Intellectual dark web should not be confused with Dark Enlightenment.
The intellectual dark web (IDW) is a term used to describe a loose affiliation of academics and social commentators who oppose the perceived influence of left wing–associated identity politics and political correctness in higher education and mass media.
Individuals and publications associated with the term reject what they view as authoritarianism and ostracism within mainstream progressive movements in Western countries. This includes opposition to deplatforming, boycotts, and online shaming, which are perceived as threats to freedom of speech and a form of Cultural Marxism. Those who have been labelled as being part of the IDW include both liberals and conservatives.
The term "intellectual dark web" was coined as a joke[1] by mathematician and venture capitalist Eric Weinstein and popularized by New York Times opinion editor Bari Weiss.[2] [3] It has been used to refer to various academics and social commentators who express concerns over the perceived excesses of left-wing identity politics and political correctness. Media studies scholar John Postill argues that Weiss's essay, titled "Meet the Renegades", was a "defining media event" that offered an identity and cast of characters for the "anti-woke movement" to follow.
The first recorded usage of the term was on a 2017 episode of Sam Harris's podcast, when Weinstein used it to refer to a group of thinkers, including Weinstein and Harris, who used digital media to offer alternatives to mainstream media narratives. This occurred after Weinstein's brother, biologist Bret Weinstein, resigned in 2017 from his position as professor of biology at the Evergreen State College in response to protests against his criticism of a campus event that asked white students to stay off campus, as opposed to the previous annual tradition of black students voluntarily absenting themselves.[4]
Derek Beres argues for Big Think that other controversies, dating back to 2014, should also be viewed as antecedents to the IDW. These include a debate between Harris and Ben Affleck on Real Time with Bill Maher in October 2014, the publication of "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" by James Damore in August 2017, and Cathy Newman's interview of Jordan Peterson on Channel 4 News in January 2018, each of which related to controversial topics such as Islamic extremism and workplace diversity policies.[5]
The IDW comprises an ideologically diverse network of commentators who share an opposition to left-wing identity politics and political correctness.[6] Other issues of concern include postmodernism and "cultural Marxism", which are perceived as contributing to moral relativism and the suppression of free speech.
In her essay, Weiss characterized IDW members as "iconoclastic thinkers"[7] who had found audiences online after being "purged" from institutions that had become "hostile to unorthodox thought". Eric Weinstein described the IDW as being opposed to "the gated institutional narrative" of the mainstream media and political elites. IDW figures often use alternative media, including podcasts and newsletters, to build identification with audiences who are disillusioned with mainstream media and politics by branding themselves as reasonable thinkers and reinforcing narratives of political polarization.[8] According to Weiss, many IDW members identify as atheist, including Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris, and Steven Pinker - all New Atheists. Commentators such as Douglas Murray, Maajid Nawaz, Joe Rogan, and Dave Rubin are also included. Other notable IDW members according to Weiss include Bret and Eric Weinstein, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Heather Heying, and Christina Hoff Sommers.
Jacob Hamburger argues in the Los Angeles Review of Books that the IDW belongs to a neoconservative tradition of attacks on "political correctness" that began during the Reagan era, associated with commentators such as Allan Bloom, Roger Kimball, Dinesh D’Souza, David Brooks, Irving Kristol, and Norman Podhoretz. Hamburger describes leftists along with liberals and progressives as the "primary adversaries" of the IDW. Some IDW members describe themselves as liberals in opposition to what they perceive as the excesses and indifference of the American Left, while others lean to the right.[9] Those who have been linked to the IDW are generally critical of what they perceive as "conformist" liberals, and some have been associated with the alt-lite and the alt-right.[10] Political scientist Daniel W. Drezner argues that the IDW contributes to polarization because of its need to appeal to a primarily right-wing audience, despite the political leanings of individual members.[11] The Guardian characterized the IDW as "strange bedfellows" that comprise the "supposed thinking wing of the alt-right".[12]
Nick Fouriezos of Ozy magazine describes IDW as "a growing school of thought that includes a collection of mostly left-leaning professors, pundits and thinkers united in their criticism of the modern social justice movement as authoritarian and illogical."[9] Liberals who have been labelled as being part of the IDW often credit the Enlightenment with vast improvements in human welfare since the 18th century, and see Enlightenment values such as freedom of speech and individual rights as threatened by both political correctness on the left, and Trumpism and religious conservatism on the right.[9]
Criticism of the IDW has come primarily from the left and support from the right.[6] [13] Jonah Goldberg, writing in the National Review, said the "label is a bit overwrought", writing that it struck him "as a marketing label – and not necessarily a good one. ... It seems to me this IDW thing isn't actually an intellectual movement. It's just a coalition of thinkers and journalists who happen to share a disdain for the keepers of the liberal orthodoxy."[14] Henry Farrell, writing in Vox, expressed disbelief that conservative commentator Ben Shapiro or neuroscientist Sam Harris, both claimed to be among the intellectual dark web by Weiss, could credibly be described as either purged or silenced.[15] Weiss' fellow New York Times columnist Paul Krugman noted the irony of claiming popular intellectual oppression by the mainstream, while publishing in the Times, among the most prominent newspapers in the nation,[16] although Weiss did not herself claim to be part of the IDW and would depart the Times almost exactly one year later over the same issues central to figures in it.[17] David French contended many of the critics were missing the point, and were instead inadvertently confirming "the need for a movement of intellectual free-thinkers."[18]
In 2019, a study from the Federal University of Minas Gerais found a pattern of migration of viewers who comment on YouTube videos, from commenting on clips associated with the IDW and the "alt-lite" to commenting on more "right-wing and/or alt-right" videos. The study looked at over 331,000 videos that an algorithm had classified as right-wing, analyzed 79 million YouTube comments, and found a group that migrated from IDW channels to "alt-lite" channels, and then the alt-right channels. The subjects who left comments at an IDW channel were more likely to graduate after a few years to leaving significantly more comments on alt-right channels than the control group. The study's authors said they were not intending to "point fingers", but to draw attention to the effects of YouTube's recommendation algorithm.[19] [20]