Pierre Bourdieu was a French sociologist.

In his 1979 book Distinction, Bourdieu introduced the concept of symbolic capital. In contrast with more conventional notions of resources, such as wealth and material assets, Bourdieu argued that symbolic capital is the resource available to an individual on the basis of prestige, celebrity status and public recognition.

A person with high symbolic capital is normally given a stronger public voice than those without such capital. Film stars, royalty and sporting champions are often quoted in the media on subjects they have little knowledge of or expertise in. They are listened to and consequently have undue influence because of the symbolic capital they have acquired.

According to Bourdieu people are often assigned to roles based on their symbolic capital rather than their competence or expertise.

In the debate about environmental influences undue regard has been given to people without appropriate scientific expertise such as Greta Thunberg, Al Gore, King Charles and Tim Flannery to name but a few.

On this, and many other cultural issues, such people have a stronger voice than the rest of us merely because of the symbolic capitalism they have acquired. Regardless of how these status inequalities came about, it is primarily through symbolic capital that they are maintained.

It can be argued that the elites who lead the culture wars rely on their standing as symbolic capitalists to spread and maintain their social influence. It is such people who have promulgated “wokeness”. Oftimes, even though they constitute a minority, they are able to impose their politically correct views on society at large.

In essence, among symbolic capitalists “wokeness” has come to imply that someone is of an elite background or is well educated.

Through espousing woke beliefs these cultural elites demonstrate that they are part of the exclusive political correct club which allows them to disparage competing ideas as ill-informed and culturally ignorant. It is obvious to them that those who question their ideals of political correctness are people who fail to embrace their ideals of “social justice” and can therefore be dismissed as essentially ignorant, uncaring and hostile to minorities.

The Lebanese-American statistician and writer, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, has argued that a minority view fervently held (even by a minority as little as 5%) can often be dominant in communities and institutions if its advocates are committed and disciplined. This is because once a point of view is established as the conventional wisdom many who do not ascribe to such a viewpoint are unwilling to publicly disagree. Under such circumstances many will defend and even advocate for the conventional wisdom to protect and enhance their social and professional standing.

We saw an example of this in Australia with the Voice referendum. At the onset few were prepared to speak up against the Voice in case they were labelled racist and the early polling showed a large majority in favour of the referendum. The “Yes” vote was publicly supported by academics, sporting clubs, major corporations, and many others, but when it came to a confidential vote the proposition was easily defeated.

Now this all raises a very serious political problem.

The woke agenda is overtly promoted by our schools, universities, government departments and agencies and the leftist media. Conservatives seeking to challenge the woke agenda are howled down and denigrated by such sources. These protests defending the leftist orthodoxy dominate the public square giving the impression that the public are supportive of the leftist orthodoxy. The Voice referendum showed us that public comment on such issues does not necessarily reflect the views of a majority of ordinary Australians.

The American Sociologist, Musa Al-Gharbi points out that many who espouse woke points of view often don’t act them out in real life. One example that he proffers relates to transgenderism.

…..most in symbolic capitalist spaces would express agreement with –or avoid publicly disagreeing with – the claim that “trans women are women”. By this many seem to be vaguely asserting that trans people should not be subject to formal discrimination or mistreatment. And that their felt identities should be publicly affirmed (for instance through the use of their preferred pronouns or being permitted to use facilities for the gender they identify with).

But Al-Gharbi then goes on to say:

Yet the behaviours of people who profess that “trans women are women” suggests that most do not literally believe that transgender women are the same as cisgender women. Proponents who are romantically interested in women typically do not treat these two populations equally as women with respect to their own dating and marriage decisions…

So, on the one hand they are happy to pillory those who don’t explicitly agree that transgender women are in fact women whilst their own behaviour is not congruent with such belief!

Such cognitive dissonance is widespread throughout the broad spectrum of proponents of wokeness. It is particularly obvious amongst climate change supporters. Here we have celebrities lecturing us to reduce our carbon emissions whilst gallivanting around the globe in their private jets and indulging in other forms of conspicuous consumption that result in copious carbon emissions.

As Al-Gharbi observes:

…people often publicly profess (or avoid disagreeing with) beliefs that are out of step with their actual preferences (as revealed through behaviours)….

This phenomenon was well and amusingly described by George Orwell who wrote:

At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the company of a lady!

Under such conditions the supposed “orthodoxy” becomes almost impossible to challenge. This is the dilemma that conservatives find themselves in when trying to confront the woke orthodoxy.

Politically this poses a vexed problem. When conservatives propose positions that challenge the woke orthodoxy there is an immediate reaction from the leftist media and their fellow travellers condemning such heresy. Such virulent, vociferous responses frighten off would be conservative reformers who deduce that they have little support. Consequently they abandon their efforts to counter wokeness not understanding that the silent majority support their efforts.

I would contend, for example, that if the Coalition decided to renege on the Paris accord and revert to a policy of pursuing cheap and reliable electricity without concerning themselves with carbon emissions there would be a huge outcry from the left, the media, the climate zealots and the young people who have been successfully indoctrinated by the woke institutions.

Just like the Voice referendum did, it would ignite a huge furore from the politically correct and it would seem in the public domain that this was a vastly unpopular proposal.

But ordinary Australians who understand that whatever Australia might do to avert global warming is insignificant in its impact and economically harmful to us, might be quite supportive of such a move. They can see that the government’s ineffectual efforts to change the electricity industry to support climate change idealism have made them significantly worse off without any tangible benefits. Such a move would require courage but I suspect it would meet with the approval of a majority of the public.

(As I write this, the newly elected Queensland LNP government has announced it is moving away from the very “green” approach of the predecessor Labor government and is weighing up its energy options in a far more pragmatic way. I applaud them for that.)

Many other woke issues that have been tearing apart the cultural fabric of our society need to be approached in a similar way. The Voice referendum showed us that the woke orthodoxy is not supported by a majority of Australian. Any political party relying on focus groups to formulate policy is going to be misled because of the reticence of people, as I highlighted above, to publicly express opposition to the orthodoxy.

This demonstrates the necessity for so-called conviction politics. We need our politicians to promote and fight for issues that they truly believe in. This is in stark contrast to many of them that seem to want only to pursue what they believe are populist agendas to ensure their re-election. And above all they need to see through the woke orthodoxy and be prepared to fight the inevitable backlash which challenging the orthodoxy inevitably ignites.