The conservative co-optation of “wokeness”
And the politicization of civility
I am not the first one bothered by it. And I am not the first one to write about this. But I am increasingly becoming intolerant of people who do it and the lack of context under which they do it — that is to throw around the word “woke”.
The term “wokeness” has originated from Black communities to represent a growing awareness of structural racism. The concept of being “woke” originated from the progressive Black community and found its roots in racial justice movements during the early to mid-1900s. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, to be politically “woke” within the Black community means to possess knowledge, education, and an acute awareness of social injustice and racial inequality.
An early example of the term can be found in the historic protest song “Scottsboro Boys” by Lead Belly. In this powerful recording, “woke” was used to convey the significance of staying vigilant and alert to the ever-present threat of racist violence faced by Black individuals in America.
However, of late, the term “woke” has been appropriated by conservatives and centrists to define an awareness that challenges their own comfort and conflicts with their perspective. Regrettably, “wokeness” is now predominantly used as a derogatory term. If you pay attention to the nuances of language, you would likely be aware of this. Conservatives take offense to “wokeness” because it challenges their beliefs, and the word offends centrists (who think they are socially liberal) because it makes them feel uncomfortable. In either case, woke has come to define “awareness of the perspectives of people whose existence make us uncomfortable and to some extent offends us.”
The insidiousness of the conservative tactics becomes even more alarming when they exploit the concept of “wokeness” to undermine education at every level because they find wokeness culturally offensive and it challenges them to question their perspectives and their own bigotry. Instead of embracing comprehensive studies on the deep-rooted dimensions of systemic intolerance, they dismiss them as trivial and inject fabricated narratives that cater solely to conservative sensibilities. Such actions not only perpetuate falsehoods but also create an environment that hinders genuine progress.
Last week, in Jacksonville, Florida, three Black individuals tragically lost their lives. These senseless murders took place in Florida, a state governed by Ron DeSantis — the first governor in the United States who lacks substance and leadership, and has fueled his political career in the state solely through hatred and through othering people. DeSantis shamelessly campaigned by proudly proclaiming that his state is where progressivism and social awareness come to die (woke goes to die), a sentiment that unfortunately resonates with far too many individuals, including the assailant, Ryan Palmeter, aged 21.
Ron DeSantis and all his supporters would like us to know that they find what Ryan Palmeter, 21 did, absolutely unacceptable and revolting, and so his heinous crimes have nothing to do with them.
And as always has been the case, in the quest to bridge the gap with conservatives, our newspapers are once again struggling to acknowledge the racist nature of a crime. They deem it “racial,” implying it was indeed racist, but maintain the notion that polite individuals can politely differ on the matter.
A couple of weeks ago, near Los Angeles, California, Travis Ikeguchi, a 27-year old avid follower of supremacist right-wing media, committed a heinous act by taking the life of Laura Ann Carleton, a 66-year old champion of diversity and acceptance. You may have come across this distressing news. Prior to fatally shooting Carleton, Ikeguchi engaged in a heated argument with her over the display of a pride flag outside her establishment. This flag symbolizes the belief that individuals who identify as gay, trans, or nonbinary are just as significant as anyone else. Many people share this viewpoint, including myself .
If you happen to visit Ikeguchi’s Twitter page, although I strongly advise against it, you will find his pinned tweet endorsing the act of burning such a flag, which represents the queer community. It is worth noting that Ikeguchi, a devotee of right-wing media personalities like Matt Walsh, a fervent Christian propagandist with repugnant views, has openly expressed his intense anger towards transgender individuals. Walsh even claimed that their existence fills him with an overwhelming rage, to the point where he would rather die than have his own children be transgender. This chilling sentiment reveals how Walsh regards others and their transgender children.
Consequently, Carleton’s establishment potentially becomes a safer refuge for Walsh’s children than his own home. Particularly if we consider the harmful actions that individuals who have reached a point of wanting to die tend to inflict upon family members whom they unjustly blame for their rage. This grim reality also suggests that, should Walsh find himself in a situation where he fears for the well-being of his children or himself, his children will know that there are places where they can seek safety. This is one of the profound meanings behind the pride flag for queer individuals, alarming figures like Carleton pose a threat to Walsh — who, like countless other propagandists, disseminates his hateful ideologies to thousands or even millions of followers targeting the very individuals represented by that flag.
But I am sure, there are a lot of people who are less murderous, but still think that gay people and their allies should not be around, and will tell you so. What’s interesting is that most of them will probably also tell you they agree that Laura Ann Carleton should not have been murdered, because they think of themselves as good people, and good people do not think that other people should be murdered, by and large, so they do not usually approve of murder — unless, that is, the propagandists tell them that it was one of the “good murders”. However, these good people also will not stop thinking that certain types people should not be around in the world (queer, homeless, drug addicts, to name a few), nor will they stop delivering messages that make the abuse and harm of queer people rather inevitable, directly or indirectly, or stop delivering power to people who will help make sure that these people aren’t around. And there are a lot of other good people who think it is fine either way if these people are or are not around, but also when it is time to deliver power, they choose to deliver power to those people who think that these people should not be around. These good people just have some other reason to deliver power to those people. They think somehow their selfish reason for delivering power to certain people justifies their choice and absolves them of their actions when those in power decide to cause harm to these people.
I don’t want to easily label people based on their beliefs — political, social, and others, and most people don’t fall on a simple binary labeling system. And yet, in a society where life or death of these people is essentially a binary choice, I will have to label people as left and right, politically speaking, just for the purpose of this discussion. In broader terms though, I would define the spirit that propels people in general who fall into either of these labels as humanism and supremacy. Which is why, I personally have embraced the label Humanist more than 10 years ago.
A couple of weeks ago, a friend shared an article written by conservative commentator, David Brooks. In that article, David Brooks, lamented the decline of civility in our society. I read through the article and my initial reaction was “That’s a very insightful take on how much our society has changed over the years”. But something did not sit well with me when I realized Brooks had meandered his way into highlighting “lack of civility” using examples that showed how one side of the political spectrum was affected more than the other. He nostalgically reminisces about a time when civility was alive and well, conveniently ignoring the immense social disparities and discrimination that existed. Now, with the proximity of societal issues to his own doorstep, Brooks claims that civility has all but disappeared. The article actually gave me an impression that Brooks attributes this decline in civility to the refusal of those on the left to associate with those on the right solely based on their political beliefs.
And trust me, Brooks’s piece is not the first time I have heard the argument. The idea that is being perpetuated on the rightwing social media is that “Leftists can’t understand being friends with people who don’t share their political views, but for most people it’s just the norm”.
Interestingly, this suggests that American conservatives actually desire friendship with the rest of us (yeah, by now you should know I am on the left). Surprising, isn’t it? Despite their words and actions suggesting otherwise, Brooks insists that many conservatives long for camaraderie. The idea that some of us aren’t interested in befriending them has become a pressing topic in the opinion sections of our nation’s influential media outlets.
Going back to labeling people based on their spirit, then there is one kind of spirit that asserts that every individual deserves access to basic human needs, including a safe space to exist as their true selves. This belief is rooted in the simple fact of their humanity, without consideration of how they should earn or deserve such a life. It values humans as inherently worthy rather than viewing them as a burden. This spirit is humanism and one who possesses it is a humanist.
On the other hand, there is a dominant empowered spirit that subscribes to the notion that only certain individuals deserve to live. Its adherents impose their own narrow ideals on how people should be allowed to exist and act as the arbiters of who deserves the right to life. They feel entitled to punish, abuse, harm, exclude, exploit, and even kill those they deem unworthy. This is supremacy and one who possesses it is a supremacist.
Supremacists are bothered when humanists reject their friendship due to their alignment with supremacist beliefs. They strongly believe that they deserve friendship, but it appears they desire it less sincerely and more out of a sense of entitlement. I would add David Brooks into this bucket.
Interestingly, it doesn’t seem to trouble humanists as much when supremacists refuse to be friends with them. This unfriendliness is understandable because supremacists have already expressed their desire to dominate others and punish those who resist. For humanists, it’s only logical to distance themselves from individuals who hold such hostile views towards their fellow human beings.
While it’s true that a supremacist spirit can be found in every state in our country, and within both of our major ideologies and political parties, it’s not difficult to see which of the major two political parties is pursuing the supremacist spirit energetically, ruthlessly, and relentlessly. To see the supremacist spirit in motion in the United States, one has only to look around at what happens where the Republican Party is thriving the most.
In today’s political landscape, there is a rising notion, championed by personalities like David Brooks, that we should detach our human values or spiritual beliefs from the realm of politics. This gnostic concept proposes that our political convictions are intangible and divorced from the everyday experiences we share at social gatherings, places of worship, or even amongst friends. It suggests that political views are dispassionate, disconnected, and often bureaucratic in nature.
According to this perspective, the exploration of politics shouldn’t be a factor in our choice of companionship. It advocates for a world where these ideological stances have no bearing on our personal relationships; where the matters of governance are seen as irrelevant and aloof, lacking warmth and vitality.
However, in embracing this notion, are we endorsing a society devoid of passion and personal connection? Should we accept that political beliefs have no place in shaping our friendships? It is crucial to contemplate the implications of this viewpoint and consider whether we are willing to sacrifice the depth and relevance of our political convictions for the sake of maintaining harmony in our social circles.
This gnostic interpretation of politics challenges us to question the role of human spirit in our political landscape. It posits that our inner beliefs and value system should remain detached from the realm of governance, suggesting an almost sterile separation between the two, however increasingly impossible it may be to do so in the current digital age of social media and information onslaught .
In these times of increasing polarization and contentious debates, it is important to critically engage with these ideas and evaluate the consequences they may have on the vibrancy of our democratic discourse. Striking a balance seems crucial — one that acknowledges the importance of personal convictions while fostering an inclusive and respectful society.
As we navigate this complex terrain, let us reflect on the interplay between our political identities and our connections with others. Let us not forget the potential for genuine understanding and growth that arises from engaging in the difficult and uncomfortable conversations required to bridge our ideological divides. Only then can we truly cultivate a civil and prosperous society that honors both our individual beliefs, and the collective spirit of humanity and unity.
At the outset, I agree with David Brooks’ observation, one that has become a familiar cry, that civility is vanishing, but let’s not forget the larger issues at play. The preservation of civility should not come at the expense of marginalized voices finally being heard. It’s time to critically examine the true meaning and impact of civility in our society.
