives (19%), and Devoted Conservatives (6%).
The far ends of the spectrum make up 33% of the Tribes, while the Exhausted Majority (Traditional Liberals, Passive Liberals, Politically Disengaged, and Moderate) makes up 66% of our political spectrum.
Here's the statistical truth about the 8%, contrary to what we think in our theater community and other arts orgs:
"So what does [the Elite Woke] look like? Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, Progressive Activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated—and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of Progressive Activists are. With the exception of the small Tribe of Devoted Conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country."
Turns out, for all of its outsider ethos, the opposite is true. Richer, whiter, more educated liberals inhabit the heart of PC-wokeness. (The only folks whiter are the Traditional and Devoted Conservatives.)
That means in our arts orgs, educated, well-employed majority white leadership, white staff, white board members and white donor/sponsor/patrons are likely in-step Woke Elite, and completely out-of-step with 92% of Americans.
So why does the dissonance between the theater world's rich-white-educated Woke Elite and the Exhausted Majority matter?
"The gap between the progressive perception and the reality of public views on this issue could do damage to the institutions that the Woke Elite collectively run. A publication whose editors think they represent the views of a majority of Americans when they actually speak to a small minority of the country may eventually see its influence wane and its readership decline. And a political candidate who believes she is speaking for half of the population when she is actually voicing the opinions of one-fifth is likely to lose the next election." (Emphasis mine.)
A theater whose seasons comprise one polemic after another ignores America's Exhausted Majority, and could find its audiences dropping from PC-fatigue -- especially when those audiences are older. After all, they may not wish a dose of what could taste like callout castor oil served up with their $90 pair of tickets.
If a company thinks it can disdain its older subscribers in favor of courting younger audiences with woke programming, it might want to think again. Young people are not a hidden cell of unreported Woke Non-Elites: "Even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74 percent ages 24 to 29, and 79 percent under age 24."
Let's say the company is hoping to expand its minority base. To reiterate: "...while 12 percent of the overall sample in the (Hidden Tribes) study is African American, only 3 percent of Progressive Activists are."
Or perhaps a company believes it has a job to teach the Exhausted Majority the "truth" of PC-Progressive Activism. Is proposing to educate the Exhausted Majority -- or any demographic -- condescending? Is it the job of the arts to do so? We can imagine audiences may tire of stories that constantly seek to "teach" them that they are the villain of the piece. But for the rich-white-educated Woke Elite to decide they know best how to serve minorities? This threatens to put hubris center stage, and risks financial disaster for any company with this curation season upon season.
"But we always de-center our voices," the season programmers might say. "We are guided by our minority partners." This is an understandable but critical misjudgment common in arts bubbles. That scant 3% of minorities characterized as Progressive Activists largely make up theater company's "partners." These are minority groups, but they are educated, decently employed, work in classically liberal fields such as the arts, education, and non-profits. The folks at the laundromat, or working at the DMV, or nursing day-times and driving for Lyft night-times are not in the room where it happens.
Based on the study, the Atlantic article cautions the Elite Woke not to "check their privilege," but to check their correctness. Through the lens of the Exhausted Majority, it calls attention to the clamor made by an 8% minority, and asks us what's lost in all the noise. One could argue something valuable is gained, of course, and this is exactly what should be investigated.
"The study should also make progressives more self-critical about the way in which speech norms serve as a marker of social distinction. I don’t doubt the sincerity of the affluent and highly educated people who call others out if they use 'problematic' terms or perpetrate an act of 'cultural appropriation.' But what the vast majority of Americans seem to see—at least according to the research conducted for 'Hidden Tribes'—is not so much genuine concern for social justice as the preening display of cultural superiority."
With this report, theaters have an opportunity to take a hard look at themselves in the mirror, to ask whether they are truly reflective of the world around them, and how well, or not, that supports their mission. If it's true, to paraphrase Pogo, that "We have met the Elite Woke, and he is us," the answer to this is less important than the exploration itself.
It is reasonable to ask who created "Hidden Tribes": "The report was conducted by More in Common, a new international initiative to build societies and communities that are stronger, more united, and more resilient to the increasing threats of polarization and social division. We work in partnership with a wide range of civil society groups, as well as philanthropy, business, faith, education, media and government to connect people across the lines of division."
Important questions could arise from organizations contemplating themselves in light of this study and as part of an overall examination of what their missions are; how they wish to manifest that mission; what they are doing now that contradicts that mission or makes them hypocrites to themselves; and what they must do to survive and thrive. Perhaps:
• Are we a theater, or a social justice non-profit?
• Do we have the right to determine what moral "truth" is, and program our seasons to reflect that?
• Is our criteria for selecting shows honest?
• How do we ensure our programming is actually diverse, reflecting the broadest spectrum of humanity possible?
• Who is responsible for ensuring that?
• Are we listening to our audience regarding our programming?
• Are we truly a diverse company? Do we welcome "non-woke" and "woke" opinions? Do we value one kind of voice over another?
• Does it matter that everyone in this company experiences equity? How do we ensure that, if so?
The "Hidden Tribes" study should be required reading for any liberal-leaning organization, whether in arts, education, non-profit, government, and more. Some Progressive Activists have already called it "an attack," mistaking facts for opinion, and even then seeking to censor it. This serves as a stark reminder of how tolerance slides quickly downhill into intolerance, and becomes a kind of conservatism of its own. This begins when the Woke Elite elevates certain voices in liberal institutions, while others are silenced, and eliminated.
Preventing this slide lies in honoring true diversity, including people, opinions, and stories that fall well outside of the Woke Elite's playbook. And because it is pompous to use a Latin phrase without translation, I close with this to arts organizations exalting some while disdaining others: Beware that you don't become what you hate. Cave, ne quod odi.
To read the article: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/ • To read the 165-page study: https://hiddentribes.us/media/qfpekz4g/hidden_tribes_report.pdf
Nota bene: Because the question will arise, this essay's purpose is to contemplate what is, and to stimulate thought with this in mind. The essay is an inquiry; it does not offer conclusions regarding specific organizational aspects of any kind, from mission to staffing to season choices. The author has no interest other than recognizing art's inherent ability to celebrate all of humanity and the world it lives in; its power for good; and ways in which theaters can respond to the real world to both abide and flourish.
Very interesting. I think the same applies to those responsible for most television programming these days. The woke-preachier it gets, the more people opt out. I myself have taken to watching shows from before the year 2000, when the wokeness was (in comparison to today at least) at a minimum.