Scholar Warns Against "Reflexive Contrarianism" in Conservative Circles

Corey D. B. Walker, Dean of the Wake Forest University School of Divinity and a prominent public intellectual, recently issued a stark warning regarding what he termed "reflexive contrarianism" prevalent within conservative circles. In a social media post, Walker emphasized the critical distinction between healthy scrutiny of experts and an unthinking opposition to established knowledge, suggesting the latter poses significant societal risks. His statement underscores growing concerns about the erosion of trust in expertise across various domains.

Walker's tweet, shared on social media, articulated his concern:

"We should be willing to scrutinize experts, but the current strain of reflexive contrarianism running wild in conservative circles will get us all killed. Experts often have useful things to say even if we don't agree with everything they say."

This "reflexive contrarianism" describes an automatic rejection of mainstream views or expert consensus, often without critical evaluation. Experts on political discourse note that this phenomenon, while not exclusive to any political ideology, involves defining one's position solely in opposition to perceived mainstream narratives, rather than through independent thought or evidence. Such a stance can lead to the uncritical acceptance of counter-narratives and a dismissal of valuable insights, even from reputable sources.

The uncritical dismissal of expert opinion, as highlighted by Walker, carries substantial implications for public policy, scientific advancement, and societal cohesion. When skepticism devolves into automatic rejection, it can impede progress on complex issues ranging from public health to economic stability. The challenge lies in fostering a culture where critical inquiry is encouraged, but where genuine expertise is respected and utilized for collective benefit.

Corey D. B. Walker, known for his scholarship in African American philosophy, ethics, and religion, frequently engages in discussions surrounding civil discourse and the role of knowledge in public life. His commentary adds to a broader conversation among academics and public figures about the increasing polarization of information and the societal consequences of an ingrained distrust of established institutions and specialized knowledge. The call is for discernment and thoughtful engagement, rather than blanket opposition.