Defining "woke"

Great Debates
121

I think the term “woke” has largely been abandoned by the left, with how weaponized it has become by the right.
So the definition is whatever the right wants it to be.

Which, as far as I can gather is: “Over the top” adherence to multiculturalism, diversity or tolerance to the point of being either obviously harmful to the country or anti-white christian nuclear family

Now, I obviously think this definition is really silly; somewhat self-contradictory, and the supposed examples of “woke” never meet this standard. But it’s pretty clear to me that this is the concept that the right is trying to get at. I’ll try this definition out on a right-wing forum and tell you how I get on.

Here in Britain we’ve had terms like “political correctness gone MAD” and “crazy rules from Brussels [the EU headquarters]” that played a similar role to woke. It was just stories that got people to buy newspapers, shake their head and lament what the country was coming to. And they were, 99% of the time, just nonsense: something out of context or misleading, if not outright lies. It didn’t matter.

“Woke” is the new version of that. But now dialled up to 11 with more overt racism.

122

As an aside, Hulu’s show Woke is delightful. It’s written from the inside perspective of a lefty activist, and is decidedly non-sanctimonious about the work, and explores a lot of the stuff that makes being on the left so tricky and infuriating and also obviously where folks should be. Plus, freaking hilarious.

If you’re confused about what it means to be Woke, you could do worse than sitting down with this show.

123

…it was never a word that even belonged to “the left” for them to abandon. It is a word that had its origins within the Black community, and they haven’t given it up to anyone.

124

I didn’t mean to imply that it belonged to anyone, I just mean that a few years ago, progressives might have used the term non-ironically, but no longer.
These days, I don’t hear progressives say it, I don’t hear many black people say it, frankly (FYI, I am a POC).

I only hear it as a pejorative on FOX and in Republicans’ justification for censorship and taking away rights.

125

It implies a certain assumption of so called liberal positions, such as the assumption that systematic injustice is prevalent, which was fine with the far right as long as there was no attempt, or no effective attempt, to proceed on that assumption in practice. I think when it became clear that practice, not rhetoric, was the goal, the right went nuts opposing woke.

126

…progressives never really used it so it isn’t a surprise that you never heard them say it. And no, Black people aren’t calling themselves “woke” every minute of every day. But it still means something. It hasn’t been abandoned.

Of course. Just like how a couple of years ago nobody outside of very specific academic circles had heard of CRT, and now is being used as a weapon to ban Black studies at university.

127

It’s being used at a weapon to ban any sort of black history at grammar school and high school levels:

From the headline:

Florida Scoured Math Textbooks for ‘Prohibited Topics.’ Next Up: Social Studies.

Behind the scenes, one publisher went to great lengths to avoid mentions of race, even in the story of Rosa Parks.

128

Thanks for providing me with links to definitions. I thought that the purpose of this thread was to define “woke”. I complied, with my own definition. I thought we were actually having a debate. Silly me.

What was the point of this thread then, if linking to some dictionary entries was enough ? It could have been over in one reply.

If being woke is merely…

… then that’s called being a liberal. I’ve been a liberal for over 35 years. I recognize myself in the definition that you’ve posted, which happens to echo the one I gave :

If “woke” means the same thing, then it’s a useless word that we should get rid of.

I considered it useful to keep the word in order to describe what I see as a perversion of liberal values. Group-think, appeal to emotions over reason, calls for special treatment for increasingly fringe views, which happen be often at odds with each other (ever seen an Islamist preacher supporting trans rights ?). All these things appear to me to conflict with the values of inclusivity and compassion that are at the heart of the liberal worldview I hold dear.

129

What?

130

Say what now? You provided a definition, and folks disagreed with it, and that makes you think we’re not having a debate?

This is my confused face.

131

Yes, that is exactly what the far right has done in their use of it as a pejorative. They find it extremely useful as well.

It’s like saying, “I hate puppies!” When asked why, you say that they caused damage to your tire when you drove into one. After much back and forth, we find that you are talking about potholes, not puppies.

But then you go on to say, “Well, that’s my definition for puppies, and if others don’t agree with that definition, they should stop using it.”

Meanwhile, others are actively working to ban dogs, and are using your “anti-puppy” rhetoric as support in that effort, even as you claim to love dogs.

132

To elaborate: This whole “controversy” or debate stems from the right realizing “Holy shit! You’re no longer content with subjecting me to listening to you yammering about your ‘injustice against oppressed people’ BS, but now you’re demanding that I actually acknowledge it by changing in some non-symbolic ways my comfortable life? How dare you!! All gloves are now off! I will henceforth mischaracterize your entire movement as Marxist indoctrination of helpless children until you restore the status that existed in the 1950s (better, the 1850s) and agree to crawl back into your hole and shut up forever.”

133

It’s pretty clear. @Moonrise (among others, but they’re the current ardent spokesperson here) believes the RW propaganda. That’s their definition of the word. And they’re not far wrong that lots of other people believe the same nonsense. Nonsense that’s being reinforced daily by made-up fake “facts” and made-up fake “events” designed to create and reinforce cultural outrage.

But it’s not clear to me what anyone can usefully say after that. Once a word has acquired both a real meaning and a nonsense meaning, further discussion of its “definition” is pointless. It now has mutually contradictory audience-dependent meanings and the only useful thng to do is pitch the word out of teh lexicon. It’s can’t be used to communicate (note the similarity of that word to “community”); it can only be used to inflame and divide and prevent actual, you know, communication.

We could raise the discussion to a meta level, asking why this nonsense exists, why it sells, and why articulate people such as @Moonrise seem to believe the nonsense in the presence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

But I bet that won’t happen. For lack of intellectually honest participants on one side.

We’re 130-ish posts in and I’m about done here.

134

In the literary sense here is how I understand the progression.

  • early usage, ??? - ~2019 - Black people referring to themselves being aware of systemic racial injustice. Sporadic use in the 20th century, big resurgence around 2014 with the Geoge Floyd protests.
  • middle usage, ~2019-2022 - Moderates and conservatives mocking the more fatuous, narcissistic excesses of identity politics
  • late usage, ~2022-2023 - Conservatives using it to refer to any racial or gender sensitivity whatsoever
  • future usage - seems to be morphing into a socially acceptable form of the N-word

I am dismayed by the current trend of journalists sticking a microphone into the face of a white supremacist and demanding that they define “woke”. Why? It’s not their word! Why are we asking definitions from people who are hostile to the concept and want to annihilate it?

The proper interviewing technique is to present the definition and ask them to explain their opposition: “Woke means an awareness of systematic injustice, past and present. Can you explain why you seem to have a categorical aversion to any discussion or awareness of injustice?”

135

…the debate hasn’t gone anywhere.

I asked you “Did you just make that definition up?”

And the answer appears to be “yes.”

So the next question is how did you come up with that definition, and why? What made you randomly start using woke the way you choose to use it?

Well the real question underlying the OP here is why are so many people ignoring the history of the word and the literal dictionary definition just to make random things up?

No, liberal means “favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.”

“Awareness” and “favourable to” are two different things. Woke means something very specific. And it isn’t liberalism.

It doesn’t mean the same thing.

I’m glad I could clear that up for you.

Can you give us an example of a " perversion of liberal values?"

This is just “wishy-washy” meaningless virtue signalling. You could apply that to anything. In fact in this very thread you’ve been doing just that.

Why an Islamist preacher?

There are plenty of Muslims that support trans rights. Ilhan Omar being the highest profile, off the top of my head. It just seems to be an odd question.

They aren’t in conflict. Not any of the things you’ve listed so far in this thread.

And you didn’t answer my earlier question.

By your very own definition, rewriting how the word is defined, holding a minority view that you are trying to impose on everyone else, aren’t you woke?

136

Who would click on that?

Most modern media is not to inform, it is to gain attention, to get engagement.

The person in the OP went viral for her answer. The person in your interview wouldn’t.

Yours is far more responsible journalism, but the other sells.

137

OK, that made me chuckle the first time I read it. I’m sorry if didn’t I consider it a priority to answer this specific point among the pile-on. So yeah, call me woke if you like, the irony isn’t lost on me.

I feel that I don’t have anything much to add to this thread. Perhaps I misunderstood its purpose. Perhaps I’m holding a minority view, but that’s fine with me. Perhaps I’m grossly wrong and have been brainshed by right-wing propaganda (which I steer away from, but nevermind).

Thanks for this. I’ll think about it. Really, I mean it.

I’m done.

138

Let me direct you to the evolutionary rubric I posted above:

You’re stuck in middle usage. Nobody can tell you how to use your own language, but you need to understand that the train has left the station, and you’re now using a word that’s becoming a socially acceptable form of the N-word.

I will also say that I sympathize with you, somewhat. I too remained in “middle woke” for a while. There are indeed some silly narcissistic excesses in left-wing identity politics, some cringe-inducing practices that I think are harmful to the left. But when I realized that “woke” was becoming a socially acceptable N-word, I understood that if I continue to flog my own definition of “woke”, then I am adding my voice and energy to white supremacists, so I don’t do that anymore, and you shouldn’t either.

Like you, I continue to be frustrated by the cringey idpol excesses of liberals (coming mainly from the most class-privileged and race-privileged segment, as I see it). I would like to see that addressed, but it feels like that fight isn’t the most important fight to have right now.

139

Thanks @HMS_Irruncible

Your post resonates with me and you articulate my thoughts better than I did. If I ever catch up with the “train”, which I hope, it will be thanks to your post that was actually constructive and enlightning.

140

I agree with this. As I posted a couple of days ago in another thread, I’m on an equity committee, and I was excited by a meeting earlier this week: our school is having some real issues with Black students not getting their needs met, and staff members (primarily but not universally White) unintentionally doing things that are going to alienate those students and drive them further away from the benefits of a public education, and there’s a real “fierce urgency of now” vibe around addressing these staff behaviors and giving staff the tools they need to address student needs.

Instead of getting into the weeds and figuring out how we can work together as a staff and better serve our students, the bulk of the meeting, like 90% or more, was spent talking about things like how someone sent an email about lockdown drills that ended with “shoot me an email if you have any questions” and how harmful that was, and looking at a list of “deficit based” words to avoid and how to use "asset based words instead, e.g., instead of talking about word problems, we should talk about math stories, because “problem” is deficit based.

That’s what’s harmful. Not because it’s actually harmful to remove the phrase “shoot me an email” from a message about lockdowns, but because it gets in the way of more important work. It’s like if you go to the doctor for your pneumonia, and she spends the appointment talking with you about the importance of taking vitamin supplements.

To continue the analogy, the right-wing has found a few examples across the country of doctors wasting time with vitamin supplements, and they have declared not only that the field of medicine is a scam, but that pneumonia doesn’t exist.