Where does the peculiar madness that grips the modern SJW come from? Reaxxion has an interesting post up, Where The Ideology Of Fanatical Social Justice Warriors Comes From that examines the question.
With everything that has happened so far in GamerGate and other social controversies, the field of sociology has been getting more credit for creating social justice warriors and their fanaticism. But what exactly in the sociology field has created this kind of mindset? How can we better understand how and why they are what they are? The following is a quick and dirty primer that will attempt to explain the nuances of how social justice warriors are created and why they are so fanatical.
Simply put, sociology is the study of society, and how it works and interacts with everything around it. There are a lot of different lens people try to see their work through but there are two main ones that will be talked about here today. The first is “positivist sociology, the study of society based on systematic observation of social behavior.” (Macionis 31) The sociologists who follow this brand generally take a hands-off, observational and mathematical approach. They observe the situation and ask questions of participants only for understanding. They do not try to influence the situation in any way, only try to understand it and report it. Think of them like the play-by-play commentary crew at a sports game on TV.
SJWs,sadly, always seem to be looking at the world as the glass half empty. The above doesn’t sound very radical or out of the ordinary compared to other sciences, natural and social, which do the same thing. The radical elements come from the social-conflict theory branch of sociology called critical sociology, which is “the study of society that focuses on the need for social change”. (Macionis 36)
SCT, for short, believes that societies are created through social conflicts between the haves and have nots, and is based off of Marxist teachings. The winner of Group A vs. Group B creates Society X. To the victor go the spoils. SCT has also been called activist sociology because it actively attempts to change society towards whatever the researcher deems is better, or worse, based on their political and social belief structure, and ignores objectivity and being unbiased. (Macionis 37)
Again, this is the quick and dirty version of something that someone would study minimally for four years at a university to get a degree in. Still, with this basic amount of information we can understand the social justice warrior mindset, and the term warrior is apt considering this approach. They see, for whatever their reason, a culture as being monopolized by a group in power. To make that culture ‘better’, they seek out to take from the rich and give to the poor by overthrowing the dominant power structure and install a new one that is supposedly more equal and fair to all through their political and/or social beliefs.
But Robin Hood they are not, as some of these targeted cultures are not as inherently bad as SCT needs to believe them to be. SCT is like a snake that eats its own tail. It cannot tell friend from foe, and simply attacks. It can never truly win because the theory itself believes there will always be inequality in society. To accept it has won would mean it would have to cease to exist. This is a reason why no one can win against social justice ideologues on social media, and why we see all the imgur images of their hypocrisy.