What would we be if not woke/awake?

“Woke” (African American Vernacular English for “awake”) has been used since the 1930s to mean being aware and acting against racial injustice. Over time, its meaning expanded to encompass awareness of a wide range of social injustices, including racism, sexism, colonialism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination. Who could be against that, right?

Recently, however, critics have used the term to condemn what they see as excessive political correctness (“people with bodies that can give birth”), identity politics (“I was born as a white male, but now I identify as a black lesbian”), and rigid moralism (“Anyone who doesn’t use my correct pronouns is a fascist”). Their target is a minority movement that weaponises ideas of diversity, equity, and inclusion to restrict freedom of speech, framing themselves as victims and using shame to demand contrition from and exert power over the dominant, privileged group. Let’s call this “wokism.”

“Wokism” should not be confused with genuine liberation movements (woke/awake) that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in order to expand freedom of speech and expression for all (including for minority groups), raise awareness of systemic barriers to equal opportunity, and contribute to a world with equal access and participation for all.

Equating all liberation (woke) movements with “wokism” is a straw man fallacy: “the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction” (Wikipedia).

This fallacy is used by right-wing politicians to promote discriminatory (and at times fascist) agendas. They begin with legitimate criticism of wokism but then generalise it incorrectly to everything related to woke/liberation movements, claiming that dismantling all “woke” measures (e.g. diversity, equity, and inclusion policies) will increase freedom of speech and end an oppressive leftist regime that supposedly disempowers the privileged majority.

From our distinction between “wokism” and “woke,” we know this is false. In fact, the intention of woke measures is precisely to promote equity and freedom of speech.

But equity does not come from the equal treatment of unequals. Equal absence of restrictions (“free from”) does not guarantee equal opportunity (“free for”). A wheelchair enables a person without legs to move, hearing aids enable the elderly to hear, and braille enables blind people to read and live more autonomously. Unequal treatment of unequals is often what creates equal opportunity.

The false victimhood and imagined fragility of the privileged is not a noble striving for equity but a covert strategy for maintaining supremacy (Layla F. Saad, Me and White Supremacy). True equity requires people of privilege to relinquish their advantages and accept their fair share. If they refuse, it is not “fighting for justice and free speech” but rather protecting their own interests at the expense of others, or “let's make myself great again”.

One does not increase freedom of speech by getting rid of measure that protect freedom of speech.

One does not create equity by getting rid of measure that promote equity.

Let’s not fall asleep with straw men lullabies in the background.

Let’s stay awake/woke.