The so-called ‘culture wars’, currently being fought on several fronts in this country, are actually one war which is nothing less than a struggle for the soul of the nation. This may seem like an exaggeration, especially as it does not yet at least impact on the daily lives of most people. The battlefields right now are principally taking place in academia and the media. This ‘war’ is not only happening in the UK of course. It is also manifest throughout Western democracies and especially in the Anglosphere nations.

For anyone hoping that this clash of worldviews will pass, think again!  Ideas which start out as theories articulated in academic journals, obscure political manifestos, company logos and online debates may leave a large footprint which could determine attitudes, beliefs, and even public policy way into the future. Societal change is not of course necessarily a bad thing. For those who cling to the Enlightenment ideal of social progress and human perfectibility, it is essential. However, I will argue that this time it is different, firstly because of the speed of transmission in the digital era, and secondly, because the normal rules of debate, which allow for a multitude of voices and views to be aired, no longer apply.

At least three major paradigm shifts are taking place within our society, which, judging by current events, has become either too exhausted to recognize them or too frightened to challenge them. It is not too far-fetched, however, to infer that we are witnessing a cultural upheaval.

The foundational shift is concerned with those things which ought to matter to all of us and which determine our laws and customs and also our sense of national and personal identity.  The majority of people normally align their social identities with religion, patriotism, class solidarity, family life, community and civic engagement which variously provide the backdrop for our sense of personhood and self-worth.

These have declined in importance in recent years, hollowed out by mass consumerism and technology.  Increasingly, our identities are determined by gender, race, sexual orientation, and national and family histories. Identity politics, which dominates this trend, openly seeks to split us into tribes based upon degrees of victimhood or privilege. It attacks and condemns individuals as guilty where no crime or misdemeanor has occurred, and in so doing, it divides us one against the other.  It ruthlessly deploys the classic tactic of divide and rule.

The second shift concerns how we are supposed to feel about our own and others’ identities and the new rules demand an emotional playing field for hurt feelings, outrage, disgust and anger. The main tool in this war is language. In the new lexicon, words are used less to make true or false propositions, but rather to bully and confuse. This pseudo language is policed by self-appointed guardians who are at liberty to change the meaning of words, or create new words, in order to punish anyone unfortunate enough to make a mistake or not keep up.

The third shift is about the status of truth itself and its dethronement as a fixed point against which our opinions and assertions can be measured using proof, evidence and authority. This phenomenon has been termed ‘post truth’.

Although we often speak of ‘the mob’, as being the main driver behind the bullying tactics used to promote identity politics, the term is misleading as it implies a bottom up, democratic and popular movement. In fact, the attempt to ‘re-set’ our attitudes and habits is being made by a top - down network of alliances between extremists from both the right and left, globalizing trends, and pseudo social science theories, and is supported by the pervasive digital surveillance technologies acting against traditional ties of family, work and community.    Contrary to appearances, it is not empowered sovereign individuals and minority groups calling the shots, but powerful elites who mask their ambitions behind left leaning, pseudo green cultural slogans, virtue signaling, and opaque language games. We, the masses, are present at the birth of a potent deus ex machina, midwifed by a zealous priesthood whose members claim similar backgrounds and belief systems.

There are many theories about the nature of truth, but common sense tells us that we cannot get through the day, let alone communicate meaningfully with another person, without adhering to some common agreement that there do exist objective empirical differences between truth and falsity.   What constitutes truth on a more abstract level might be more to do with interpretation, but we can still reasonably impose a hierarchy of truth claims which range from expressions of taste and distaste, to moral judgments, to opinions based on plausible evidence, to coherence with other claims, through to correspondence with proven and empirical realities and finally to truths which cannot be otherwise, (2+2 =4).

Assertions made by many supporters of ‘identity politics’ do not rely on objective reality to make their case. Many of those who disagree do, however, rely on truth to frame their debates and prefer to make judgments based upon plausible evidence. You might be accused, though, of creating ‘metanarratives’ which have no validity. And so it goes on:  ad infinitum and ad hominem!  In this anti-intellectual climate, disagreement does not refer to any truth or falsity of the matter, and nothing can be resolved by appealing to truth since the concept itself is deemed meaningless.

It is not that the different parties to this debate have different theories about truth; it is rather that one side does not need the truth. Whist condemning anyone who disagrees as biased and wicked, this virtue signaling minority is winning mainly by frightening its opponents. Who needs truth when truth might hinder a bid for cultural and eventually political domination?

If truth is indeed the first casualty of this ‘war’, then it is time to acknowledge the fact and use different tactics.