That slippery word "woke"

Post Reply New Topic

So I think debates over language are only ever done properly if we acknowledge that, by their very nature, words tend not to be used precisely except in instances where someone is taking great care to use it according to a pre-agreed definition. People aren't machines, and most conversation is not especially deliberate. That's fine, and just how language works.

I think it's important to acknowledge that the word means different things to different people. To some people, it's a way of describing what used to be called "political correctness" or "good manners". To others, it's a bit more specific, and refers to people who take the concept too far, especially in a moralising, nonsensical, or uncompromising manner. I think this became a more popular use of the term after Barack Obama mocked people who thought Joe Biden being insufficiently woke was a problem. And to others, it's just "anything I don't like".

As evidence, the Mail Online has a section on "woke culture". Some articles it covers:
- reductions in speed limits
- a school principal works as a drag queen at the weekend, and a local official wants him to be fired
- Disney is filming a remake of Snow White
- veganism
- homeless encampments in Texas
- Mark Milley saying that he didn't take an oath to a dictator

Now maybe veganism is a form of totalitarian identitarianism, I don't know, maybe the person who wants the principal to be fired is "woke", but it certainly seems like there is a lot of casual use of the word "woke" which doesn't align to Dox's definition. Are we really trying to claim that Bob Iger or General Milley are obsessively focused on reducing people to immutable characteristics? I don't think that's credible. There's clearly some sloppy use, as with all words, and it's silly to pretend this is the one word people use correctly all the time.

I understand the frustration about not being able to name something because as soon as you do then people start using the word to refer to other things. But... well, it's right-wing politicians and the right-wing media who have been using the term loosely and caused it to be greeted with an eye-roll.

Ok Walrus, what do we call this ideology then? Woke is short, snappy, originally self applied, and generally understood by people who aren't actively pretending not to. It's been well over a decade and nothing else has stuck, what is the actual problem with woke as the term?

This happens more to some kinds of words than to others.

Some words are intrinsically subjective, having meanings that depend almost entirely on their connotations and their emotional valence to the person using them, rather than on any literal objective meaning. Other words have more objective, more literal meanings, or at least objective/literal enough that people can at least agree on what they are talking about, even if they have different feelings about it.

For example, let's consider the difference between "woke" and "Marxist."

"Marxism" has a canonical definition, based on the writings of Karl Marx. A Marxist is someone who agrees with most of Marx's ideas. One can quibble over precisely which and how many of Marx's ideas a person has to agree with in order to qualify as a Marxist, but, at least, people who are sufficiently knowledgeable about Marx's writings can agree on what they are talking about when they talk about "Marxism," even if they have very different feelings about it.

On the other hand, "woke" is a word whose very meaning depends almost entirely on connotations and feelings, not on any objective literal canonical meaning. It is a word that was originally a compliment to one's comrades, meaning, essentially, aware/enlightened. It was then seized by other people as a sarcastic insult, meaning, essentially, "those out-of-touch self-righteous jerks who think they are so aware/enlightened."

It seems to me that if a person is trying to communicate across political and cultural divides, it is not helpful to use terms whose very meaning depends almost entirely on connotations that differ depending on who is using the term. It is especially not a good idea to ask someone to accept, as an alleged objective label for a school of thought, a word which, when used by you, derives its meaning from being a sarcastic insult.

When trying to communicate across political and cultural divides, I think it is best to stick with words whose meaning is as literal and precise as possible, and which have canonical definitions.

All the more so would this be best in a forum for autistic people.

Occasionally, words with entirely subjective, connotative meanings eventually become words with objective meanings that everyone agrees on. A good example is "the Enlightenment," a word whose literal meaning -- similar to the literal meaning of "woke" -- specifies nothing at all about the actual content of "Enlightenment" philosophies. Yet scholars have nevertheless decided on a consensus as to precisely whom and which ideas "the Enlightenment" refers to.

However, "the Enlightenment" is safely in the past, not something lots of people today are up in arms about, other than a few political extremists.

With topics that are currently hot, a discussion between people with different points of view is most likely to be productive if it sticks with using words with precise, literal meanings, not words whose meaning is primarily connotative and dependent on a person's point of view.

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 21 Oct 2023, 4:09 am, edited 6 times in total.

Please list the specific tenets or characteristics of the specific ideology or tendency you are referring to, and then we can brainstorm an appropriate name.


See my post above.

I'll add that I also suspect that many white progressives probably feel guilty about having appropriated the term from Black activists in the first place, given how said appropriation made it easier for right wingers to hijack it.

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 21 Oct 2023, 4:03 am, edited 3 times in total.

Those who cannot refute the message often are too busy attacking the messenger to form an coherent "argument" of their own.Three Different Forms of Communism:

• "True" Communists as proposed by Marx and Engels cannot exist due to human nature (e.g., envy, gluttony, greed, lust, pride, sloth, and wrath).  What Marxism needs is for the entire population to meekly accept and conform the Collective, and work only for the Common Good.  That just ain't gonna happen.

• "Real" Communists are actually State Socialists currently living in Feudal Empires (e.g., China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, Vietnam, and the former Soviet Union).  Once the Reformists/Revolutionaries take over, they refuse to turn over the reins of power to the Collective.  Instead, THEY become the Bourgeoisie minority controlling every aspect of Proletarian life.

• "Faux" Communists (a.k.a., "Hypocrites", "Poseurs", and "Tankies") are those who preach Communism while enjoying all the benefits of living in Capitalist societies.  It is too easy for these people to criticize Capitalism while they themselves accumulate wealth and exploit the Working Class.

I disagree.
for your first point, this is not historically true. Ancient/primitive societies functioned quite well in a communistic structure- that of sharing and doing as much as you can to help your fellow person. Even besides that, altruism often dominates in common society (think how in the Dominican Republic it is customary to invite your neighbors for coffee, just to connect. If your point were true, this cafecito culture would not have developed, as everyone would keep the coffee for themselves), and I (and others) think it would in corporate society too if it weren't for the profit over people dogma of capitalism.
For your second point, I think it's a stretch to call those states feudal, but I can at least see where you got that conclusion. Your second sentence is correct in a broad sense, however it's not due specifically to a flaw in human nature- Stalin for example (and I am not excusing his more unsavory acts) had every right to be as paranoid and cold as he was- the very world was against his nation. I think most in such a position would take actions to protect it, even if they go too far. Consider also how the USSR developed from a largely rural state into a superpower almost if not surpassing the United States of America, in 30 years as opposed to 200.
For your third point, while you have something reasonable there, it's easy to misinterpret, and it reminds me of that meme of a serf plodding along saying "we should improve society somewhat" and a man springs out of a well replying "yet you participate in society. curious! I am very intelligent."

I'm not saying "you shouldn't say woke", I am saying that there is inevitably going to be conversational difficulty when people can't agree whether they're referring to a quality (which is how I usually see it used) or an ideology (which is how, if I'm understanding you correctly, you usually see it used), and if it is for talking about when there are black people on the TV, or about censoriousness, or about speed limits.

This is, of course, true of literally any word, and particularly any ideology. I'm not sure if it was in this thread but someone recently complained on here about calling Fidesz "far right" because they're not literally Hitler, they're just ethnonationalists who think queerness is a Jewish conspiracy and have perverted the organs of state in their favour. There are fascists who call themselves libertarians, which helps sow distrust between real libertarians and other anti-fascists. There are people who genuinely think it's fair to call Joe Biden a Marxist

It's impossible to get people to agree on definitions of words. Your understanding of wokeness (or mine, or anyone else's) will always be different to other people's because we have different experiences. Like, if you've never seen someone insist that Star Wars is "woke crap" without elaborating, then you're probably less sympathetic to the idea that the term is often used derogatorily to refer to things that don't fit your definition.

It's a bit like people calling Joe Biden a Marxist. I can say "Joe Biden is not a Marxist", and you can say "well then what should I call people who want to seize the means of production and place them in common ownership?", and we don't get anywhere.

I'd suggest that progressivism is less prone to misunderstanding, although not foolproof. Epithets get used too broadly. Fascist and communist at least have decades of history and scholarship that mean there's something to refer to when defining them, but "woke" doesn't have that. Everyone inclined to use "woke" derogatorily can agree that banning white people from historically-black colleges is an example of "wokeness" (derogatory), as is calling for the violent decolonisation of the New World, but probably not whether that should be lumped in with TV shows with black characters, or support for immigration, or speed limits, or same-sex marriage, or providing period products in the workplace.

I disagree slightly. There are politicians whose career began in the Communist Party but nowadays just give the principles of Marxism lip service as a way to curry the favor of the economically disadvantaged, but the societies they lead are pretty much like anywhere else. Those societies may be one-party states, but Communism has no monopoly on that, and within the local Communist Party different factions can have divergent views. I would assign Vietnam to that category (Ho Chi Minh, a Communist, established modern Vietnam which is why the ruling party calls itself Communist). China had been moving in that direction but in times of adversity seems to be leaning harder on the ideology.

Except, genius, that I did define it, and even pointed it out to the very poster you're responding too. Can't let facts get in the way of an attempted dunk though, huh?

I'm not doing homework for you Mona, especially when we've been over this many times before. Waste someone else's time please.

Maybe you have Fnord's definition of woke then you have wokeism when somebody gets trolled for innocently misgengendering a celebrity they don't know is non-binary.

The thing is, nobody actually uses Fnord's definition conversationally anymore, it's literally only trotted out during these asinine arguments where people try and claim the current usage is murkier than it is. Like I pointed out earlier, gay and queer also have older meanings than their current ones, but no one is making the argument that there's any ambiguity about using them, or fighting about what they mean (maybe a bit with queer cause it's pretty broad and vague). This is all about resistance to a label because most people don't actually like or support the ideology in question, and having an agreed upon name for it makes it much easier to oppose and fight.

Just for fun, here are some of the alternative terms I've heard proposed:

Neoracism
Identitarianism
The successor ideology
Social justice ideology
SJWism
Postmodern illiberalism

Don't exactly roll off the tongue, do they? Also, as it was originally self applied, woke can't be dismissed as a mere pejorative, a major advantage.

Not sure I'd be quick to call North Korea or even China "pretty much like anywhere else".

Vietnam, yeah, it's not hugely more "Marxist" than Thailand or Myanmar. It knows trading is the route to prosperity.

I don't think I said anything about North Korea.

just so Dox47 doesn't complain about name-calling, here is the definition of Fascism per Wikipedia:

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

There, I cleaned it for you.