Hitting Rewind on ‘Woke’

This isn’t the first time a slogan became a tool for sowing cultural confusion.

By
285
A sign at a "Be Woke Vote" exhibit in Atlanta, Georgia, in 2020. (Photo by Paras Griffin/Getty Images)

Dear Reader (except for those of you tired of office life),

Roses are red, violets are blue, I’m schizophrenic and so am I. 

It’s an old joke and not really politically correct anymore. Schizophrenia is a serious mental condition and it doesn’t actually mean “double-minded.”

I’m fine with mothballing the word to mean double-minded. The problem, as with so many words that are interred or reinvented, is that we don’t have a good replacement to mean what the old word meant. The whole “language evolves” tribe of linguists insists we can now use “literally” figuratively—to mean “I really mean it.” I object, but I’m not in charge. Still, I’d like a good replacement for the literal meaning of literally. 

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
285
By
Comments (285)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Cjschoonejongen

    Bingo! I just had a small Twitter argument with a right-wing attorney and bomb-thrower about the use of labels as pejoratives. For that, I was a called a "washed-up pseudo-journalist." OK. More labels. I replied that he was not a serious person. And there's the issue. Folks are not thinking seriously when they resort to simplistic labels in attempts to tarnish others. I don't think "liberal" or "conservative" is a pejorative, for example. They are sets of political beliefs that you can believe in or not, but believing in them doesn't make people bad or unserious. Labeling, in the unserious way you describe, is a form of Bulverism. And that very well might be the bane of our republic.

    Collapse
  2. DHWATERS.DW

    The use of labels saves the intellectually deficient the pain of the headache they get when forced to think.

    Collapse
    1. MathewA

      As the article noted though they are also necessary for us to have a conversation and know what the other person is talking about

      Collapse
  3. BenP

    Love the part about "no labels" and "the time to debate is over". The more common form of this can be found in nearly every political ad for someone running for a seat in the US house or senate:

    "I'm going to cut through the Washington noise and deliver commonsense solutions for working Americans"

    "It's time for a leader who won't play politics with ________"

    Where "commonsense solutions" means "the things I'm saying we should do", "Washington noise" means "arguments against the things I'm saying we should do", "playing politics" means "any and all tangible opposition to the things I'm saying we should do", and "working Americans" mean "you, the person watching the TV right now".

    Not on board with everything I say we should do? Sounds like you're a politics-player who lives in Washington and doesn't like common sense, unlike the fine person currently viewing this campaign ad.

    Collapse
  4. Trichwages

    Happy reading!

    https://www.niskanencenter.org/frederick-douglass-1876-report/

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Cogitatio

    While "Woke" as a term may not be totally new, I think that "Woke" as it exists today is quite different, at least in the context of the United States. To me, when I use the term "Woke," I am referring to the attempts by Progressives, using the power they have seized in cultural, civil, and technological institutions, to impose their moral views on race, human sexuality (including gender), history, ethnicity, etc., upon the rest of us. And because their views are not in the mainstream of America, they utilize the power they derive from economic, social, institutional, and professional institutions to force compliance.

    This includes "cancel culture," among other things, but is distinctly different from critical race theory -- which is more a tool of the Woke that they can bludgeon the majority into compliance with.

    "Wokeness" is not exactly a philosophy. Instead, it is a view of the world, ever shifting, that is tied to a strategy and a method. It's purpose is forced compliance, whether willing or unwilling. When combined with Progressives' seizure of the cultural and institutional heights, it is a terrifying and Orwellian beast that should deeply concern, if not terrify all of us.

    If you do not believe me, consider what would happen to you if you went against the Woke orthodoxy in a public way at work. For most of us, that would likely mean "retraining" or "sensitivity training" of some sort. It might lead to our firing, perhaps even to outright blackballing in our career field. And if you happen to be famous enough, you can be harassed in public places, threatened, and stalked. Meanwhile, our youth are indoctrinated into the cult of Woke, and we pay those institutions for the privilege.

    Collapse
  6. DTruitt

    My favorite shorthand epithet for the same crowd as today's wokesters and yesterdays politically correct was coined by Jean Kirkpatrick back in '80 or '81 or thereabouts:

    "San Francisco Democrat".

    Really, that said it all, it was all that was necessary to say about them.

    Collapse
    1. Krbrady1919

      True enough, but what's interesting is that S.F. progressives are going even further than the average S.F. Dem wants. The recent School Board ousters, the voting-out of the hard-left D.A., some city- and state-wide progressive initiatives that have failed are showing that Cali and S.F. D's aren't quite as left as some think they are.

      Collapse
  7. Kenneth.Parsigian

    "Nobody ever says, 'The time for debate is over! Therefore, since I can’t convince you that my way is correct, I’m going to do what you propose instead.'” Actually, a whole group of people say that all the time. They are called happy husbands.

    Collapse
    1. Krbrady1919

      I just snorted out my coffee, thanks for that (and very true)

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Dr. Livesey

    "The whole “language evolves” tribe of linguists insists we can now use “literally” figuratively—to mean “I really mean it.” I object, but I’m not in charge. Still, I’d like a good replacement for the literal meaning of literally."

    Please tell me what I'm missing here: Actually, can't we, indeed, use other words to get the same genuine meaning anytime that the opposing meanings of literally might introduce confusion, in point of fact? Admittedly, "verily, I say unto you" might not fit well in a sentence where you want the reader or listener to concentrate on something other than King James Version phraseology, but, really, in truth, doesn't English give us a wide variety of ways of doing this?

    (The Collins website, by the way, is the easiest one I've found to read or even just look at, but especially to quickly go from words like "literally" and "literal," to compare American and British definitions (not much different with "literally") or to get to a thesaurus page from the definition page of a word. The "literally" page, for instance, has the Webster's New World definition, then another definition (that I can't label, because it seems to be an amalgam of sources) and then the Collins definition ("in British English"). The "Usage" paragraph in the amalgamated section is interesting. This is literally the page I looked at: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/literally )

    When I come across the word literally, I sometimes replace it with "actually" in my head and see if it works either in the ironic way or the unironic way that the ironic way plays off of. I can't remember when the "actually" replacement didn't work.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Jean-Christophe Jouffrey

      Dear Dr. Livesey,

      I often, probably several times a month, complain about the poverty of a language which does not make the difference between "literal" and "figurative" language.

      When one speak of a political fight, if is most of the time figuratively, because when it is literally, it means what happened on January 6th.

      I do not need to explain how damaging it is for people who no longer make the difference between literal and figurative, to think that the main quality of their leader is "but he fights!".

      This week-end I heard many journalists complaining that DJT calls his supporters to "protest", as if we were calling for a literal fight, but it is perfectly legitimate to call for a literal protest.

      However, what is unacceptable is to follow-up by an injunction to "take our nation back!", because literally, it is a call for insurrection, and figuratively, it is meaningless as an American citizen being called to answer for potentially illegal actions, does not mean that the country has been taken over, literally or figuratively, by somebody else.

      The readers of JG know how much he opposes (how violently he fights... in a figurative manner😉) against the use of the analogy of war, for the very reason that people tend to understand it literally and pretend that in a time of war, they are allowed to act against principles which are only valid in peace time. Yet, the title of his second book, which is not underrated 😉, is "The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas".

      We see there not only the figurative use of "war", but also of "tyranny", which helped instil in his readers which took both literally, that they were victims of a literal war, and enslaved by people using frauds and lies against them... how easily are they ready to believe in electoral fraud from there, given that such fraud has been famously a staple of US electoral history throughout the 19th and a significant chunk of the 20th century (already a complaint of the Whigs against Democrats in the 1840s, etc.)?

      The confusion between "literal" and "figurative" is one of the main "weapons" (figurative), or rather "means" (literal) to push some gullible people to literal violence, by referring to figurative violence allegedly perpetrated against them.

      Collapse
  9. Mary Stine

    First off, most cultures deeply resent another culture misappropriating their terms and customs. I've always been leery of using pop labels like "woke" for that reason. It's undeniable to me that African Americans have legitimate and long held opinions about the rest of America being clueless or cruel in too many instances. They can write/talk/sing about that til the cows come home, they've earned that. Not fair or accurate you say?
    There's a large body of unfair and inaccurate stuff going back 400 years by non African Americans.
    I'm okay with anyone passionately talking about the achievements, injustices and idiosyncrasies of their own culture and ancestors. My Irish/Welsh ancestors had their own issues with the Brits and yes, there was surely some exaggeration going on occasionally, but the bulk of the complaints by the Irish and Welsh are pretty well documented.
    If I can grant that right of awareness and storytelling to my own group, it seems only fair that I'd grant it to others. Sure, there will be inaccuracies and exaggerations. Let's just agree to deal with those in the best way..
    which would be encouraging fresh air writers like Jonah Goldberg to keep doing his thing.

    Collapse
    1. DTruitt

      Woke is not a black thing ... it's a lefty thing, and by the way, thanks for acknowledging (NOT!) that not all black Americans are lefties.

      Collapse
      1. Hikingguy

        My Black family members see it differently. I choose to go with them, as they actually know what they are talking about.

        Collapse
      2. Mary Stine

        Thanks for pointing this out. I do NOT see all black Americans as "lefties". Most of the ones I've known lean more conservative, especially in their faith.
        My point is simply that none of us has the right to hijack another culture's stories or history and distort that, for any reason, but especially political.
        It doesn't matter to me whether that hijacking comes from the left or the right, it's still wrong.
        And most of the African Americans and Native Americans I've known would prefer that their achievements and contributions to society be talked about far more than their past oppression.

        Collapse
    2. Goatprairie

      "There's a large body of unfair and inaccurate stuff going back 400 years by non African Americans."

      There's also a large body of unfair and inaccurate stuff claiming to go back 400 years about white people. What we try to deal with is what is going on now. Are blacks still victims of Evil Whitey who is everywhere trying to oppress blacks, or are blacks mostly responsible for whatever situation they're currently in?
      Speaking of Welsh, Irish ,(and probably Scottish) would past injustices against them by the English support violence via individuals or the IRA against the English now? I don't think so.
      All those non-English groups I mentioned have legitimate grievances against the English. But they are not being oppressed now.
      If we okayed violence of one group against another because of past injustices, there would be very few groups in the world that wouldn't be guilty and deserve to be punished.

      Collapse
      1. Mary Stine

        NOT okaying violence here, ever. Allowing grievances and history to be aired doesn't mean I want violence as a remedy.
        Thanks for helping me clarify this.
        When my family and I were in Ireland in 2010 we exposed to plenty of unvarnished Irish history. but most of it was told without rancor, or anger, just facts.
        Several Irish told us that they had "moved on" and that was partly due to Ireland becoming a major vacation spot for European and British visitors. After becoming part of the EU, a lot of vacationers from the Netherlands showed up and found common cause in Ireland, another sea-centered place. Our Irish friends told us they
        really appreciated the Netherlands visitors and enjoyed their company. The Netherlands had gone through a similar struggle between Catholic and Protestant (more than once) and were able to understand the Irish pain from The Troubles like no other group. It seemed they had also encouraged the better angels of the Irish nature, and encouraged them to focus on their strengths for the benefit of all, including those in the tourist industry.
        So the Ireland we experienced was joyful and friendly, filled with local live Celtic music, fresh food and gobsmacking beauty. We toured three cathedrals in Dublin and found that they shared choirs for several occasions. This was a big deal owing to one being Roman Catholic, one Anglican and one Presbyterian.
        We learned that immigrants to Ireland have a path to citizenship, but it is required that their children learn proper Gaelic and pass tests on it.
        We'd pass a trio of young women on the street arguing in Gaelic, with one or more obviously of African heritage.
        The IRA may still exist but it no longer controls the dialogue. Many Irish (who are quite literate) have found better ways than hate and violence to understand /deal with their pain from the past. And I believe this was in part due to having friend from other cultures willing to listen, but even more willing to help them move on.

        Collapse
  10. Takinwande

    Long time reader, first time poster. I consider myself a moderate and generally agree with the article but I do have a gripe about how the term “Woke” is being presented as something new.

    To understand how we got to where we are today, it would have been nice to include a history of the term Woke particularly the term “Stay Woke” and how it originated in African American Vernacular English (AAVE). Then it would have been great to point out how the term has been misappropriated to come to mean everything liberal/progressive.

    A quick Wikipedia search will show that the phrase stay woke had emerged in AAVE by the 1930s “in some contexts referring to an awareness of the social and political issues affecting African Americans.”
    “Black American folk singer-songwriter Huddie Ledbetter, a.k.a. Lead Belly, used the phrase "stay woke" as part of a spoken afterward to a 1938 recording of his song "Scottsboro Boys", which tells the story of nine black teenagers and young men falsely accused of raping two white women in Alabama in 1931. In the recording, Lead Belly says he met with the defendant's lawyer and the young men themselves, and "I advise everybody, be a little careful when they go along through there (Scottsboro) – best stay woke, keep their eyes open."”
    “Scholars Michael B. McCormack and Althea Legal-Miller argue that the phrase stay woke echoes Martin Luther King Jr.'s exhortation "to stay awake, to adjust to new ideas, to remain vigilant and to face the challenge of change"”

    As is often done with words though, it has come to mean a collection of different things, some of which I don’t necessarily subscribe to. Furthermore it’s now being used in the pejorative sense which irks me as a person of color.

    Anyhow, I thought I’d add a different perspective

    Collapse
    1. Trichwages

      You might enjoy this article:

      https://www.niskanencenter.org/frederick-douglass-1876-report/

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Jean-Christophe Jouffrey

      Dear Takinwande,

      "A quick Wikipedia search will show that the phrase stay woke had emerged in AAVE by the 1930s “in some contexts referring to an awareness of the social and political issues affecting African Americans.”
      “Black American folk singer-songwriter Huddie Ledbetter, a.k.a. Lead Belly, used the phrase "stay woke" as part of a spoken afterward to a 1938 recording of his song "Scottsboro Boys", which tells the story of nine black teenagers and young men falsely accused of raping two white women in Alabama in 1931. In the recording, Lead Belly says he met with the defendant's lawyer and the young men themselves, and "I advise everybody, be a little careful when they go along through there (Scottsboro) – best stay woke, keep their eyes open."”"

      Thank you for this very interesting example.

      It is a perfect example of confusion between the literal and figurative sense, couple with the typical sin of Whig interpretation of history to apply to the past the explanatory framework of the present.

      "I advise everybody, be a little careful when they go along through there (Scottsboro) – best stay woke, keep their eyes open.", is nothing else but the same advice which self-defence gurus give to lone women who walk at night in a deserted street or parking lot, on the "wrong side of the tracks", but they will call it "situational awareness".

      All the additions about "an awareness of the social and political issues affecting African Americans", or the MLK exhortation, does not apply to this particular context, which is to be taken literally: "keep their eyes open" (understanding that "woke" is already a first level of figuration, a first image, while in the MLK exhortation, "to stay vigilant", is entirely figurative, as would have been a "keep your eyes open" in its stead).

      None of this has any bearing on what "being woke" came to mean later on, in a multi-layered image, but here the "keep their eyes open" is fully literal.

      Collapse
Load More