How can a word that scarcely anyone understands cause so much trouble?

by Martin Odoni

One of the lamest forms of argument in the modern English language, one that even Governments on both sides of the Atlantic seem to be obsessing over, is the tendency on the right wing in particular (but by no means exclusively) to dismiss someone else’s point on the grounds of it being Woke. Its slow creep to the fore of political and social debate has become so pervasive that I doubt many people even pause to question it. Which is sad really, because they should.

The issues created by “anti-woke” ignorance

There are numerous issues with the term’s constant misuse; –

1. It is always being used as a pejorative when it is not,
2. It is always being used by people who do not appear to know its meaning,
3. Those who proudly deny being woke do not realise that they are insulting themselves,
4. It is assumed by those who use ‘woke’ as an insult that the people they are insulting use it about themselves, when most do not,
5. It is just a lazy attempt at a shoutdown,
6. The whole thing is just a rather tedious retread of the old debate about ‘political correctness.’

To take points 1 and 2 first, the term Woke really just means “aware”, especially “socially aware” or “politically aware”. That is all. How that is supposed to be a pejorative is difficult to fathom, unless it is in some infantile, despise-the-intellect context of telling someone off for being literate. It probably is not this, in most cases. Instead, the anti-Woke brigade seem to imagine that it means a blend of “trendy liberalism” and “cowardly conformity.” Given the Woke label is often attached jeeringly to movements such as transgender rights, which are rejected for being seemingly ‘bizarre’, ‘outlandish’, or even ‘sinister,’ it is in fact conformity that is being demanded in the name of rejecting it.

(On that subject, what a malicious, ghastly human being J.K. Rowling has shown herself to be. She assumes transgender women are just men looking for an excuse to go into the women’s toilets for a cheap thrill – do she and others who subscribe to this simplifying, misandrist, “Porky’s–was-a-documentary” idea not think it a ludicrously over-elaborate way of achieving such a puerile aim? – and then makes out that she is ‘defending women’. She is not. She is trying to impose her preferences onto the bodies of other people, most of whom she has never even met, and many of whom are highly vulnerable.)

The bizarre pride at knowing nothing

Whether one thinks of the word as a pejorative, it follows that a denial of being “woke” is usually said with smugness, a self-congratulation for not ‘feebly’ following the current political trend. But to repeat, Woke just means “aware” and does not mean ‘trendy’ or ‘cool’. Those who deny being woke are therefore proudly declaring that they do not know anything about the subject being discussed. The “anti-woke” are demanding all about must listen to them, but clearly they should listen in the full knowledge that nothing about to be said will be worth listening to. Hence point 3.

The fourth point is that the term is currently pretty much only ever used by people who are “against woke culture”. The people who care about gender rights, women’s rights, racial equality, respect for the disabled or afflicted etc, do not refer to themselves as ‘woke’, even though that is what the ‘anti-woke’ loudmouths are really pushing back against when they use the word. The fact that the loudmouths are always complaining about liberties shows how aware people speak out against offensive or just plain inaccurate statements made about transgender people, women, minority racial groups, the disabled, the terminally ill etc. And the loudmouths feel that their freedom to speak is thus being taken from them when they are merely being argued with. So although they are essentially bullying, or at least being very unfair, with the ignorant or stereotype comments they make, the ‘anti-woke’ loudmouths still come away thinking that they are the ones fighting for freedom.

“Stop telling me to show the same respect to others that I expect others to show to me,” seems to be their gist.

Arguments over an obsolete term

The reason aware people do not use the term Woke is very simple; its time has past. It was used as part of the racial equalities movement in the USA way back in the 1920s but was little-known beyond that time and cause. It saw a quite popular revival in the first year of the Black Lives Matter movement, but soon fell out of favour again. But by then, the right wing appear to have picked up on it, assumed it meant something about fashionable opinions arrived at by following the crowd, and not by taking thought (when it means pretty much the polar opposite), and has been moaning about it non-stop ever since. It has even got to the point when the most spoddy of Tory politicians, the likes of Michael Gove and Suella Braverman, use Woke routinely and disparagingly, and without ever showing the slightest sign of knowing what it means.

In a sense, you get the feeling that the loudmouths do not care, it just makes them think they sound like they are in touch with modern parlance, even though the term is nearly ten years past its final use-by date. In truth, it makes them sound about as ‘in-touch’ as they would if they started referring to their favourite music as “groovy” or “hip.” Only even more out-of-date.

Same problem when the loudmouths moan about “Woke television”. They complain, when modern comedy shows refuse to tell the types of cruel, stereotyping jokes that dominated the 1970s-to-the-1990s, that they lack “courage”, when in truth, modern TV producers have finally realised that there is a difference between humour and cruelty. Equally, key issues facing society just have to get mentioned in, say, an episode of Doctor Who or EastEnders and the loudmouths will moan that it has ruined their viewing experience. A character is mentioned to be in a same-sex marriage, and the loudmouth ranting begins. A story acknowledges Britain’s malevolent history of Empire, racism and slavery, and the loudmouths find it intolerable. What they really mean is that these are issues that society, and by extension TV, did not acknowledge when they were younger, and discussion of them makes the loudmouths uneasy, especially if they remind them of their privilege.

An attempt to kill discussion

Perhaps the worst aspect of the misuse of the word is that it has become one of those lazy shortcuts in ideological arguments, a sort of ad hominem way of refusing to concede that one has lost the argument, but still expects it to end here. In the same way that Zionists routinely call me a “Kapo” whenever they have decided that they cannot win whatever their argument is against me, and imagine that calling me an ugly name will shut me up, it is in fact an identical instinct that leads the ill-informed to say, “You’re just being woke!” to people arguing the corner of the vulnerable.

The lazy label, perceived to be an accusation of unthinking triteness, is applied to your words, as though that label alone is enough to invalidate everything you say. And so (the loudmouth assumes), the argument will not continue beyond that point. (So it is in fact the ‘anti-woke’ crowd who are really trying to kill free speech.)

They are usually disappointed, in that regard. But, “You’re just being woke!” and “You’re just a kapo!” are merely twin terminologies in misleadingly different clothes, both bearing the same role in conversation.

As for point 6, the term political correctness amounted to the same thing, but people suddenly stopped moaning about it around the time that woke was making its BLM debut. Now as I have made clear in the past, there is a dimension to political correctness that I have an issue with i.e. it tends to erode language by making not just insulting words, but even substitute words that are related to the insulting words, unacceptable, which does make ordinary speech maddeningly difficult sometimes. It also leads to people being accused of having racist or sexist attitudes when they do not, they just struggle to find the correct words to express their real point.

“Not PC” and “not woke” mean the same thing – and both of them are PC terms

But that was not the problem most people who complained about political correctness had. They really just meant, “I like being racist/sexist, so please stop responding to me with very good reasons why I shouldn’t be.” That is nowhere near as good a reason for having issues with it.

But moreover, the paradox was that “I’m not politically correct” became a politer-sounding substitute for saying, “I’m a racist,” or “I’m a sexist.” Which meant that the denial of political correctness was, itself, an example of political correctness i.e. it was not publicly acceptable to declare oneself a racist, but it was publicly acceptable to use a euphemism – which is essentially political correctness in action. So anyone saying they are “not PC,” in doing so, has proven they are!

The bottom line in both being ‘non-PC’ and being ‘anti-woke’ is that same expectation of being allowed to treat others with disrespect for unfair reasons, while at the same time demanding unearned respect the other way. The “threat of Wokeness” is a massive non-issue that has only been validated in modern politics by not being clearly-defined by the people using it, which means it wastes a lot of valuable time. But worse, it presents real issues, like fighting poverty, putting an end to racism, ending inequality between classes and between sexes, and achieving universal respect for one’s absolute rights over one’s own bodily autonomy, as part of “the Woke agenda” – when in truth these are largely matters that have been fought over for generations, and the progress we have made on so many of them is now reversing – worse, being made to look like it should be reversed.

“Anti-wokeness” is therefore “anti-progressiveness.” It is an objection to human rights, and nobody who thinks of themselves as supporters of human liberty should ever subscribe to it.