A Black American folk singer, Lead Belly, enjoined listeners in 1938 to ‘stay woke’ in a song about a false accusation against a group of young black men in Alabama. A century later and the word is exclusively used as an epithet, a code word that identifies its speaker as someone who has some opposition to left-wing politics.
That isn’t how the anti-’woke’ would put it, of course. Champions of the liberal value of free speech, right-wing anti-wokes believe that left-wing orthodoxies have gone too far and stifled these once widely available liberal freedoms. When asked for examples, the anti-wokes will generally present examples like drag shows, pronoun etiquette, and trans women competing in sports.
There are details and ongoing areas of study and work when it comes to how to implement these values in a way that allows everyone to be who they are (trans rights, sex and gender equality, etc.) There’s a lot to know about these issues and readers know this isn’t my lane. But to my eyes, comparatively untrained on these issues, the selected anti-woke examples look like a distraction or an outrage engine, like the way most of these same anti-wokes talk about immigration, crime, or terrorism.
Anti-imperialism is, and like all left-wing ideologies is based on the core value of equality. And the anti-’wokes’, whether they justify it as naturally ordained by science or divine will, generally hold a core value of hierarchy. It’s an irreconcilable difference.
Almost all anti-woke criticism is just right-wing politics and therefore holds nothing of interest for leftists.
There is one legitimate complaint in the antiwoke arsenal, which is against the language-policing that takes place in mainstream, liberal institutions. But language-policing in such corporate environments has nothing to do with equality and therefore nothing to do with anything truly left-wing. It is nothing more than an office game, in which the winner is the one who can master the language and the bureaucratic rules. Words and concepts that were developed in communities fighting for liberation - or even survival - have been stolen, appropriated by liberal professionals for use in their office power games. But the theft of these words and concepts doesn’t discredit the projects of liberation from which they emerged.
Now we can come back to my lane. You know the old saying that when you scratch a liberal a fascist bleeds? The Gaza genocide has scratched the liberals and the fascists alike. Turns out that when Palestine comes up, the right wing (squealing for police to crush speech and deport protesters) doesn’t care about free speech or assembly and liberal professionals didn’t mean anything they said about the liberation of oppressed groups by race, class, gender, and sexuality.
Anomalous exceptions aside, both antiwokes and the liberal professionals they claim to despise have revealed themselves to be enthusiastic supporters of genocide who hate us much more than they hate one another. There’s no use contemplating alliance with these people or searching for common ground.
I have over the decades, every few years, written something to protest left-wing language-policing and the adoption of liberal professional games. But leftists will find no allies among the anti-’woke’. They don’t want us and we don’t want them. They mock social justice warriors and they mock being woke, but it’s better to be a warrior than a coward and it’s better to be awake than asleep.
False friends are everywhere. Lead Belly warned us about them, and told us the state we need to be in, to remain vigilant.
I admire Julius's very thoughtful comment, which expressed a lot of my concerns far better than I could. I'm not an expert on everything, in fact my expertise is very limited. One thing that my expertise has taught me is how many people in the fields I know well pretend to be experts when they are not, usually for profit/material gain, but sometimes just out of a defect in their ego/mental make up. I project this experience on to life in general, hence I don't accept others' expertise is a given, particularly when it comes to barely established "science" and rules. I know that hypotheses should not become theories until they have been so well tested that a consensus can be established. I also know that theories even after establishment can eventually crumble in the face of new facts, which require new hypothesis. Rinse and repeat. Dogma is often asserted and disguised as theory, but the tell is owners of dogma don't want it exposed to hard scrutiny. So much for areas where there is a hope of having some hard data. Hence I strongly agree with Julius' concern that no change should be made permanent without a great deal of data, recognizing that the data itself can and often is contaminated by the observers' bias.
Morals and ethics for the most part don’t have particularly hard data behind them, and here I tend to think that a lot of push and scrape is helpful because eventually what works best for the society will win out, but what wins will cycle between hedonism and aestheticism ala Russel, and a happy medium can never be struck, one can just hope for a continuation of a general trend toward a better world for a majority.
Justin, I think your general point is right on. Of course, when you drill down on the specifics of any particular "anti-woke" issue, the world becomes gray and resistant to not only the hyper-ventilating, hyperbolic rantings of the conservative anti-woke crowd but also the dogmatism of liberal woke crowd. (I actually remain uncomfortable with the word "liberal" as a pejorative because I'm old enough to remember when "liberal" meant "progressive" before the establishment Neo-liberals appropriated the word... I wish there was a better alternative to liberal ... maybe "faux woke Establishment"???).
For example, when it comes to Trans rights, I think it's obvious as someone who believes in equality, that adult Trans people deserve all the rights and dignity that all human beings deserve, but how exactly one approaches the reality of trans children is beyond my absolute judgment (not that I have any right to impose my ethics / morality on any child or parent trying to navigate sexuality and gender).
I have read the account of one young woman - an actress - who was assigned male at birth but knew very early (before puberty) she should have been a girl. She is absolutely convincing and I completely approve of her parents support and actions that made her teenage years as a girl possible. There was no reason she should have suffered mentally and physically in a state of gender ambiguity and thus experienced a teen girl experience.
On the other hand, I am loathe to agree that EVERY child that says they were born the wrong sex should get hormone therapy or surgery, pre-adult and pre-puberty. In both cases, there are permanent changes to such medical actions that that may cause irreparable harm. Maybe the child is simply gay and hasn't figured that out yet. Maybe there is some kind of peer or greater social pressure in a particular community. My main point is that I simply don't know what the right decision is for any one individual and their guardians. It's up to them and should be taken with great deliberation and care. It's a complex case by case situation where the parents are still the ultimate responsibility, however imperfect (or worse) any individual parents may be.
In any case, we don't want government laws making absolute laws, repressing what is a personal medical and psychological decision between parents, children and their doctors. But at the same time, there could be a good argument for some kind of regulation, such as required therapy sessions and required second opinions. But maybe not. I'm not well-informed enough here. I just know I want children to be protected - as they DON'T have the decision making ability of adults - but yet to still have the freedom to be who they are.
So saying "it depends" and "sometimes yes, sometime no" and "I'm not sure" and "maybe...but maybe not" to either anti-woke bigots or woke (language and otherwise) police does not serve either's agendas. And this goes back to what I think your main point is: these so-called woke anti-woke "social" issues are actually a sleight of hand: a cudgel in one hand to strike with, while the other hand is busy plundering, stealing and killing either a third victim or the electorate itself.
A perfect example (in this case using so-called woke) is when Israel Hasbara tries to portray Israeli society as pro-gay and pro-women's rights, and then using that as some kind of bizarre justification for genocide because Israeli supposedly embodies Western notions of liberty and freedom and a thus are a bulwark against the medieval Islamic horde.
This of course, ironically, then feeds the hidden racism of the faux-woke and the not so hidden racism of the anti-woke when Israeli Hasbara then promulgates false stories of mass rapes and false stories of barbaric violence e.g. beheaded babies and disemboweled mothers. It's all about greed, power and the ideology of superiority over other human beings.