This week, it occurred to me that a topic I wanted to write about was the word 'woke.' Immediately, I next thought, are you nuts! I mean, this is a hot button topic, very incendiary. I have tried to avoid such... but then regarding some of my other recent topics, maybe I haven't avoided it. Well, either way, I am about to tackle what being woke means-- to one group or another. Also, how i feel about the word.
I started by looking for definitions online... not easy since it has various supposed meanings depending on who is putting them out. There is a racial context evidently originally to be woke, which meant "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination".
Then, there is the current usage of it by the intellectuals or those who consider themselves such-- ''well-informed' or 'aware', especially in a political or cultural sense.' And I assume by those who created the definition in terms of what you are aware of.
Where it comes to how I see the word woke, it basically comes down to those who have used it and what I think about what they've done or said. In general, I dislike the word, though what it should mean is positive as being socially aware and seeing where prejudice (a biased view as to what is true) might be still influencing too much of our culture.
Recently, we've seen where a dean at a university law school attacked a judge, who had been invited to speak, by spending his time tearing him apart as she saw it. The students who were in the audience also blocked listening to him. Very woke since he was the bad guy in their eyes.
Which led me to think of a word (which I also had to look up its meaning when I first began reading it), which I think has shaped at least some of how woke changed. Intersectionality, the theory regarding the overlap of social identities-- race, gender, sexuality, class, and how it contributes to a systemic oppression and discrimination as it's experienced by individuals. Mostly that's what woke and intersectionality seem to be today-- looking for oppression and ways to right wrongs that they see as past but also still ongoing.
What it seems to me happens when people claim to be woke is they see there is one way to see what is fair-- to not be woke is to be wrong. Woke has often gotten to a point of not only being unwilling to listen to other viewpoints but to block others from hearing them also.
How can you be culturally aware if you only know one side of a cultural issue? To those claiming to be woke, it appears, there is only one side and the other side is bigoted, misogynistic, white supremacist (even if they are of another color), destructive. etc. No wonder they won't listen to the other side, to them it's evil.
Where it comes to racial wrongs, it is in history and still seen today-- the question being how do you fix it? I thought that affirmative action was intended to address past unfairness, as well as other laws, where it comes to race, but it isn't even discussed today. I think it's still out there, but is it? Now it's about reparations-- first for blacks but maybe soon for many other areas where people there have been mistreated, like to the LGBTQIA (initials keep being added to that one) community. As it is used today, woke goes beyond race to gender identity where some don't like the words woman or man and want to refer to all as they/them/etc.
What I thought made this subject interesting for me, as a writer, is how this wokeism, which seems to be wide across the land, applies to the books we write, which often, when historical, were based in a very different time than our own. How do you stay historically accurate and still satisfy the desire to not offend?
When I got interested in defining how I see my own writing-- ethically speaking-- and how today's cultural climate might influence me or other writers, I saw it as a separate blog, way too complicated to add onto more length here. Hence, it'll be next Saturday.
In the meantime, if you have definitions for how you see woke, I'd appreciate it being put into comments here-- pro or con.
10 comments:
I don’t have any definitions to offer. There may once have been a time when “woke” was useful, but now it’s either a pat on the back or an epithet, depending on your leanings. Not useful. As for the other one, in my most cynical mood it is a way to belong to a disrespected/victimized group, just add your own initial. I’ve seen it with “2” for Two-spirited and “?” for Questioning. Not sure if the “Q” in LGBTQ is for Questioning or Queer. But the first time I saw it with a “?” I knew for sure the whole thing was just a joke. My town actually offers nature hikes for LGBTQ?2A folks and their “allies” (another of those “woke” terms). Gendered nature appreciation?
I’m all for language that doesn’t insult, nullify or degrade people, but I’m not sure specificity is the way to go. I was a technical writer before I retired and back in the day it was assumed that “he” covered everybody in technical manuals. Then it was he/she, but that was and is a clunky way of avoiding sex discrimination. Slowly it became “they” instead, unless of course you could avoid the whole issue by using “you”. These days more people are using “they” when they don’t want to specify gender. Language changes, we don’t use the same terminology our ancestors did, nor should we.
An aside: my son insisted that when I use “they” as a singular pronoun, I should also use the singular verb form, as in “they is”. A bridge too far for me.
I have a hard time when 'they' is used as always wonder what does it mean as it used to be plural. Sometimes it's used in newspapers after a crime-- so, a gang or one criminal? If they come up with other words, they won't like them either lol. Now some don't want to use the word mother as in birthing person. It always gets more and more complicated. It's moved into so many areas like using the word retarded is not okay but what is-- challenged person? Again, it's laugh or cry but definitely a complicated time where it used to seem simple, but guess it wasn't for everybody.
Lately I’ve seen “person with a uterus” to describe women without referencing gender or sexual preferences, lol. When I see “they” used I do wonder if it’s plural or singular unless context makes it clear, but in English we have the same problem with “you” and occasionally that also creates confusion.
That's true. We have also used they and them in a more general context. Funny if it wasn't proving such a cause of anger-- when there is plenty to be angry about that is more important.
Each time they redefine words like person with a uterus, it just gets more complicated and for what gain. What was wrong with mother? lol
I'm a published historical fiction writer and the answer is, you DON'T avoid offending people if you are true to the era you are writing in. Times were different in the 1600s than they are now. If people are that sensitive, they need to stick with Nicolas Sparks. LOL. As far as the gender thing. There are two. Male and female. No matter what anyone does or says, that baby is coming out with a this or a that. How people choose to live their lives or view themselves is another matter, but the biggest piece of "fake" news out there these days is that there are multiple genders and men can have babies. Sometimes we have to accept life as it is, not as we want it to be. There are two genders. Having said that, I will defend to the ground someone's right to say otherwise, but my tolerance stops at being ordered to ride someone's crazy train with them. If someone wants to believe there are no genders, or 5 genders, or that men can have babies, that's their right. But I am not obligated to live inside someone else's fantasy.
thanks for your wise comment, Mellyora. It is appreciated.
Political correctness and control.
Divisive. We seem, more and more, to be separating ourselves into different cliques/tribes.
I'm thinking of the time a few years back that Canadians/Canadiens had heated discussions about two languages in the country... and how Quebec almost seceded. Go there now and ask how much money is spent to print all signage across ALL the provinces in two languages.
Countries have gone to war over soccer games.
Media has to have something to attract our attention. This is ridiculous and entertaining.
And dangerous.
You know I agree and it's all for money and power but not for the ordinary folks. :( I just don't know how we go back from this as it is so prevalent. Some makes sense, like not using derogatory nicknames for various races and ethnicities. Right now, little of it is about that.
Hello Greybeard, I am a Canadian anglophone. Governments spend a lot of money on things some of us consider ridiculous, it was ever thus. I for one do not begrudge the money spent on making bilingual signage. Francophone Canadians live across the country, there are sizeable populations in many provinces. I have Acadian friends here in Nova Scotia (“come on, say something in Acadien!”), They are descendants of the first permanent European settlers in Canada. If anything, recognizing francophone Canadians as first class citizens (not second class, as was the situation before Quebec started threatening to secede) is worth the money. Quebec no longer threatens to secede. Their secessionist political party still exists, but they don’t talk about that anymore. They have their own divisive issues to squabble over, but not to the point of secession.
"Anglophone" ElizabethAnn?
How ya spell that? ;)
I'm glad you "do not begrudge" the expenditure of tax dollars to insure separation of your fellow citizens.
I now resent the fact that TV commercials here are being broadcast in Spanish.
(But we are being invaded. You are not.)
Post a Comment