Wokeness as a proxy for class struggle

[Caracal]

I really have no idea what anyone means when they talk about "wokeness." The term started as slang among young people, went mainstream, and very quickly became used almost exclusively as a negative term. In the process, it has lost all clear meaning. As far as I can tell, most people who use the term have just substituted it for political correctness, another phrase that came to just mean "something I don't like."

If that were the case then it would also be used by people on the left to complain about ideas from the right. It isn't. It refers to ideas from the left such as

• critical theory (race, gender, etc.)
• "the patriarchy"
• "-phobia"s and "-ism"s applied to any ideas or actions that are undesireable
• oppression Olympics (part of critical theory, but it is assumed regardless of whether critical theory is invoked or not)

This is by no means exhaustive, but ti gets the main points. And it is all from the "progressive" left.

(This is not to sat that things like identity politics cannot come from the right, but when they do, NO-ONE calls that "woke". They call it Fascist, white supremacist, etc.)

That's my point. Those descriptions are so vague as to be meaningless. Wokeness apparently means any discussion or criticisms of race and gender hierarchies? Isms? Nobody seems to actually agree on what critical theory is.

At this point, it's just a term used by people on the political right to sneer at a vague set of things they don't like.

[marshwiggle]

I really have no idea what anyone means when they talk about "wokeness." The term started as slang among young people, went mainstream, and very quickly became used almost exclusively as a negative term. In the process, it has lost all clear meaning. As far as I can tell, most people who use the term have just substituted it for political correctness, another phrase that came to just mean "something I don't like."

If that were the case then it would also be used by people on the left to complain about ideas from the right. It isn't. It refers to ideas from the left such as

• critical theory (race, gender, etc.)
• "the patriarchy"
• "-phobia"s and "-ism"s applied to any ideas or actions that are undesireable
• oppression Olympics (part of critical theory, but it is assumed regardless of whether critical theory is invoked or not)

This is by no means exhaustive, but ti gets the main points. And it is all from the "progressive" left.

(This is not to sat that things like identity politics cannot come from the right, but when they do, NO-ONE calls that "woke". They call it Fascist, white supremacist, etc.)

That's my point. Those descriptions are so vague as to be meaningless. Wokeness apparently means any discussion or criticisms of race and gender hierarchies? Isms? Nobody seems to actually agree on what critical theory is.

Wokeness is the unquestioned assumption that those hierarchies exist in some universal sense. For instance, the idea of "the patriarchy" suggests that women are fundamentally devalued by society, despite things like the higher rates of death due to dangerous occupations, military service, etc. of men. The "non-woke" view is that many issues of "privilege" are, in fact, situation-dependent, so there is no universal heirarchy of value, either by design or coincidence.

[mahagonny]

I really have no idea what anyone means when they talk about "wokeness." The term started as slang among young people, went mainstream, and very quickly became used almost exclusively as a negative term. In the process, it has lost all clear meaning. As far as I can tell, most people who use the term have just substituted it for political correctness, another phrase that came to just mean "something I don't like."

If that were the case then it would also be used by people on the left to complain about ideas from the right. It isn't. It refers to ideas from the left such as

• critical theory (race, gender, etc.)
• "the patriarchy"
• "-phobia"s and "-ism"s applied to any ideas or actions that are undesireable
• oppression Olympics (part of critical theory, but it is assumed regardless of whether critical theory is invoked or not)

This is by no means exhaustive, but ti gets the main points. And it is all from the "progressive" left.

(This is not to sat that things like identity politics cannot come from the right, but when they do, NO-ONE calls that "woke". They call it Fascist, white supremacist, etc.)

Add, it is hyper-concerned with being up-to-date in one's worldview, which progressives accept is by necessity being transformed constantly. So to not be woke is to not be up-to-date is to be against progress. And since the past, by the unshakeable view, is filled with mostly injustice, lack of sensitivity, cruelty, etc, they believe that the effects of these sins are only now beginning to be exposed. It's a cult. There's desperation and mania in it.

ETA:

Wokeness is the unquestioned assumption that those hierarchies exist in some universal sense. For instance, the idea of "the patriarchy" suggests that women are fundamentally devalued by society, despite things like the higher rates of death due to dangerous occupations, military service, etc. of men. The "non-woke" view is that many issues of "privilege" are, in fact, situation-dependent, so there is no universal heirarchy of value, either by design or coincidence.

Wokeness amounts to an ultimatum. You're either trying to get woke, or you want the hierarchy and the oppression.

[Caracal]

Wokeness is the unquestioned assumption that those hierarchies exist in some universal sense. For instance, the idea of "the patriarchy" suggests that women are fundamentally devalued by society, despite things like the higher rates of death due to dangerous occupations, military service, etc. of men. The "non-woke" view is that many issues of "privilege" are, in fact, situation-dependent, so there is no universal heirarchy of value, either by design or coincidence.

Again, this is precisely what I mean. It's just a container category you can populate with any ideas or imagined ideas you want to be against. It isn't a way to think about the world, its a way to avoid thinking.

[mahagonny]

Wokeness is the unquestioned assumption that those hierarchies exist in some universal sense. For instance, the idea of "the patriarchy" suggests that women are fundamentally devalued by society, despite things like the higher rates of death due to dangerous occupations, military service, etc. of men. The "non-woke" view is that many issues of "privilege" are, in fact, situation-dependent, so there is no universal heirarchy of value, either by design or coincidence.

The wokeness phenomenon is interesting to me in that while it has been having a dramatic effect, no one seems to want to own up to promoting the movement. You can tell often tell you're talking to a wokie because they object to the term 'woke.'

ETA: The wokie seeks to uphold and circulate the tenets of wokeism but simultaneously deflect having been nailed (called out) on his supercilious moralizing. Thus he rejects the term.

[marshwiggle]

Wokeness is the unquestioned assumption that those hierarchies exist in some universal sense. For instance, the idea of "the patriarchy" suggests that women are fundamentally devalued by society, despite things like the higher rates of death due to dangerous occupations, military service, etc. of men. The "non-woke" view is that many issues of "privilege" are, in fact, situation-dependent, so there is no universal heirarchy of value, either by design or coincidence.

Again, this is precisely what I mean. It's just a container category you can populate with any ideas or imagined ideas you want to be against. It isn't a way to think about the world, its a way to avoid thinking.

You mean the way "transphobic", "homophobic", "racist", "misogynistic" are all used as "container categories" for ideas or imagined ideas that other people want to be against? Those are also ways to avoid thinking.

(One example is the "all roads lead to racism" example given by John McWhorter. If a white person is asked whether they would date a black person:

• if the person says "no", then that's racist.
• If the person says "yes", then it means they fetishize black people, and that's racist.

QED)

[dismalist]

The wokie seeks to uphold and circulate the tenets of wokeism but simultaneously deflect having been nailed (called out) on his supercilious moralizing. Thus he rejects the term.

Yeah, claiming a lack of precise definition for a term is merely one method of getting rid of a word which is no longer useful to a cause.

Here is an article in the Guardian trying to kill the word. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/09/woke-word-meaning-definition-progressive
Few parts of the article are coherent.

The OED says "woke" means alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice. Perfectly clear, and that's how it's used. "Woke" was once a red badge of courage, but has become a clear identifier of ideas that are downright wrong to many, many people, a pejorative term.

The process is not new by any means. The word "liberal" was purposefully metamorphosed into "progressive". I prognosticate that "progressive" will soon disappear!

When words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom.

[mahagonny]

The wokie seeks to uphold and circulate the tenets of wokeism but simultaneously deflect having been nailed (called out) on his supercilious moralizing. Thus he rejects the term.

Yeah, claiming a lack of precise definition for a term is merely one method of getting rid of a word which is no longer useful to a cause.

Here is an article in the Guardian trying to kill the word. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/09/woke-word-meaning-definition-progressive
Few parts of the article are coherent.

The OED says "woke" means alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice. Perfectly clear, and that's how it's used. "Woke" was once a red badge of courage, but has become a clear identifier of ideas that are downright wrong to many, many people, a pejorative term.

The process is not new by any means. The word "liberal" was purposefully metamorphosed into "progressive". I prognosticate that "progressive" will soon disappear!

When words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom.

Aha, one of the dictionary definitions of 'liberal' is 'tolerant.' 'White silence is violence' disavows tolerance.

[marshwiggle]

The OED says "woke" means alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice. Perfectly clear, and that's how it's used. "Woke" was once a red badge of courage, but has become a clear identifier of ideas that are downright wrong to many, many people, a pejorative term.

This is what happened to "politically correct", as Caracal noted, and for the same reason. The stupid ideas that get embraced as a movement gains momentum inevitably result in the eventual demise of the popularity of the term as something with which people wish to be associated.

See "feminist" as an example.

In 2017, in Canada,

• 19% of women "very strongly" agreed with being identified as feminist.
• 43% of women "somewhat" agreed with being identified as feminist.
• 22% of women "somewhat" disagreed with being identified as feminist.
• 16% of women "very strongly" disagreed with being identified as feminist.

Unless you really believe 38% of Canadian women have "internalized misogyny", then you have to assume that many women are put off by some of the positions that are considered mandatory for "feminists".

For instance, the "feminist" position is to be pro-choice, even though the issue is much more nuanced for most people.

Almost unanimously (93 per cent) Canadians believe doctors should be required by law to inform women about potential risks of surgical abortion before performing the procedure, which, while rare, include infection and hemorrhage. More than three quarters favour a law requiring doctors to inform women about alternatives to abortion, such as adoption. Two-thirds would back a law requiring women seeking abortion to wait 24 hours between counselling and having the procedure done. Half believe there should be a law requiring women under 18 to get parental consent for an abortion. Seven in 10 say abortion should be generally illegal in the last three months of pregnancy. Only 57 per cent believe abortion should be generally legal in the second trimester.

Only a minority are unequivocally "pro-choice".

The process is not new by any means. The word "liberal" was purposefully metamorphosed into "progressive". I prognosticate that "progressive" will soon disappear!

Certainly. Probably within 5 years it will be superseded by something else.

[Caracal]

The wokeness phenomenon is interesting to me in that while it has been having a dramatic effect, no one seems to want to own up to promoting the movement. You can tell often tell you're talking to a wokie because they object to the term 'woke.'
\

I think we've reached the point of self parody.

[mahagonny]

The wokeness phenomenon is interesting to me in that while it has been having a dramatic effect, no one seems to want to own up to promoting the movement. You can tell often tell you're talking to a wokie because they object to the term 'woke.'
\

I think we've reached the point of self parody.

Don't listen to James Carville. Red wave in November.

[dismalist]

This is what happened to "politically correct"... .

But these words, such as liberal, politically correct, feminist, or woke, have not lost their meaning. They have not become vague. They are still highly specific, but have become pejorative. That's why there is movement afoot to get rid of the words and substitute new ones.

The faster our communications specialists move the vocab, the more work they'll have to do!

[smallcleanrat]

The term hasn't lost all meaning, but if the definition is indeed highly specific then a lot of people seem unaware of what that highly specific definition is. Not everyone produces the same definition when asked, and not everyone applies the term to the same viewpoints or actions.

A given individual may have a specific meaning in mind, but the next person I talk to may operating with a different specific meaning. In that sense, it is vague.

There are people who use the term to dismiss any discussion related to things like race or gender. It's no different than people who use "That's racist" or "That's sexist" as their entire rebuttal as a way to wriggle away from engaging in an actual discussion.

With some people, just thinking certain issues related to discrimination are worth discussing puts you in the "woke" cult. So, you must also be in favor of ruining the lives of anyone who doesn't conform to your way of thinking. The fact that you deny it just proves I'm right.

Some of the anecdotes presented as evidence of the insidiousness of wokeism boil down to: I said something. Some people didn't like what I said. And then they told me they didn't like what I said. What ever happened to freedom of speech?

I've read and encountered this enough with lots of different terms to feel the need to ask "what do you mean by...?" at the start of a new discussion, because even if a precise definition exists that doesn't mean a term never gets misused or that nobody will ever try to stretch the definition past the point of sense.

[dismalist]

Some of the anecdotes presented as evidence of the insidiousness of wokeism ... .

"Wokeism" is not insidious. Words are not insidious. Just lot's 'a people think wokeism is misguided.

A maneuver to make the definition of a word seem unintelligible is merely a method of destroying discussion of a concept.

No worries -- new words to describe "alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice" will pop up! And the same will happen to them if lots of people don't like the concept.

Like, soon. :-)

[downer]

One of the interesting things about the 'woke' label is that some people apply it to themselves. It has a slightly religious connotation, which detractors emphasize. But it's also an aspect that it's defenders draw on. It's a bit like being 'saved.' Some people have woken from their ignorant slumbers and are active. And it also is a label which implies there is no middle ground. You are either with them or against them.

Of course, it's not a very useful label, and if you are going to get into detailed discussion, you need to specify the particular phenonmenon you are focusing on. The author of the piece I refered to at the top of the thread was talking about mostly statements about race and racial inequality made by the APA. He argued that they are not empirically supported and are also divisive in ways that work against class solidarity.

I'm particularly interested in identity theory and identity politics. They certainly have a big place in our world, and are important. We can't just ignore them. But it often feels like a focus on identity issues drains energy and attention. In higher ed, the pronouncements of administrators and the initiatives they make rarely seem like more than posturing. Indeed, some of the policies seem counterproductive, if anything. Indeed, right now I can't think of one action by any university I know of that has made an impressive improvement in the educational experience of Black students.