Jump to content

Talk:Woke

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A separate article for "wokeism" or "wokeness"?

[edit]

Hello. I have registered a lot of the debate on this page, and I am wondering if it might be an idea to create a separate article for "wokeness/wokeism". Several notable individuals have written on this (i.e. "wokeness", not "woke") as some perceived political inclination, worldview, phenomena or ideology, and provided historical context for it. In other words, while derived from "woke", when "wokeism" is used by historians and others, it seems to refer to a contemporary political ideology, not in the original meaning of attentiveness to discrimination, etc. For example, it is noteworthy how many historians have framed "wokeness" or "wokeism" as a post-Christian revival. Here Ian Buruma discusses "wokeness" as "an essentially Protestant phenomenon"; historian Niall Ferguson comments in this talk on the "turgid and ultimately nihilistic cult of wokeism which has much more, it seems to me, in common with the crazier aspects of the Protestant Reformation than it has with Romanticism". (Ignore the negative personal opinion, focus on his comparison). Similarly, historian Tom Holland draws parallels in his book Dominion, even naming a chapter "Woke" (Holland does not take a negative position, only attempting to see it through the prism of Christianity in America). (Here is one tweet further showing his opinion). Buruma, by the way, references John McWhorter, who has published the book Woke Racism, again drawing direct comparisons with Calvinism. This is but a handful of the stuff floating around at the moment on the "Christian side". Others have written on it, such as Francis Fukuyama in his book Identity, to name one. (Here in this tweet he contends wokeness "is a deformation and not the essence of liberalism". [Edit: and Here (at 5:18 and especially 37:41 onwards) is a short reference in passing by John Gray, who says "a species of hyper-liberalism, often called 'woke'", is a branch of liberalism where speech is restricted in the name of progress]. Another "school" as it were prefers to link it to post-modernism and identity politics; Helen Pluckrose has written much on what she (and others) call "Critical Social Justice", which she claims is "colloquially" called "wokeism" (Cynical Theories). Finally, of course, you have all the very political crap from Conservatives who argue it somehow has to do with "Marxism", which more often than not seems very connected to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. This is uninteresting in all ways except merely to show the large debate over taxonomy. In other words, there is a wide range of analysis ranging from the sensible to the very not sensible. Add to this all the thousands of articles in major outlets (New York Times, Atlantic, etc.). The Economist joins many other authors to write about a "Great Awokening", viewing it as a part of the "illiberal Left". All in all, an impression starts to form that what is being discussed is more than "woke" as originally defined, but rather as shorthand for a certain set of political assumptions. The very fact that so many struggle to define it, and define it differently, is worthy of note.

My main point is that there seems to be a plethora of historians and political scientists who have written on "wokeness" as something distinct, and tried to analyze it in a historical and ideological context. In this there is wide disagreement, which itself is noteworthy. To keep this article clean and covering the original source from which this other things "wokeness" has been derived, might a separate article for it be worth considering?

I would be very interested in hearing your opinions on this. Euor (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the split, as the second term has a distinct meaning and has attracted sufficient attention to pass the threshold of notability. I also note Wikidata already holds separate items for the two concepts: (Q(Q28136847)) and wokeism (Q118324158). fgnievinski (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable. SparklyNights 02:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's really enough to support a separate article and would be concerned that it could become a WP:POVFORK, since the sources you presented mostly seem to indicate that "wokeism" is a pejorative neologism used by people who set out to criticize the concepts that they use it to encompass and define. I'd also be concerned that there's a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage; pejorative political neologisms are dime-a-dozen. Also, I'm not convinced that they're talking about something distinct - these seem to be the same topic. Most of the sources you cite use "woke" repeatedly and talk about the precise history described in this article; what would be the point of separating them out? --Aquillion (talk) 07:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aquillion How about splitting "wokeness", instead? fgnievinski (talk) 02:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, what is the difference between "woke" and "wokeism"? Is there even a difference? That seems to be the crux of the matter. Tadreidms (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tadreidms Their meaning is well established in dictionaries, for example:
    Crucially, one of the two terms is derogatory. fgnievinski (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your link for "wokeness" just redirects to "woke" [1] which somewhat undermines the case for a split. Splitting off "wokeism" as a derogatory term is almost certain to result in a POV fork. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll copy and paste the definitions here:
    • Wokeness, woke: Someone who is "woke" is very aware of social and political unfairness.
    • Wokeism (informal, often derogatory): the behaviour and attitudes of people who are sensitive to social and political injustice.
    The latter is a criticism for the former. fgnievinski (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to WP:POVFORK concerns. Since all three terms are now mainly used to attack what is deemed "wokeness" by critics, I expect any spin-off article to become a POV magnet for a bunch of primary sources such as opinion pieces written from that perspective. If there were a WP:SIZE issue, a spin-off might be warranted, but that's not the case here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, I contend that Helen Pluckrose and John McWhorter are not reliable sources for broad sociopolitical issues. The source from The Economist is an editorial, which is a primary source. Whatever Niall Ferguson's academic bona fides, an interview published by a conservative think tank is another primary source. All these primary sources together fail to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources for the concept of "wokeness", in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Harpers article by Ian Buruma is primarily about the term "woke" itself, and uses "wokeness" and "woke" basically interchangeably, depending on whether the author needs a noun or an adjective. Buruma certainly does not give a definition or description of "wokeness" as separate from "woke". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here (at 5:18, and later 37:41 he further develops this, and even later when he talks about its "antinomianism") is a short reference in passing by John Gray, who says "a species of hyper-liberalism, often called 'woke'", is a branch of liberalism where speech is restricted in the name of progress. (37:41: "woke movements are vehicles for a secular hyper-Christianity emptied of any sense of mystery and any commitment to forgiveness", in his opinion). Another sign that many thinkers see something ideologically distinct and noteworthy here. (There seems to be a distinct argument over whether "woke" is distinct from liberalism (as Fukuyama thinks), or a natural branch of it (like Gray thinks). I have purchased some other recent books covering these topics, such as by Yascha Mounk, or Greg Lukianoff, but I haven't read them so I will not add anything except to say that the topic is also broached there -- by Mounk in quite detail, judging by the index. I understand all the criticisms, and it must be done correctly, but I find it undeniable that there is something more here -- which is the talking point of many thinkers, philosophers, and, yes, columnists, than it "being aware of social inequalities" or whatever.--Euor (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and? A short reference in passing hardly qualifies as WP:SIGCOV, let alone a comment made in a lecture rather than a peer-reviewed academic publication. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That refers to the Gray bit, I assume. Listening to the entirity, it was a regular topic of discussion towards the end, wherein he outlines quite clear thoughts on "woke" from a philosophical point of view. But beyond that, someone like Mounk has not written about it in passing, but instead to a great extent in his recent book as mentioned.--Euor (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yascha Mounk's academic specialty in international affairs doesn't exactly qualify him as an expert on the subject. I note that his book is from a trade publisher, not an academic or educational publisher. That makes me think it's just another attempt to cash in on the trend of attacking so-called "wokeness" rather than a serious analysis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is your opinion of Mounk to be held as more authoritative than an actual, published source -- which now joins a long list of credible, published authors which I have mentioned? Are we to believe that you would be equally critical of a book from trade publishers if it aligned with the article's content as is? This is goalpost-shifting. I understand you have some allergy to critical views of "wokeness", as, yes, there is a large industry of right-wing grifters writing on it. This shouldn't drown out the serious authors mentioned here, though (from Fukuyama and Holland, to Gray and Mounk -- which are only a selected handful. Why these are to be so easily dismissed by you -- meaning you view your authority as higher -- I find astonishing.).--Euor (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that most of the authors you listed are not credible on this topic. And yes, I would be equally critical of any book from a trade publisher regardless of POV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add a section Add a section for "wokeness" in this article. Google Scholar [2] mentions the word a number of times. Here are some sources from The Economist
How did American “wokeness” jump from elite schools to everyday life?
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/09/04/how-did-american-wokeness-jump-from-elite-schools-to-everyday-life
How to cancel “cancel culture”: Two new books examine the brokenness of wokeness
https://www.economist.com/culture/2023/10/19/how-to-cancel-cancel-culture
Tadreidms (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An editorial on the subject of the "illiberal left" and a book review are hardly authoritative sources on the topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RSPSOURCES The Economist is considered reliable. For one example, I see Donald Trump uses sources from The Economist for statements of fact. Why would, for example, "Analyzing Trump Inc" (From the Tower to the White House) be considered acceptable (and used as statement of fact) but "The illiberal left" (How did American “wokeness” jump from elite schools to everyday life?) be not? What is the difference between the two?
Tadreidms (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that between a neutral statement of fact supported by multiple sources ([Trump's] investments underperformed the stock and New York property markets) and using this source as a basis for describing an entire subtopic. We know from other sources that nowadays "woke/wokeness" are used mainly pejoratively amid an anti-woke backlash; any source talking about so-called wokeness must be evaluated in that context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting this topic almost a year since I published it, I can simply say that it seems to have become ever more relevant to make such a distinction. Still I believe Sangdeboeuf makes a good argument that it must be based on rigorous sources. I notice a slew of books coming out from various university presses that might be relevant (say, for example Musa al-Gharbi's upcoming book — do read the description for an example of a use of "wokeness" as a distinct ideology), so I believe this talk section is still relevant...--Euor (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"American thought has always tended to a certain solipsism, a trait that has become more prominent in recent times. If Fukuyama and his neoconservative allies believed the world was yearning to be remade on an imaginary American model, the woke movement believes “whiteness” accounts for all the evils of modern societies. America’s record of slavery and racism is all too real. Even so, passing over in silence the repression and enslavement of peoples outside the West – Tibetans, Uighurs and now Mongols in China, for example – because they cannot be condemned as crimes of white supremacy reveals a wilfully parochial and self-absorbed outlook. Wokery is the successor ideology of neo-conservatism, a singularly American world-view. That may be why it has become a powerful force only in countries (such as Britain) heavily exposed to American culture wars. In much of the world – Asian and Islamic societies and large parts of Europe, for example – the woke movement is marginal, and its American prototype viewed with bemused indifference or contempt." This is by John Gray. Another example of current use which would benefit from a separate article analyzing philosophical background and underpinnings, and analyses by contemporary thinkers on left and right.--Euor (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sangdeboeuf: would you still mind it if I created this article as an offshoot of this one? Wokeism", or something like that, on the perceived ideology which now is coming under fire from the Democrats after the loss in the election.--Euor (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's impossible to answer without knowing which sources you intend to use and how you intend to use them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the issue, isn't it. I suppose it would be all sources considered reliable by Wikipedia (NYT, WaPo, BBC, Economist), as well as any relevant literature (Musa al-Gharbi, John Gray, etc.). You also have attempst to define and critique it from the Left, such as Susan Neiman. Also, I know you are a strong supporter of scholarly literature, so there has by now come at least some attempts from this front to define "wokeism" (here). Instead of arguing for any position it would cover the current debate over the issue. Euor (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd wait to see if that "scholarly definition" gains traction, and warn against relying on books or media. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is this a good defintion of wokeism

[edit]

Wokeism is the ethics and processes of socialism, expanded beyond class struggle, to include race, gender, and sexual struggle, as well as any other near infinite of marginalized groups as defined by intersectionality.

a less tidy but more thorough version would be

Wokeism is the ethics and processes of socialism, applied to things besides class struggle but instead to any 'marginalized group' as defined by intersectionality. As in, treating a "systemic oppressor group" (e.g. white people, men, etc.) as the bourgeois and treating a "systemically marginalized group" (e.g. black people, women, etc.) as the proletariat in accordance to socialist theory.

i have seen multiple right wing commentators agree roughly with this definition https://x.com/sleepy_devo/status/1781001342615535907 https://x.com/Sargon_of_Akkad/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0OHDky6KRQ&t=2s status/1596591428796547072 https://x.com/whatifalthist/status/1822117893279994096 NotQualified (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

do note, dev is not a right winger and i do believe he is a centrist, or at least self identifies as one NotQualified (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are based on sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Why do we care what some random commentators say on Twitter and YouTube? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

24 October 2024

[edit]
WP:NOTAFORUM. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You guys you write the Wikipedia articles in America you seem to think that you’re liberal Democrat party is the same as liberal Democrats in other countries like the UK the Labor Party is more liberal than the liberals in America the conservatives are a little bit more liberal than conservatives in America the word conservative and liberal and Democrat and Republican means something different in other countries so I really suggest you get that accurate when you’re writing your articles. Stop assuming we are one big family where everybody in the world is the same conservative and the same liberal Lickmyshoes (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Liberal parties in Europe are communist parties so of course an American Liberal/liberal would be conservative compared to Europeans. This whole thread here are communists obscuring their current culture change device's Name with the thinnest of justifications.
"Woke means to be awake"
"Woke was used in a song(s)"
It is all retconning the history of events to make the socially conscious the underdogs fighting for every scrap of freedom.
You are the same communists from 1880s, 1920s,1960s, and 2010s. You change your tactics when you get called out so you regroup, change your name, and Push again, but your rhetoric will always return to "End capitalism". This is always how it will end every time because all the social issues are a cover to ultimate goal, the ending of the ownership of private property and the collectivization of human life under a single worldview. 161.6.106.109 (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph

[edit]

Might be useful to clarify that the word is used pejoratively/sarcastically in the first paragraph in lead, rather than last. "Woke" is probably largely used in that sense nowadays. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:LEADCLUTTER, "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject."
However, MOS:FIRST says the first sentence should concisely define and describe the subject, which the current opening. "Woke, the African-American English synonym for the General American English word awake, has since the 1930s or earlier been used to refer to awareness of social and political issues affecting African Americans, often in the construction stay woke.", does not do because it introduces the etymology of the term before giving a contemporary definition. It should be rearranged so it gives the current meaning of the word, followed by further sentences that include it's etymology from AAE, and mentioning it's pejorative use by racists and others opposed to social justice for African Americans. Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Woke

[edit]

I think it would be appropriate to update the "origins and usage" section with a mention of "dark woke." Yahoo and The Guardian have published articles explaining what the term means and how it emerged after AOC's response to LibsOfTiktok. It is gaining traction on social media, and many american progressives seem to favor it in light of the democratic party's perceived over-civility Amateur Truther (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woke&oldid=1273530377"