“Woke” — origin, history and weaponization
White-led appropriation, company-driven monetisation, right-wing weaponization — “woke” and its associations with Black histories has been distorted beyond recognition.
‘Woke’ is a term used to describe the alertness and consciousness to injustice in society, particularly racism. By ‘waking up’, individuals become socially and politically conscious of systemic inequalities. ‘Woke’ originated amongst Black Americans facing racial injustice in society. Scholars Michael B. McCormack and Althea Legal-Miller argue that the phrase ‘stay woke’ echoes Martin Luther King Jr.’s words,
“…to stay awake, to adjust to new ideas, to remain vigilant and to face the challenge of change”.
Another famous example includes Jamaican Activist Marcus Garvey’s words,
“Wake Up Ethiopia! Wake up Africa! Let us work towards the one glorious end of a free, redeemed and mighty nation”.
Speaking in 1923, Garvey signified a call-to-action for Black individuals around the world to become aware of racial injustice.
Between 2012 and 2015, a number of events brought attention to the treatment of young Black Americans by police and sparked an eruption in social justice and equality activism. In 2013, after George Zimmerman was found not guilty of killing teenager Trayvan Martin, the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter was created, urging people to stay woke and be conscious of race struggles. By 2016, the phrase Black Lives Matter had been tweeted more than 30 million times. The phrase “stay woke” and the #Staywoke hashtag also gained strength and became a symbol of movement and activism. Staying woke became the umbrella purpose for movements such as #BlackLivesMatter (fighting racism), the #MeToo movement (fighting sexism, and sexual misconduct), and the #NoBanNoWall movement (fighting for immigrants and refugees).
With its broadened definition, “woke” was used by several prominent musicians, including Childish Gambino, Erykah Badu, Lakecia Benjamin, and Georgia Anne Muldrow, who used the term “woke” to discuss issues beyond race, such as infidelity. Fuelled by black musicians, social media and the #BlackLivesMatter movement, the term entered the Oxford English Dictionary only in 2017.
The mainstream use of ‘woke’, as well as its broadened definition, has obscured its origins in Black American political consciousness. Over time, the appropriation of ‘woke’ by white people has been criticised by several social-justice scholars, such as Tehama Lopez Bunyasi and Candis Watts Smith, for performative activism and social point-scoring, rather than a drive for social change. Linguist Ben Zimmer also criticised white-led appropriation, stating:
“When white people aspire to get points for consciousness, they walk right into the cross-hairs between allyship and appropriation”.
The term has also been appropriated by companies through “woke washing” and “woke Capitalism”, as the term “woke” and its related rhetoric appeal to Millennials and Generation Z who tend to hold more socially liberal views than older generations. A politicised consumer culture has emerged with an increasing number of companies pushing messages on female empowerment, LGBTIQ+ pride, racial and religious diversity and inclusion, and environmental awareness in order to gain the attention of its more socially liberal consumers.
However, brands without a clear moral purpose were perceived by an increasingly cynical public as inauthentic: lecturing in morality but not practising what they preached. This resulted in the meme “get woke, go broke”, where social consciousness and consumerism have become blurred. The irony presents itself where companies use members of oppressed groups in society as a virtue-signalling marketing strategy, whilst simultaneously adhering to the very systems that perpetuate systemic oppression within an unchallenged neoliberal economic system. Greater accountability is needed amongst companies who fail to showcase their actions towards social change, merely adopting virtue messaging to capture more consumers.
Recently, the term “woke” has been weaponized by the right wing as an attack against liberalism for its “intolerance” and “moralisation”, often in reference to “cancel culture” and “identity politics”. Branding the left as “woke” in a negative fashion aims to undermine social justice and equality advocacy, representing the latest in an historical series of attacks perpetrated by the right in opposition to justice movements. Anti-progressive, anti-woke rhetoric is being peddled by the right-wing media — and none more so than in the Daily Mail. Multiple headlines condemning wokeness have been written across a variety of obscure topics including males discussing their emotions with colleagues, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI), and the UK’s aversion to political correctness. The Daily Mail used derogatory language such as “woke warriors won’t like the sound of it”, weaponizing a term previously situated in Black social consciousness to denounce male builders for discussing their feelings. This represents the obscuration of the term.
The Daily Mail reminds us of the politicisation of “woke” by championing MP’s who fuel negative perceptions. For example, perceptions of “woke” have become more negative among all age groups surveyed, but especially the oldest: in 2020, 25% of people aged 55 and above considered the term an insult, but this has now risen to 42%. The newspaper was quick to inform readers of former health secretary Sajid Javid’s vow to stamp out “waste or wokery” in the NHS and social care. Furthering the political ties with the newspaper, the UK’s Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, has declared a “war on woke”, where she branded unconscious bias training a “waste of time” having committed herself to scrapping diversity training in Whitehall before her resignation. In the Daily Mail, Suella wrote:
“None of these approaches (DEI training materials) are acceptable in modern Britain. I’m all for building an inclusive workplace which is meritocratic and welcoming, but to focus relentlessly on dividing us into different cohorts rather than on building camaraderie based on unifying values is misguided.”
Meritocracy is a society governed by people selected according to merit. Meritocracy works effectively, on paper. But when we consider the historical oppression faced by individuals characterised by the protected characteristics in society, notably race, meritocracy cannot work. True meritocracy can only be realised in an equitable system, where every individual has been provided with the equal ability to participate in the workplace, with an equal chance of progression according to merit. Otherwise, individuals cannot thrive in a meritocracy because they have to work even harder than their counterparts to break down barriers built into the foundations of our society, notably racism.
Inclusion, the practice of providing equal access to opportunities and resources for people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalised, is not present in a workplace that is not equitable. Our societal foundations are built on social injustice and inequality — unless these issues are discussed, challenged, and solved, we cannot achieve equitable outcomes for all, and thus, our workplaces will never be inclusive spaces built for equal meritocracy and unification. It is interesting to note that meritocracy is synonymous with power, hierarchy, ruling and influential class in alternative definitions — concepts that have been utilised as systems of exclusion amongst oppressed groups.
Movements towards justice and equity within society should not be politicised nor weaponised as a “culture war” — the weaponization of “woke” has resulted in negative perceptions of the associated academic and social origins, such as critical race theory and Black histories. Ultimately, a greater understanding of “woke” is needed, especially its place in Black histories and racial and social justice movements in the twentieth century. “Woke” has been associated with students and graduates in Generation Z, particularly in the workplace, due to changing employee values in a post-pandemic world. Negativity should not be associated with a term that aims to achieve something different in a changing world — we must remember the term’s origins in order to challenge and educate on its use.
