What is woke?
“Woke” originated in 1930s African American Vernacular English (AAVE). The term refers to being aware of and actively engaged in social and political issues. Of particular focus are issues related to systemic injustices and marginalized communities.
In recent years, especially the 2010s, the definition of “woke” has broadened. It is now a more mainstream term used to describe an awareness of social and political issues related to marginalized communities. This awareness often involves an understanding of how various factors intersect to shape experiences of privilege and oppression.
Social justice activism sees being “woke” as key. It involves recognizing critical theory‘s stated need for collective action to challenge systemic oppression and promote greater social and political equality.
Political differences in definition
Conservatives use the term in a variety of ways. They may use “woke” to criticize what they see as excessive political correctness, an emphasis on identity politics, and cancel culture. Or they might understand “woke” as “the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.” Some have defined it as the promotion of a victim/oppressor lens. Conservatives sometimes use “woke” as a negative term referring to people who are overly sensitive and easily offended. They argue that the term has been co-opted by progressives and used as a weapon to silence free speech and promote an ideological agenda.
On the other hand, progressives use “woke” to describe a state of awareness and consciousness about social and political issues. These issues particularly relate to race, gender, sexuality, and other signifiers of identity. Progressives see it as a positive term that encourages people to be more understanding of others’ experiences and to challenge systemic inequalities. Left-leaning news has criticized conservatives for being unable or unwilling to come up with a coherent definition of “woke”, despite arguing or legislating against woke politics.
A new definition
Based on how the term is now often used, we propose a new definition. We define “woke” in terms of its treatment of objective truth:
woke (adj.)
1: (of people) susceptible to, or engaging in, arguments based on a paradoxical rejection of objectivity (especially related to social justice)
2: (of arguments) based on a paradoxical rejection of objectivity (especially related to social justice)
(That paradox, is of course, the critical problem – the issue that this site explores.)
We think this approach to definition has advantages of convenience, nuance, and specificity. It defines woke by the logic of its arguments, rather than by attempting to describe which issues are included. And more often than not, it’s this hidden logic that ultimately causes controversy and conflict.
For example, what does the “math is racist” debate have to do with the Health At Every Size (HAES) movement? Both issues are criticized as woke, but seem on the surface to relate to totally different areas.
Identifying the common critical problem helps us understand why people on both sides of politics consider these “woke” issues. Both issues relate fundamentally to a rejection of objectivity. Briefly: the woke position argues that math doesn’t relate to objective truth, and that focussing on the “right answer” – another measure of objectivity – is oppressive. Similarly, the HAES movement undermines basic objective measures and definitions of health. See our description of the problem in detail for more information.
More than just oppressor vs victim
Critical theory frames issues in terms of a power and oppression hierarchy. It’s not surprising to find woke issues framed as oppressor vs victim narratives. But not all oppressor vs victim narratives are woke, and certainly not all of them are based on faulty reasoning. In many cases, the lens is appropriate.
Defining “woke” issues in terms of their foundational reasoning helps us to separate appropriate uses of this lens, and avoid mischaracterizing issues. This definition distinguishes woke oppressor vs victim frames (those based on the critical problem) from others. It protects against a false positive: seeing a victim/oppressor dynamic in play when it’s not.
Of course, it’s possible that an oppressor vs victim frame makes use of the critical problem, yet happens also (accidentally) to be an appropriate characterization. In these cases, it’s still worthwhile identifying the “wokeness” in the issue. Doing so helps to assess the situation outside of paradoxical reasoning. Once it is clear that an oppressor vs victim dynamic is in play, then we have protected against a false negative: assuming a victim/oppressor dynamic is not in play when it is.
This deals with a criticism of being “anti-woke”.
More than just equity
Woke reasoning frequently identifies differences in group outcomes as evidence of oppression. It prescribes practices of equity to resolve those differences.
Defining “woke” based on its core reasoning uncovers the illogical leaps made to locate causes and solutions only in terms of oppression and power. For example, if we can locate other primary causes, then the woke conclusions may be incorrect.
Again, defining woke this way also helps to avoid capturing the cases where oppression and power are the appropriate focus. It is careless to dismiss any argument based on oppression as “woke”.
Shifting the attack
Many people see “woke” as an insult, especially when it is wielded by the conservative side of politics.
Defining “woke” by its reasoning shifts the attack to the correct grounds. Under the new definition, describing a person as “woke” may still be taken as an insult, but it is an insult based on the reasoning that someone is engaging with. It identifies a (hopefully) temporary case of affairs – it can be corrected, and is not dehumanizing.
Using the new definition, describing arguments as “woke” is not merely to disagree with them, but to identify why there is disagreement. At the least, a “woke” argument according to this definition ought to be closely questioned.