Dec 14, 2022·edited Dec 14, 2022Liked by James O'Malley
I found some useful distinctions here. I might add the following:
A traditional liberal places high value on the concept of "debate". A liberal finds too much in-group agreement suspicious and intellectually stultifying; they value the ability to convincingly argue a position one does not actually hold ("steel-manning"); they see debate as a necessary part of continually testing one's ideas; they enjoy a little "devil's advocacy" or light trolling.
Under the ideology you call here "woke": a significant amount of in-group agreement is a necessary prerequisite for making further progress; continually having to debate first principles is intellectually exhausting; when real-world issues are at stake, "debate as sport" is a tedious distraction at best and actively damaging at worst; one recognises that one's opponents are often arguing "in bad faith".
Liberal: The way we use language reflects how the world is. Language changes naturally and slowly, not by heckling and shaming by activists. It's important to use language in a way that maximises clarity and widespread understanding. Policing the language of others is simply a way of avoiding arguing with their substantive points.
"Woke": The way we use language affects how we see the world. Language can be changed for the better by the concerted attempts of activists (think of the title "Ms.", for example). It's important to use language in a way that demonstrates and advances one's beliefs. Correcting and improving the way language is used is one of the ways new ideas can enter the mainstream.
Perhaps I would add two more features of what is characterised as "woke". First, that "woke" holds accountable all individuals remaining in the hegemonic group; that is, every individual white non-ally is complicit and fully responsible for historical wrongs.
Perhaps the second trait is that "woke" is disproportionate. Most of the other features of "woke" that you mention were true of Berkeley, California in the 1980s, but old school cool was understated. In those days, violations of correct opinions were absolutely refuted with a cocked eyebrow, or with the words, "Uhhhhhh, maybe...", whereas now it seems as though maximum social and collective force is mobilized against violators. This change might be a manifestation of the chant, "The people -- united -- shall never be defeated." Of course, the "woke" response to accusations of being disproportionate is that not even mass murder is a disproportionate reaction to historical wrongs like slavery. There isn't really an answer to that, except an appeal to proportionate values.
However, these claims are unclear 'redesigning institutions to reduce inequality is good, diversity is good'. I would argue these things are only good if they are achieved fairly, without racial discrimination. So in America universities increase diversity by discriminating against white and asian university applicants. Having those aims without also having the aim not to discriminate or be unfair, is bad.
I’m interested in how you refer to “woke” as an ideology rather than as a new religion, as some others have—although maybe that’s a British thing, I think all the people who have deemed it a new religion are Americans. John McWhorter, linguistics professor and NY Times op-ed columnist, wrote a book-length rant (Woke Racism) declaring it a religion (with extensive case examples of persons in academia castigated or even fired for offending woke sensibilities, even unintentionally). He named the religion “electism” (from the Puritan notion of “elect” being the people favored by God), though I think a better name would be the “New Puritans,” which was the title of an article in the Atlantic by Anne Applebaum in 2021, although from a glance at Amazon it looks like right wingers have glommed onto that name (maybe because, evil as they may be, they seem much better at judging words and phrases that resonate with the public). The identity-based communal aspects, along with the constant searching for and casting out of heretics, and of course the certainty that they morally superior to everyone else, all seem to point to something like a religion—which I’m sure will offend the heck out of the many social justice adherents who consider themselves humanist or atheist.
When I hear these people go on about how they’re just being kind, I hear in my mind Elvis Costello singing “You’ve got to be cruel to be kind…”
Finally, my big problem with the whole “woke” or “social justice” crowd is that they seem, as religious prophets sometimes do, intent on offending or upsetting as many people as possible. The notion of persuading anyone who does not already enthusiastically agree is anathema to them, it seems. Politically they seem so out of touch with the mainstream that they commit an endless stream of “own goals” and the only reason they haven’t enabled the Republicans here in the US to become more dominant is that the far right here is way crazier and more obviously dangerous.
A very good explanation. Think you've nicely captured Wokeism. I've always described it as political correctness on steroids. And describing something as PC was said so often the phrase became meaningless.
I think Wokeism is very cult like in its approach. No attempt to win over hearts and minds, to persuade, debate. Debate is now a dirty word. Tantamount to hate speech. Wokeism is very totalitarian: "This is is how things are now. Join us or we'll force you to.'
I want to see greater diversity in all areas of life. I'm fed up with our politics, media, judiciary dominated by the privately educated, entitled, Oxbridge brigade. But Wokeism isn't an ideology with many practical ideas for change. Virtue signalling is all it requires. Say the right words, pronouns and submit, and we'll leave you alone. Until next time...
James, I'm trying out this substack thing, and responding to your post seemed a good place to start. I don't know if there's a better way to thread responses, but it's longer than a comment, so I put it here: https://dioptre.substack.com/p/teaching-critical-wokeness?sd=pf
Woke-sters have zero incentive to agree to a label or definition. They're watching you have this meta debate while they march through the Scottish courts and decide you can change your biological sex (to pick just today's example).
This is a great piece. I think you've helped me crystallise some of the tensions in such a way that I can certainly be woke to this and that, while overall liberally credentialed. (Whatever descriptor or values, I am most confident about this: that someone who's going to the trouble of being full-throatedly "anti-woke" (which seems to be its own thing now too, and I'd love to see a similar analysis of) is probably on the wrong side of history; in particular just the flat refusal to consider that there might be subtler forms of prejudice and injustice that they're not "awake" to I find mind-bogglingly self-assured.
Maybe it's outside scope, but I think the evolution of the term and the associated trends you outline is really important to understanding it. This really is amateur sociology hour on my part, but, if my memory is roughly correct, it seemed like 'woke' was very initially closely associated with being alert to primarily racial injustices, both the big ones and importantly the subtle ones that you have to be awake/paying attention to in order to really get it, and that was why the term initially flourished. This was reacted against (maybe people don't like to be told they're not awake enough to have not noticed something, maybe they'd rather think that that thing wasn't really happening than that they weren't perceptive enough to see it; and of course some will just be plain racists wanting to subdue discussion/just immediate react by going on the attack). And then, the broadening out of 'woke' into this complex of attitudes, that as you point are sometimes in tension with traditional liberal values, was forged in that counter-counter reaction (I'd even say to a large extent it was invented by the opponents). And I think the fact that it was something of a counter-counter reaction to a kind of suppressive response to the original idea does a lot to explain that character. It makes sense to me that people who, as you say at the end, are usually driven by liberal and kind moral instincts, facing pushback against the simple idea of being alert to subtle injustices, might get less subtle and more demanding. Woke was a claim, but it was opposition that made it a movement, and so it became more like an identity, and more communitarian? Maybe "anti-woke" attacks seemed to target claims about race, and so very much felt like punching down, hence the tendency to prioritise harm reduction, as a kind of defensive/caring response? If your mere claim that there are subtler problems around race and racism than many people are alive to, and then you're told that that sounds politically correct/woke/self-victimizing etc, then you have to insist that there really is still a problem, and so you trend away from progressivism?
What I will say is that, yes, the “let’s just be kind”, definitions of “wokeism” are unhelpful and vague, but there in response to unhelpful and vague right-wing dog whistle use of the term woke. Which is really my main attitude towards the “wokery” - there may be these new left-wing ideological phenomena, but “woke” is not a meaningful or helpful term, and we should find a different term to use to refer to this new phenomena you’ve just described
I like your blog James, been reading through some old posts. I like how you don't easily fall into a traditional "tribe", you take interesting and nuanced takes, and certainly get this reader thinking of new perspectives. Good stuff. Anyway...
For me there's a couple of defining characteristics of woke. (1) The corporate element. I sometimes think the Occupy movement was too successful for its own good. It certainly shook up the financial sector, but one of the sinister aspects of their reaction was to co-opt the language and tropes of traditionally left-wing causes, essentially to maintain their own survival. Now that might not necessarily be a bad thing, companies making more of an effort to be ethical or environmental.
However, corporations essentially being sociopathic by design (ie by their very nature they are set up to look after their own interests first and foremost), the corporate version of progressive politics will be one in which they don't end up out of pocket. Hence lots of sleight of hand, lots of virtual signalling, but more worryingly, the hollowing out of true progressive causes and their corporate takeover.
I mentioned wind energy in another thread, a canary in the coalmine if you like, (or an eagle in the wind farm).... An early example of Big Energy adopting "green" language to essentially grow and expand and control our resources, exactly the same as traditional energy, only emitting slightly less carbon dioxide. So maybe 1% better, but 99% the same old, same old. Michael Moore exposed this with the brilliant and daring "Planet Of The Humans" film.
It also applies to the corporatisation of Pride festivals, brought to you by Barclays Bank. And general woke advertising - a thin veneer of inauthentic "progressive" tropes fronting, essentially, the same old corporate junk as always.
The bottom line in all cases, what makes them "woke", is that they are essentially driven by top-down, rather than bottom-up, corporate interests. Superficially it might look the same, but as always, follow the money. Who benefits?
Now none of this is to disparage the causes being raised, up to a point. It's more about explaining the difference between being "woke" and "progressive". Essentially there's an external locus of control with woke, someone somewhere pulling the strings, someone with a hidden agenda making money, or establishing their own power, through the promulgation of woke memes that always somehow benefit the company.
This brings me onto a second factor that defines "woke:, and that's essentially dishonesty, or at least secrecy/lack of accountability. If someone is open and honest about their intentions for a better world, that's not woke. It becomes woke when intellectual honesty and adherence to logic/scientific method is secondary to promoting the message at all costs. Massaging statistics, discouraging Socratic questioning, sidelining dissenting voices, turning everything into an "us vs them" issue rather than encouraging everyone to work together... these are all aspects of woke behaviour as opposed to open, honest socialism.
I'll leave it there for now, but these two factors, both interconnected, for me define "woke" (a) it is essentially corporate in nature, serving the needs of corporations first and foremost, redefining social causes in the best interests of corporations and any positive social impacts being a few crumbs given to the plebs to fend off any future Occupy-style stunts, and (b) it is based more on fluid ideals of honesty and truth, happy to bend the facts in order to further the narrative, pushing harmony over truth, rather than traditional "objective" western dialectic.
Thanks for the opportunity to expatiate on the topic.
""Woke” communities often value being on “the right side” over accuracy."
Doesn't this football team argument also apply to the current anti-woke group too? How else would one explain GOP deference to Trump in spite of all his oratorical and ideological inconsistencies?
Also, how come a recently evolved definition takes precedent over an old one? 80s lefties overused the term "fascist" in the same way modern ones overuse "nazi." But we don't accept the new breed of anti science, anti immigration, post Brexit Tory populism is "Nazism" because, well, it isn't, as disagreeable as it is. So by this logic, surely we do need to reject any post -2015 re-definition of the word "woke" by either the left or right as being political opportunism?
I guess my main question here is, what's your understanding of "ideology"? I'm struggling to see how all this adds up to anything that much resembles what I understand by the term.
I found some useful distinctions here. I might add the following:
A traditional liberal places high value on the concept of "debate". A liberal finds too much in-group agreement suspicious and intellectually stultifying; they value the ability to convincingly argue a position one does not actually hold ("steel-manning"); they see debate as a necessary part of continually testing one's ideas; they enjoy a little "devil's advocacy" or light trolling.
Under the ideology you call here "woke": a significant amount of in-group agreement is a necessary prerequisite for making further progress; continually having to debate first principles is intellectually exhausting; when real-world issues are at stake, "debate as sport" is a tedious distraction at best and actively damaging at worst; one recognises that one's opponents are often arguing "in bad faith".
Another potential addition:
Liberal: The way we use language reflects how the world is. Language changes naturally and slowly, not by heckling and shaming by activists. It's important to use language in a way that maximises clarity and widespread understanding. Policing the language of others is simply a way of avoiding arguing with their substantive points.
"Woke": The way we use language affects how we see the world. Language can be changed for the better by the concerted attempts of activists (think of the title "Ms.", for example). It's important to use language in a way that demonstrates and advances one's beliefs. Correcting and improving the way language is used is one of the ways new ideas can enter the mainstream.
Perhaps I would add two more features of what is characterised as "woke". First, that "woke" holds accountable all individuals remaining in the hegemonic group; that is, every individual white non-ally is complicit and fully responsible for historical wrongs.
Perhaps the second trait is that "woke" is disproportionate. Most of the other features of "woke" that you mention were true of Berkeley, California in the 1980s, but old school cool was understated. In those days, violations of correct opinions were absolutely refuted with a cocked eyebrow, or with the words, "Uhhhhhh, maybe...", whereas now it seems as though maximum social and collective force is mobilized against violators. This change might be a manifestation of the chant, "The people -- united -- shall never be defeated." Of course, the "woke" response to accusations of being disproportionate is that not even mass murder is a disproportionate reaction to historical wrongs like slavery. There isn't really an answer to that, except an appeal to proportionate values.
Good article
However, these claims are unclear 'redesigning institutions to reduce inequality is good, diversity is good'. I would argue these things are only good if they are achieved fairly, without racial discrimination. So in America universities increase diversity by discriminating against white and asian university applicants. Having those aims without also having the aim not to discriminate or be unfair, is bad.
I’m interested in how you refer to “woke” as an ideology rather than as a new religion, as some others have—although maybe that’s a British thing, I think all the people who have deemed it a new religion are Americans. John McWhorter, linguistics professor and NY Times op-ed columnist, wrote a book-length rant (Woke Racism) declaring it a religion (with extensive case examples of persons in academia castigated or even fired for offending woke sensibilities, even unintentionally). He named the religion “electism” (from the Puritan notion of “elect” being the people favored by God), though I think a better name would be the “New Puritans,” which was the title of an article in the Atlantic by Anne Applebaum in 2021, although from a glance at Amazon it looks like right wingers have glommed onto that name (maybe because, evil as they may be, they seem much better at judging words and phrases that resonate with the public). The identity-based communal aspects, along with the constant searching for and casting out of heretics, and of course the certainty that they morally superior to everyone else, all seem to point to something like a religion—which I’m sure will offend the heck out of the many social justice adherents who consider themselves humanist or atheist.
When I hear these people go on about how they’re just being kind, I hear in my mind Elvis Costello singing “You’ve got to be cruel to be kind…”
Finally, my big problem with the whole “woke” or “social justice” crowd is that they seem, as religious prophets sometimes do, intent on offending or upsetting as many people as possible. The notion of persuading anyone who does not already enthusiastically agree is anathema to them, it seems. Politically they seem so out of touch with the mainstream that they commit an endless stream of “own goals” and the only reason they haven’t enabled the Republicans here in the US to become more dominant is that the far right here is way crazier and more obviously dangerous.
A very good explanation. Think you've nicely captured Wokeism. I've always described it as political correctness on steroids. And describing something as PC was said so often the phrase became meaningless.
I think Wokeism is very cult like in its approach. No attempt to win over hearts and minds, to persuade, debate. Debate is now a dirty word. Tantamount to hate speech. Wokeism is very totalitarian: "This is is how things are now. Join us or we'll force you to.'
I want to see greater diversity in all areas of life. I'm fed up with our politics, media, judiciary dominated by the privately educated, entitled, Oxbridge brigade. But Wokeism isn't an ideology with many practical ideas for change. Virtue signalling is all it requires. Say the right words, pronouns and submit, and we'll leave you alone. Until next time...
James, I'm trying out this substack thing, and responding to your post seemed a good place to start. I don't know if there's a better way to thread responses, but it's longer than a comment, so I put it here: https://dioptre.substack.com/p/teaching-critical-wokeness?sd=pf
"And given we have not yet achieve full racial equality, can we really say there has been any progress?"
- yes.
(sorry I'm unable to read even a paraphrasing of Kendi without shouting at my phone)
Woke-sters have zero incentive to agree to a label or definition. They're watching you have this meta debate while they march through the Scottish courts and decide you can change your biological sex (to pick just today's example).
This is a great piece. I think you've helped me crystallise some of the tensions in such a way that I can certainly be woke to this and that, while overall liberally credentialed. (Whatever descriptor or values, I am most confident about this: that someone who's going to the trouble of being full-throatedly "anti-woke" (which seems to be its own thing now too, and I'd love to see a similar analysis of) is probably on the wrong side of history; in particular just the flat refusal to consider that there might be subtler forms of prejudice and injustice that they're not "awake" to I find mind-bogglingly self-assured.
Maybe it's outside scope, but I think the evolution of the term and the associated trends you outline is really important to understanding it. This really is amateur sociology hour on my part, but, if my memory is roughly correct, it seemed like 'woke' was very initially closely associated with being alert to primarily racial injustices, both the big ones and importantly the subtle ones that you have to be awake/paying attention to in order to really get it, and that was why the term initially flourished. This was reacted against (maybe people don't like to be told they're not awake enough to have not noticed something, maybe they'd rather think that that thing wasn't really happening than that they weren't perceptive enough to see it; and of course some will just be plain racists wanting to subdue discussion/just immediate react by going on the attack). And then, the broadening out of 'woke' into this complex of attitudes, that as you point are sometimes in tension with traditional liberal values, was forged in that counter-counter reaction (I'd even say to a large extent it was invented by the opponents). And I think the fact that it was something of a counter-counter reaction to a kind of suppressive response to the original idea does a lot to explain that character. It makes sense to me that people who, as you say at the end, are usually driven by liberal and kind moral instincts, facing pushback against the simple idea of being alert to subtle injustices, might get less subtle and more demanding. Woke was a claim, but it was opposition that made it a movement, and so it became more like an identity, and more communitarian? Maybe "anti-woke" attacks seemed to target claims about race, and so very much felt like punching down, hence the tendency to prioritise harm reduction, as a kind of defensive/caring response? If your mere claim that there are subtler problems around race and racism than many people are alive to, and then you're told that that sounds politically correct/woke/self-victimizing etc, then you have to insist that there really is still a problem, and so you trend away from progressivism?
What I will say is that, yes, the “let’s just be kind”, definitions of “wokeism” are unhelpful and vague, but there in response to unhelpful and vague right-wing dog whistle use of the term woke. Which is really my main attitude towards the “wokery” - there may be these new left-wing ideological phenomena, but “woke” is not a meaningful or helpful term, and we should find a different term to use to refer to this new phenomena you’ve just described
I like your blog James, been reading through some old posts. I like how you don't easily fall into a traditional "tribe", you take interesting and nuanced takes, and certainly get this reader thinking of new perspectives. Good stuff. Anyway...
For me there's a couple of defining characteristics of woke. (1) The corporate element. I sometimes think the Occupy movement was too successful for its own good. It certainly shook up the financial sector, but one of the sinister aspects of their reaction was to co-opt the language and tropes of traditionally left-wing causes, essentially to maintain their own survival. Now that might not necessarily be a bad thing, companies making more of an effort to be ethical or environmental.
However, corporations essentially being sociopathic by design (ie by their very nature they are set up to look after their own interests first and foremost), the corporate version of progressive politics will be one in which they don't end up out of pocket. Hence lots of sleight of hand, lots of virtual signalling, but more worryingly, the hollowing out of true progressive causes and their corporate takeover.
I mentioned wind energy in another thread, a canary in the coalmine if you like, (or an eagle in the wind farm).... An early example of Big Energy adopting "green" language to essentially grow and expand and control our resources, exactly the same as traditional energy, only emitting slightly less carbon dioxide. So maybe 1% better, but 99% the same old, same old. Michael Moore exposed this with the brilliant and daring "Planet Of The Humans" film.
It also applies to the corporatisation of Pride festivals, brought to you by Barclays Bank. And general woke advertising - a thin veneer of inauthentic "progressive" tropes fronting, essentially, the same old corporate junk as always.
The bottom line in all cases, what makes them "woke", is that they are essentially driven by top-down, rather than bottom-up, corporate interests. Superficially it might look the same, but as always, follow the money. Who benefits?
Now none of this is to disparage the causes being raised, up to a point. It's more about explaining the difference between being "woke" and "progressive". Essentially there's an external locus of control with woke, someone somewhere pulling the strings, someone with a hidden agenda making money, or establishing their own power, through the promulgation of woke memes that always somehow benefit the company.
This brings me onto a second factor that defines "woke:, and that's essentially dishonesty, or at least secrecy/lack of accountability. If someone is open and honest about their intentions for a better world, that's not woke. It becomes woke when intellectual honesty and adherence to logic/scientific method is secondary to promoting the message at all costs. Massaging statistics, discouraging Socratic questioning, sidelining dissenting voices, turning everything into an "us vs them" issue rather than encouraging everyone to work together... these are all aspects of woke behaviour as opposed to open, honest socialism.
I'll leave it there for now, but these two factors, both interconnected, for me define "woke" (a) it is essentially corporate in nature, serving the needs of corporations first and foremost, redefining social causes in the best interests of corporations and any positive social impacts being a few crumbs given to the plebs to fend off any future Occupy-style stunts, and (b) it is based more on fluid ideals of honesty and truth, happy to bend the facts in order to further the narrative, pushing harmony over truth, rather than traditional "objective" western dialectic.
Thanks for the opportunity to expatiate on the topic.
Great article.
""Woke” communities often value being on “the right side” over accuracy."
Doesn't this football team argument also apply to the current anti-woke group too? How else would one explain GOP deference to Trump in spite of all his oratorical and ideological inconsistencies?
Also, how come a recently evolved definition takes precedent over an old one? 80s lefties overused the term "fascist" in the same way modern ones overuse "nazi." But we don't accept the new breed of anti science, anti immigration, post Brexit Tory populism is "Nazism" because, well, it isn't, as disagreeable as it is. So by this logic, surely we do need to reject any post -2015 re-definition of the word "woke" by either the left or right as being political opportunism?
I guess my main question here is, what's your understanding of "ideology"? I'm struggling to see how all this adds up to anything that much resembles what I understand by the term.
I very much enjoyed reading this and I still have no idea what woke means. Thank you.