And the frontrunner in the battle for most befuddling political concepts of the 21st century is: “woke” or “wokeness.” We read about it on a daily basis, in contexts both noble and merciless. Yet its core essence remains elusive; we rarely encounter attempts to define it, much less debate its nuances and implications. Not only stateside, the term is now used frequently on the other side of the Atlantic, most notably in France, without offering further clarity. In discussing this dilemma, the political philosopher, Susan Neiman, reports:
Like its predecessor “political correctness,” “wokeness” quickly became a term of abuse, complicating the already thorny attempts to define it. Attacks on “woke Marxist lunatics” betray so much ignorance that it’s tempting to give up analysis entirely. Yet analysis is needed, for criticisms of wokeness have come from across the political spectrum.
As a political phenomenon, how can we assess the concept’s merits or evaluate its claims without agreeing on what it is? While originally brandished from the left as a badge of progressive consciousness, the term was then weaponized by the reactionary right. At present, wokeness is a well-honed foil wielded on both sides, albeit with opposing valences and political agendas.
When originally coined, woke most likely referred to a state of mind. But since its current usage is more associated with action than thought, it might be defined thus: Wokeness is virtue signaling that showcases an awareness of historical or current abuses of power by certain segments of society directed at others, usually defined by a common identity; and further, conveys a moral disdain for such abuses. However, and significantly, it does not necessitate any concrete efforts by the signaler that redress past abuses nor eschew current or future ones. Moreover, because wokeness avoids differentiating underlying motivations, it cannot distinguish between signals conveyed as genuine and actionable positions from those that are merely political statements or performative theater.
Still, propagating a broader awareness of societal sins might serve constructively as a reminder of past and present inequities. However, wokeness’s inherent inability to distinguish expression from action renders it more a ripe political tool than a useful cue of societal power dynamics. Herein lies its fatal flaw—the benefits become lost in a perfunctory demonstration of which team one belongs to. Campuses that begin assemblies with spectacles acknowledging irredentist claims by native Americans do little, after all, to improve the lives of the descendants of those who lost their land.
But that is far from the end of the story. Attempting to grasp wokeness demands appreciating the broader context of its coming of age. Linked to a comprehensive worldview originating in postmodern critical theory, wokeness proposes that societal order is primarily governed by power relations. As Marxist theory describes class struggle as its dominant lens, the critical theory extension views societal relationships primarily through the dynamic of oppressor and oppressed.
In my book American Schism, I warn of the peril of the Trump era zeitgeist, which I label “lay postmodernism.” The pervasive postmodern philosophical movement of the last 50 years – one which rejects meta-narratives and views the pursuit of truth with great skepticism – has now, seemingly through osmosis, fully seeped into the mainstream. All citizens today seem to have the right to one’s own facts. Language is wielded as a weapon rather than as a communication vehicle to convey truth. This development is far from benign; in fact, it is antithetical to our modern framework of problem-solving, itself reliant on an evolving constitution of knowledge to advance human prosperity. As many have pointed out, the successful track record of this approach is astonishing. On objective measures such as life expectancy and poverty rates, we have made more progress in the last 200 years than in the prior 2000. But today’s lay postmodernism and its critical theory forerunner threaten to reverse this trend.
As Jonathan Rauch describes, “scientific modernism wants to assess claims, not claimants; on the other hand, postmodernism reverses the emphasis. Who were the scientists? What biases do they have? Postmodernism views reason as a sham, and authority as a mask for power.” This mindset helps explain one of the most disturbing aspects of Trump’s version of justice: as if directly penned by Michel Foucault, there is no innate concept of justice in Trump’s world; justice is simply whatever MAGA leaders decide it is.
Against this backdrop, it is no wonder that wokeness has become such an emotionally laden term, shouldering the accumulated angst as its baggage. Within one context, failing to adopt woke pronouns can be met with sanctimonious condemnation; within another, daring to use them at all might be met with scorn and derision. Both tribes rely on their self-chosen mobs as woke police, threatening “cancellation.”
More recently, as a segment of the right wing has adopted the tactics and rhetoric from the left, we have the birth of the “woke right.” Providing a foil to its mirror opposite, this camp adopts a victimhood narrative in which white, Christian, heterosexual men are the country's "real victims" of systemic oppression. Adherents often show an open disdain for traditional Enlightenment values, such as an emphasis on reason and the pursuit of objective truth. They also deploy “cancel culture” tactics and embrace postmodernism, until recently the exclusive property of the illiberal left.
Living in this new reality can be terrifying. Not only does each camp claim a specific definition of virtue; both have “awoken” to an existential battle of survival against the heathens on the other side. Ironically, sulking in their victimhood and insisting that the current system is “cheating people like me,” participants on both sides now want to tear it down, albeit for different reasons. It is as if we are living in a world of dueling panopticons—everyone is on the lookout for the slightest misstep before they pounce.
Seth David Radwell is the author of “American Schism: How the Two Enlightenments Hold the Secret to Healing our Nation” winner of last year’s International Book Award for Best General Nonfiction. He is a frequent contributor as a political analyst, and speaker within both the business community and on college campuses both in the U.S. and abroad.
