Books by Musa al-Gharbi
Princeton University Press, 2024
Starting in the interwar period (between World Wars I and II) and rapidly accelerating in the 197... more Starting in the interwar period (between World Wars I and II) and rapidly accelerating in the 1970s, there were shifts to the global economy that radically increased the influence of the “symbolic industries” – science and technology, education, media, law, consulting, administration, finance, non-profits, NGOs and advocacy organizations, and so forth. People who work in these fields traffic primarily in data, ideas, rhetoric, images instead of physical goods or services. Drawing from Bourdieu, we can refer to these professionals as “symbolic capitalists.” I’m a symbolic capitalist. If you’re reading this, there’s a strong chance you’re a symbolic capitalist too.
One defining trait of symbolic capitalists is our commitment to social justice. We are the Americans most likely to self-identify as feminists, antiracists or allies to LGBTQ people. Politically, we’re overwhelmingly aligned with America’s primary ‘left’ party. Many of our professions are explicitly oriented around altruism, speaking truth to power, or serving as impartial adjudicators, knowledge producers, facilitators and advisors in order to advance the common good. Given the ways symbolic capitalists like to understand and describe ourselves and our professions, one might expect that as people like “us” have gained more power over society, longstanding social problems would be on the path to resolution and socioeconomic and cultural inequalities would be greatly diminished. In reality, the opposite has happened.
Understanding this state of affairs requires a deep and unflinching look into the history and political economy of symbolic capitalists. Although our professions have, from the outset, defined themselves as altruistic in nature — oriented towards higher principles or the greater good – the truth is, we have never been woke.
Now available for pre-order: https://bookshop.org/a/103354/9780691232607
Microaggressions, Trigger Warnings & Safe Spaces, 2018
In "Microaggressions: Strong Claims, Inadequate Evidence," Scott Lillenfeld argues that, despite... more In "Microaggressions: Strong Claims, Inadequate Evidence," Scott Lillenfeld argues that, despite a decade of scholarship, the Microaggression Research Program (MRP) continues to suffer serious analytic and evidentiary problems. After walking through these shortcomings, he provides 18 suggestions to help improve the reliability and utility of the MRP. In "Microaggressions and 'Evidence': Experimental or Experiential Reality?" Derald Wing Sue responds. This chapter provides background on the origin of the MRP, and referees the dispute between Lillenfeld and Sue about its contemporary status.
Drawing from the "anti-philosophies" of Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, and deploying a methodology w... more Drawing from the "anti-philosophies" of Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, and deploying a methodology which synthesizes critical theory with evolutionary psychology and contemporary cognitive science, our analysis demonstrates:
1. Justifications, in any context, are oriented towards social manipulation and bear no relation to any "cognitive processes."
2. The role of logic is overstated, both with regards to our justifications, and also our cognition.
3. Truth and falsity are socio-linguistic functions which have no bearing on any "objective reality."
Insofar as these claims are correct, the methods and aims (both normative and descriptive) of "classical epistemology" are invalidated. We offer up a proposal as to what a more useful/meaningful epistemology might look like, exploring how such a reformulation might affect conceptions of "knowledge" and "rationality."
Journal Articles by Musa al-Gharbi
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2023
Science is among humanity’s greatest achievements, yet scientific censorship is rarely studied em... more Science is among humanity’s greatest achievements, yet scientific censorship is rarely studied empirically. We explore the social, psychological, and institutional causes and consequences of scientific censorship (defined as actions aimed at obstructing particular scientific ideas from reaching an audience for reasons other than low scientific quality). Popular narratives suggest that scientific censorship is driven by authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance. Our analysis suggests that scientific censorship is often driven by scientists, who are primarily motivated by self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups. This perspective helps explain both recent findings on scientific censorship and recent changes to scientific institutions, such as the use of harm-based criteria to evaluate research. We discuss unknowns surrounding the consequences of censorship and provide recommendations for improving transparency and accountability in scientific decision-making to enable the exploration of these unknowns. The benefits of censorship may sometimes outweigh costs. However, until costs and benefits are examined empirically, scholars on opposing sides of ongoing debates are left to quarrel based on competing values, assumptions, and intuitions.
Social Science Computer Review, 2021
This work analyzes the prevalence of words denoting prejudice in 27 million news and opinion arti... more This work analyzes the prevalence of words denoting prejudice in 27 million news and opinion articles written between 1970 and 2019 and published in 47 of the most popular news media outlets in the United States. Our results show that the frequency of words that denote specific prejudice types related to ethnicity, gender, sexual, and religious orientation has markedly increased within the 2010-2019 decade across most news media outlets. This phenomenon starts prior to, but appears to accelerate after, 2015. The frequency of prejudice-denoting words in news articles is not synchronous across all outlets, with the yearly prevalence of such words in some influential news media outlets being predictive of those words' usage frequency in other outlets the following year. Increasing prevalence of prejudice-denoting words in news media discourse is often substantially correlated with U.S. public opinion survey data on growing perceptions of minorities' mistreatment. Granger tests suggest that the prevalence of prejudice-denoting terms in news outlets might be predictive of shifts in public perceptions of prejudice severity in society for some, but not all, types of prejudice.
Journal of Computational Social Science, 2021
This work describes an analysis of political associations in 27 million diachronic (1975-2019) ne... more This work describes an analysis of political associations in 27 million diachronic (1975-2019) news and opinion articles from 47 news media outlets popular in the United States. We use embedding models trained on individual outlets content to quantify outlet-specific latent associations between positive/negative sentiment words and terms loaded with political connotations such as those describing political orientation, party affiliation, names of influential politicians, and ideologically aligned public figures. We observe that both left-and right-leaning news media tend to associate positive sentiment words with terms used to refer to members of their own political in-group and negative sentiment words with terms used to denote members of their ideological outgroup. Outlets rated as centrist by humans display political associations that are often milder but similar in orientation to those of leftleaning news organizations. A weighted average of political associations by outlets' readership volume hints that political associations embedded in left of center news outlets might have larger societal reach. A chronological analysis of political associations through time suggests that political sentiment polarization is increasing in both left-and right-leaning news media contents. Our approach for measuring sentiment associations of words denoting political orientation in outlet-specific embedding models correlates substantially with external human ratings of outlet ideological bias (r > 0.7). Yet, specific sentiment associations are sometimes multifaceted and challenging to interpret. Overall, our work signals the potential of machine learning models derived from news media language usage to quantify the ideological bias embedded in news outlet content.
Socius, 2021
Social science is often described as a product of 19th century Europe, and as a handmaiden to its... more Social science is often described as a product of 19th century Europe, and as a handmaiden to its imperial and colonial projects. However, centuries prior to the Western social science enterprise, Islamic imperial scholars developed their own 'science of society.' This essay provides an overview of the historical and cultural milieu in which 'Islamic' social science was born, and then charts its development over time through case studies of four seminal scholars-al-Razi, al-Farabi, al-Biruni and Ibn Khaldun-who played pivotal roles in establishing fields that could be roughly translated as psychology, political science, anthropology and sociology. The axioms undergirding Islamic social science are subsequently explored, with particular emphasis paid to the relations between said axioms and the discursive tradition, 'Islam.' The essay concludes with an exploration of how looking to social science enterprises beyond the 'modern' West can clarify the purported relationships between social science and empire.
International Journal of Communication, 2020
We examine how and why al-Qa'ida and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria have come to dominate di... more We examine how and why al-Qa'ida and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria have come to dominate discourse of the international terrorist threat in the post-9/11 era, through their emergence as the primary referents for understanding terrorism, the organizations that employ it, and the actions taken to combat it. We propose a simple mechanism-based on relevance theory-wherein a given actor might attain and sustain a socially shared understanding, allowing them to function as symbolic referents in media discourse. In Study 1, we address the plausibility of this mechanism, using computer-assisted linguistic analysis to assess coverage of Foreign Terrorist Organizations in The New York Times and Wall Street Journal from 1996 to 2017. In Study 2, we conduct an inductive framing analysis aimed at identifying unique and commonly reoccurring applications of framing packages relying on known actors as framing devices. We conclude by discussing implications of these practices.
The American Sociologist, 2018
As it became clear that Donald Trump had a real base of political support, even as analysts consi... more As it became clear that Donald Trump had a real base of political support, even as analysts consistently underestimated his electoral prospects, they grew increasingly fascinated with the question of who was supporting him (and why). However, researchers also tend to hold strong negative opinions about Trump. Consequently, they have approached this research with uncharitable priors about the kind of person who would support him and what they would be motivated by. Research design and data analysis often seem to be oriented towards reinforcing those assumptions. This essay highlights the epistemological consequences of these tendencies through a series of case studies featuring prominent and influential works that purport to explain the role of race and racism in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. It demonstrates that quality control systems, which should catch major errors, seem to be failing in systematic ways as a result of shared priors and commitments between authors, reviewers and editors-which are also held in common with the journalists and scholars citing and amplifying this work-leading to misinformation cascades. Of course, motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, prejudicial study design, and failure to address confounds are not limited to questions about Trump-however they seem to be particularly pronounced in this case due to the relative homogeneity and intensity of scholars' views about this topic as compared to other social phenomena. "Trump studies," therefore, provides fertile ground for exploring how social research can go awry-and the consequences of these failures-particularly with respect to work on contentious and politically-charged topics.
Sociological Forum, 2019
Often described as an outcome, inequality is better understood as a social process-a function of ... more Often described as an outcome, inequality is better understood as a social process-a function of how institutions are structured and reproduced, and the ways people act and interact within them across time. Racialized inequality persists because it is enacted moment to moment, context to context-and it can be ended should those who currently perpetuate it commit themselves to playing a different role instead. This essay makes three core contributions: first, it highlights a disturbing parity between the people who are most rhetorically committed to ending racialized inequality and those who are most responsible for its persistence. Next, it explores the origin of this paradox-how it is that ostensibly antiracist intentions are transmuted into 'benevolently racist' actions. Finally, it presents an alternative approach to mitigating racialized inequality, one which more effectively challenges the self-oriented and extractive logics undergirding systemic racism: rather than expropriating blame to others, or else adopting introspective and psychologized approaches to fundamentally social problems, those sincerely committed to antiracism can take concrete steps in the real world-actions which require no legislation or coercion of naysayers, just a willingness to personally make sacrifices for the sake of racial justice.
Critical Studies on Terrorism, 2018
This article explores the construction of extremism in media discourse, the factors driving speci... more This article explores the construction of extremism in media discourse, the factors driving specific constructions and the implications of these constructions for counterterrorism policy. We contend that extremism has predominantly and increasingly been framed as a security issue. This article explores the implications of this practice through the framework of securitisation. We measure the average intensity of security framing in 38,616 articles found in three major US newspapers, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times, between 20 January 1993 and 19 January 2017 comprising the Clinton, Bush and Obama presidencies, and look at factors influencing the shift in intensity over time. Through our analysis, we show that it is possible to return to a pre- 9/11 discourse but that the confluence of real-world events and the strategic choices of political actors have so far prevented this from fully occurring. We then explore the effect of securitization on public perceptions of the threat from terrorism, finding that increases in the intensity of security framing artificially increases the public’s worry about becoming a victim of terrorism. We conclude by discussing implications for the communication of counterterrorism policy and the requirements for an after, after 9/11 approach
Published in Comparative Philosophy, Vol. VII, No. 2 (Fall 2016) Advocates of political liberalis... more Published in Comparative Philosophy, Vol. VII, No. 2 (Fall 2016) Advocates of political liberalism hold it as a superior alternative to perfectionism on the grounds that it avoids superfluous and/or controversial claims in favor of a maximally-inclusive approach undergirded by a "free-standing" justification for the ideology. These assertions prove difficult to defend: political interpretations of liberalism tend to be implicitly ethnocentric; they often rely upon a number of controversial, and even empirically falsified, assumptions about rationality--and in many ways prove more parochial than their perfectionist cousins. It is possible to reform political liberalism to address these challenges, but generally at the expense of the supposed normative force and universality of the liberal project. However, this para-liberal approach is much better in keeping with contemporary findings in sociology, psychology and cognitive science--and can much more effectively accommodate the illiberal challenge.
Published in Middle East Policy, Vol. XX, No. 1 (Spring 2013)
The popular discourse on the Syria... more Published in Middle East Policy, Vol. XX, No. 1 (Spring 2013)
The popular discourse on the Syrian conflict has largely taken for granted that Bashar al-Asad and his regime are unpopular in Syria, the revolution is widely supported domestically, the rebels are “winning” the war, and the fall of the regime is inevitable and imminent. To justify their interpretation of the conflict, opposition activists, Western policy makers and media outlets make frequent reference to a number of “facts,” often statistical in nature. However, should we contextualize this data more rigorously, it becomes apparent that a radically different dynamic may be at work “on the ground” in Syria. This becomes important, as a more nuanced understanding of what is happening will have implications for what strategy the United States should pursue.
Uploads
Books by Musa al-Gharbi
One defining trait of symbolic capitalists is our commitment to social justice. We are the Americans most likely to self-identify as feminists, antiracists or allies to LGBTQ people. Politically, we’re overwhelmingly aligned with America’s primary ‘left’ party. Many of our professions are explicitly oriented around altruism, speaking truth to power, or serving as impartial adjudicators, knowledge producers, facilitators and advisors in order to advance the common good. Given the ways symbolic capitalists like to understand and describe ourselves and our professions, one might expect that as people like “us” have gained more power over society, longstanding social problems would be on the path to resolution and socioeconomic and cultural inequalities would be greatly diminished. In reality, the opposite has happened.
Understanding this state of affairs requires a deep and unflinching look into the history and political economy of symbolic capitalists. Although our professions have, from the outset, defined themselves as altruistic in nature — oriented towards higher principles or the greater good – the truth is, we have never been woke.
Now available for pre-order: https://bookshop.org/a/103354/9780691232607
1. Justifications, in any context, are oriented towards social manipulation and bear no relation to any "cognitive processes."
2. The role of logic is overstated, both with regards to our justifications, and also our cognition.
3. Truth and falsity are socio-linguistic functions which have no bearing on any "objective reality."
Insofar as these claims are correct, the methods and aims (both normative and descriptive) of "classical epistemology" are invalidated. We offer up a proposal as to what a more useful/meaningful epistemology might look like, exploring how such a reformulation might affect conceptions of "knowledge" and "rationality."
Journal Articles by Musa al-Gharbi
The popular discourse on the Syrian conflict has largely taken for granted that Bashar al-Asad and his regime are unpopular in Syria, the revolution is widely supported domestically, the rebels are “winning” the war, and the fall of the regime is inevitable and imminent. To justify their interpretation of the conflict, opposition activists, Western policy makers and media outlets make frequent reference to a number of “facts,” often statistical in nature. However, should we contextualize this data more rigorously, it becomes apparent that a radically different dynamic may be at work “on the ground” in Syria. This becomes important, as a more nuanced understanding of what is happening will have implications for what strategy the United States should pursue.
One defining trait of symbolic capitalists is our commitment to social justice. We are the Americans most likely to self-identify as feminists, antiracists or allies to LGBTQ people. Politically, we’re overwhelmingly aligned with America’s primary ‘left’ party. Many of our professions are explicitly oriented around altruism, speaking truth to power, or serving as impartial adjudicators, knowledge producers, facilitators and advisors in order to advance the common good. Given the ways symbolic capitalists like to understand and describe ourselves and our professions, one might expect that as people like “us” have gained more power over society, longstanding social problems would be on the path to resolution and socioeconomic and cultural inequalities would be greatly diminished. In reality, the opposite has happened.
Understanding this state of affairs requires a deep and unflinching look into the history and political economy of symbolic capitalists. Although our professions have, from the outset, defined themselves as altruistic in nature — oriented towards higher principles or the greater good – the truth is, we have never been woke.
Now available for pre-order: https://bookshop.org/a/103354/9780691232607
1. Justifications, in any context, are oriented towards social manipulation and bear no relation to any "cognitive processes."
2. The role of logic is overstated, both with regards to our justifications, and also our cognition.
3. Truth and falsity are socio-linguistic functions which have no bearing on any "objective reality."
Insofar as these claims are correct, the methods and aims (both normative and descriptive) of "classical epistemology" are invalidated. We offer up a proposal as to what a more useful/meaningful epistemology might look like, exploring how such a reformulation might affect conceptions of "knowledge" and "rationality."
The popular discourse on the Syrian conflict has largely taken for granted that Bashar al-Asad and his regime are unpopular in Syria, the revolution is widely supported domestically, the rebels are “winning” the war, and the fall of the regime is inevitable and imminent. To justify their interpretation of the conflict, opposition activists, Western policy makers and media outlets make frequent reference to a number of “facts,” often statistical in nature. However, should we contextualize this data more rigorously, it becomes apparent that a radically different dynamic may be at work “on the ground” in Syria. This becomes important, as a more nuanced understanding of what is happening will have implications for what strategy the United States should pursue.