What exactly is woke? (And more to the point, why are some people anti-woke enough to label others as woke? A pox on both their houses I say.)
Woke is being too focussed on selected diverse minority needs to the detriment of wider public needs.
Anti-Woke is being too focussed on wider majority public needs to the detriment of diverse minority needs.
Being narrowly opposed both create a binary battle, more heat than light.
=====
Frankly, woke used non-pejoratively, just means politically correct in 20th C language. It picked-up the label woke by analogy of younger people being awakened to some suppressed social, freedoms and rights issue behind otherwise everyday life activities, that they hadn’t previously noticed. And from being awoken to the issue, those people often become sensitive to actively noticing and raising the issue at relevant opportunities thereafter.
One quarter of our way through the 21st C most of those issues fall under the DEI and Identity Politics umbrellas, where as well as Race, ethnicity and colour, Gender, sex and sexuality, diversity extends to any kind of socio-cultural or neuro-diversity. As well as actively noticing the issues the woke naturally become active campaigners on behalf of diverse groups, identifying with them.
So far so good, diverse people have diverse needs and individual rights like everyone else, and majorities need reminding of both their explicit and implicit ignorance of diversity issues in both language and action. So far, no different to good old political correctness, it’s about taking care and being seen to take care, when dealing with larger public groups which invariably contain diverse minorities.
The problem arises with the labelling and with campaigning where the latter inevitably demands snappy acronyms and symbolic labelling and the maximising of common interests by joining forces with other potentially suppressed diversity groups.
As originally with political correctness, there is the risk that by focussing on the diversity elements and their needs and rights, the primary purpose of the original activity gets downgraded, overlooked and lost / hidden behind the PC/Woke language. We risk losing sight of the original purpose and the needs of the wider enterprise or public. Potential tyranny of a minority, multiple minorities. Those with interests in and responsibilities for satisfying the majority needs, and recognising the needs of the diverse minorities, quite rightly question the details and validity of the diversity needs where they conflict, add cost and risk or otherwise disadvantage the majority need. Balancing multiple different needs is necessarily a point of contention and compromise, so care – mutual care – is needed in agreeing detail.
When campaigning meets careful management, especially in our electronic-social-mediated times, the nuances of agreeing detail get drowned out by the sloganising of the issues – the othering of those not in full agreement.. One cultural right on one side meets one objective fact on the other, and then any finer but relevant details can’t get a hearing. For this reason, those pointing out the downsides of of any given diversity interpretation end-up labelling their opponents as woke and take up the binary opposite anti-woke position.
Both are stoking a binary war instead of carefully resolving detail to mutual satisfaction. And let’s not forget there are actually many different issues under that “diversity” heading.
Woke is being too focussed on selected diverse minority needs to the detriment of wider public needs.
Anti-Woke is being too focussed on wider majority public needs to the detriment of diverse minority needs.
Being narrowly opposed both create a binary battle, more heat than light.
=====
Post Note: Andrew Neil in The Mail
=====
Post Note: This from Jim Stewartson, back in 2022 before Musk bought Twitter. (Although it’s not where he starts, that 3rd position is the Woke / anti-Woke dichotomy.)
=====
I could not agree more. I don’t know if you still visit the DS group, but there is a lengthy and civil 2-person conversation on this issue. As I’ve said before, I prefer the term ‘non-woke’ for my position, rather than taking on the confrontational baggage of ‘anti-woke’. For my part, I was, and still am, a proponent of what was once ‘political correctness’ in language. It was, as I saw it, an attempt to avoid terms which were either intended as, of had come to be widely seen as denigratory to minority groups and women. It was a form of civility, but also of responsibility as we moved towards a more ethnically diverse and less patriarchal society. On this point, if not on others, I could be in agreement with the woke.
Hi Mark, firstly your agreement means a lot to me, appreciated.
This was a very (VERY) quick and rough post, responding to Penny Red’s request on X/Twitter.
I’m hoping for good-faith dialogue on her side, but no sign so far.
(I will refine the post even if she doesn’t respond.)
You and Terry are my exemplars. You as someone who generally gets it and understands the whole picture (understands that every picture has wider and narrower views, and has intelligent dialogue about whichever issue) and Terry who is the archetypal anti-woke, simply retweeting every opinion against the woke position, with zero comment or any shared consideration in dialogue. Not even curious that I brand him #PartOfTheProblem – given that I consider him a friend of 2 decades? He just reads me his rights.
Yes, same as a I identify as non-theistic in the God vs Science wars, like you, I would say I’m not woke (but not anti-woke) in this context. As you say we are in agreement with the woke in the appropriateness of “PC” to ensure narrow issues don’t get ignored by the broad majority, whilst obviously wishing to ensure the many narrow issues don’t obscure the main event. (The tyranny of the minorities). It’s both, as and when appropriate, not either / or.
Appropriate is my new favourite word in the is / ought dialogue 🙂
Yes, civility, responsibility … not just rights vs facts.
(“Rights and freedoms come with responsibilities” is a recurring phrasing of mine.)
I’ve not visited DS (or even TSS) recently, certainly not deeply enough to get involved. I still despair at much of it, and it’s easier to ignore, now I’m refocussed on my own writing.
Thanks for the dialogue. much appreciated. (Would love Terry to engage …)
Thank you. I saw that post by Penny. I thought it was probably pure engagement farming, and by the first few replies it seemed that she had little intent to actually address the replies. But, again, it’s possible that she wants to take time to consider her position before doing so. I don’t know whether that assumption is simply naive or just courteous. But there is something to be said for refusing to be corralled into making snappily satisfying sugar-rush system 1 comebacks rather than thoughtful system 2 replies.