Adventures in Cultural Criticism
My introduction to Alex Perez and an exploration of social commentary today
As I’m reading a recent piece by Alex Perez for The Free Press, I am pleased with the rebellion and subsequent awakenings experienced by talented young writers such as he; and their reluctance to mindlessly hop on the express train to mainstream literary veneration, an honor which is imposed upon one for the paltry sum of his very soul. This crown is adorned after passing through the necessary halls of ideological purification, in order to screen out undesirable characteristics such as possessing a penchant for questioning modern progressive orthodoxy.
Perez documents the modernist sociopolitical climate that animates the waxy world of Manhattan publishing:
For years, there has been a growing politicization inside the industry, which editors describe as a slowly percolating illiberalism that makes it difficult to publish books by authors who don’t adhere to the new dogma... books should advance the narrative that people of color are victims of white supremacy; and nonblack and non-Latino authors should avoid characters who are black and Latino—even if their characters toe the officially approved narrative.
In an incredibly entertaining interview with Hobart back in September of 2022, Perez unleashes upon a very deserving literary world manned with wealthy, white, and predominantly female gatekeepers hellbent on defending and promoting the “Narrative”:
My take is the only take and the one everyone knows to be true but only admits in private: the literary world only accepts work that aligns with the progressive/woke point of view of rich coastal liberals. This is a mindset that views “whiteness” and America as inherently problematic, if not evil, and this sensibility animates every decision made by publishers/editors/agents. White people bad. Brown people good. America bad. Men bad. White women, I think, bad…unless they don a pussy hat. This explains why nearly every book is about some rich fuck from Brooklyn confronting his white guilt or some poor black girl who’s been fighting “whiteness” and “patriarchy” all her life. All this stuff is ideologically-driven horseshit propagated by some of the most artless people on the planet.
As one could imagine, the “ideologically-driven” and “artless” were overcome with the vapors in response, which was documented in Literary Hub; and which unironically vindicated Perez’s claims, by literally acting them out in their outrage. A rebel in their midst, especially one who features such immutable characteristics as having Cuban blood, and yet having the gall to not express gratitude to his white overlords for their benevolence - cannot be tolerated.
The byline at the end of the Free Press piece labels Perez a “cultural critic”. I became rather envious of this title. I’ve always been somewhat of a critic of culture myself, but to actually be officially recognized with such a mantle? This got me thinking about what requirements one must possess in order to attain the rank of cultural critic proper in today’s context. In days gone by, a white male heterosexual cultural critic wasn’t hard to come by as evidenced by the likes of such stalwarts as H.L. Mencken; Irving Babbitt, Richard M. Weaver, and countless others. However, in today’s climate, and with few notable exceptions, one must present the credentials of one historically victimized by men with such demographic descriptions in order to be accepted as a serious cultural critic. Otherwise, it is widely viewed, one possesses no standing to criticize the culture which afforded him the ubiquitous “white privilege” that he consequently enjoys regardless of his acknowledgement of it, or the tangible lack of its fruits, in his personal life.
So the question becomes, do I over emphasize the personal impact of my maternal grandfather’s part Cherokee bloodline in order to achieve the necessary clout needed today to earn the distinction of legitimate cultural critic? Or perhaps my Irish heritage inherited through my father? Of course the latter still curses me with that infernal whiteness - great-grandson of immigrants be damned.
There’s a paradox here that the sardonic poet within me cannot ignore. Social victimhood is today a prized currency sought by many, particularly advocated for within the hallowed halls of progressive academia. The further one is distanced from the accursed whiteness on the two-dimensional lateral spectrum apparently ranging from whiteness to non-whiteness, the more one enjoys in the social currency of that precious victimhood. Inexplicably, possessing characteristics having nothing to do with race, such as being non-heterosexual or female, scores on the graph - even if those individuals happen to actually be adorned with white skin. As C.E. Matias pointed out in his paper, Feeling White: Whiteness, emotionality, and education (2016), whiteness is “a state of being which extends beyond racial identity”. So it is evident, according to scholars, that the whiteness can be featured on those who aren’t white; and absent on whites displaying absolving traits that seem to counteract its effects.
It is currently unknown where “part Cherokee” falls on the scale - but it didn’t work for Senator Elizabeth Warren, who inconveniently forgot that she, being a progressive woman, already enjoyed a status removed from the repulsive whiteness - despite being quite wealthy, a wielder of significant power, and whiter than most. It is because of these latter traits that a sense of guilt afflicted her, which set her upon the quest to claim a lineage to which she did not belong, but wasn’t potent enough to entice her to divest of those characteristics which were non-immutable.
And herein lies the aforementioned paradox. Historically, those victimized by power structures prevalent in any society kept them distanced from attaining power within that system. Within the confines of modern western society however, the further away from the whiteness and into the realm of victimhood one progresses, the more social and cultural power one is imbued with. This dynamic, in turn, removes the power from the ones afflicted with the whiteness, who are indeed still cast as the oppressors - sans the power to oppress. Meanwhile, those most heralded as progressive visionaries are granted a permanent deferment from even participating in the whiteness model, even though they themselves tend to be white, well-heeled, powerful, and live in homogenous communities exclusive to carbon copies of themselves.
Since whiteness is a social condition that can be applied, modified, and removed arbitrarily, those who most reflect its properties can be completely exonerated from it - if they belong to the proper sociopolitical factions, and enthusiastically adhere to its dogma. Today’s Democrat party, far removed from its once liberal roots, and instead firmly planted in the illiberal soil of progressivism, is a safe haven for those that meet these requirements. As an aside, it’s now universally and conveniently ignored that the Democrat party is responsible for the American southern slave trade, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, and the filibustering of the Civil Rights Act for at least a decade, finally relenting in 1964, instead of the mid 50s.
Those incommodious bastards that still hold to the ancient unfashionable ideals of faith, family, and country, are permanently branded with the whiteness, regardless of how destitute financially or decimated by the opioid epidemic they may be. They tend to exalt the Bible and revere the US Constitution - an irrefutable ticket to whiteness - and especially appeal to the first two amendments, which is entirely revolting to the white, elite, power brokers so far removed from the scourge of whiteness.
As nothing more than a white fellow, with little to offer in the form of social currency - save a dubious claim to some distant native American ancestry - my hopes of earning that coveted badge of accredited cultural critic may be unattainable. Furthermore, as a liberty-loving individual that rejects the current progressive Bolshevik style social power structure, I am certainly plagued with the whiteness, and permanently disfigured by its grotesque manifestations. To be clear, I am not lamenting my current situation, but rather taking aim at the absurdity of modern leftist intellect. Evidently, the further a society is removed from the knowledge of true suffering and oppression, the greater the urgency to attempt to invent it at every turn.
Whether or not my personal contributions in the effort of critiquing culture are met with acceptance remains to be seen. Regardless, I am comforted by the knowledge that Mr. Perez is making an impact as the type of cultural critic we are severely lacking, but desperately need at this time. And I, for one, tip my hat to him.