What is Anti-Woke?

[mbohu 77]

10 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Anti-woke is simply an unwillingness to consider the possibility that one's choices, one's family's and friends' choices, are possibly colored by the society that they live in, along with an unwillingness to consider that the society might have inherent social biases.

Well....that may be true in respect to SOME "anti-woke" people and their beliefs and attitudes, but I really think we are missing something when we pretend that at least some of the critics of "wokeism" don't have a point at all, and are either simply racist (either in the old or the new meaning of the word) or completely unaware of systemic inequality and subconscious biases of different groups.
I'm thinking of people like John McWorther, Sam Harris, Glenn Loury, Jonathan Haidt, Bill Maher (for the fun of it!) and many other thinkers, that are very clearly aware of systemic inequalities and hidden social biases, and at the same time are concerned about certain aspects of what some call wokeism.

I know from experience, that many of us progressives simply haven't looked very deeply into the criticisms of wokeism and dismissed them out of hand, simply out of a (generally laudable) desire to side with the suppressed or disadvantaged (or those that we think to be.) After all, that has always been our project and our heart's inclination.
However, I think it does us no good to ignore well articulated and well thought out criticisms that may sound to others--less inclined to our worldview--as obviously valid and true.

The usual defenses of "if you're anti-woke you are simply unwilling to look at your (or your culture's) inherent and mostly unconscious biases and structural inequalities" or "critical race theory is only an obscure legal theory and nothing else" are somewhat weak and factually just not true--no matter how good our intentions.

Yes, there are great insights in post-modernist philosophical thought, critical theory (maybe a bit less so, in my opinion), intersectionality, and some other underlying pillars of what most people understand as "wokeism" (although most woke people do not  actually understand or are even interested in these theoretical underpinnings); but there are (in my opinion, as well in those of some damn smart people with otherwise very progressive attitudes) some REAL problems in these theories, especially when taken to the extreme. Statements like:
" there is NO objective truth, and EVERYTHING is only social construction", "since EVERYTHING is social construction, and social construction is controlled by the ones with power, ONLY power-relationships are important and relevant", "only membership in racial, sexual-orientation, sexual-identity, etc. groups determines your status and power", "intersecting group membership should therefore completely govern what you are allowed to talk about, comment on, etc.","intention is completely irrelevant and only the 'perceived offense' determines racism and sexism, etc" ....
--these are all extremes that are present and (in my opinion) problematic, and they are not solely used by the "anti-woke" to argue against "wokeism" and scare the conservative masses into a frenzy (although that is MOST CERTAINLY also happening!) These attitudes are also freely expressed (in talks, at rallies, but also in books and "scientific" papers) by proponents of the "woke" philosophy. 
To deny that, or to not make the effort to find that out, if one honestly does not believe it, is, I think, not helpful to our cause of honestly trying to address the biases, inequalities and systemic problems that clearly still exist.
I think it's worth the effort to wrestle our own knee jerk reactions and unconscious biases (how ironic!) and look into these issues more deeply. 
But then what do I know. I am a white European male, who lived his entire life not questioning his sexuality and gender identity...so I probably need to shut the F up!

[billvon 2,396]

27 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Well....that may be true in respect to SOME "anti-woke" people and their beliefs and attitudes, but I really think we are missing something when we pretend that at least some of the critics of "wokeism" don't have a point at all, and are either simply racist (either in the old or the new meaning of the word) or completely unaware of systemic inequality and subconscious biases of different groups.
I'm thinking of people like John McWorther, Sam Harris, Glenn Loury, Jonathan Haidt, Bill Maher (for the fun of it!) and many other thinkers, that are very clearly aware of systemic inequalities and hidden social biases, and at the same time are concerned about certain aspects of what some call wokeism.

That's conflating a lot into the term "woke."  Again, it means you're alert to injustice in society.  It doesn't mean, for example, that "there is NO objective truth, and EVERYTHING is only social construction."  That's philosophy, not awareness.  It doesn't mean "intersecting group membership should therefore completely govern what you are allowed to talk about and comment on."  That's selective censorship, not awareness.  Etc etc.

Now, I am sure people who call themselves woke have said all those things - indeed, probably 90% of the authors of such opinions consider themselves woke.  That does not define "woke" any more than all the republican pedophiles of late mean that pedophilia is inherently conservative.

Quote

if you're anti-woke you are simply unwilling to look at your (or your culture's) inherent and mostly unconscious biases and structural inequalities

Not really.  If you are anti-woke you are unaware of those things.  It doesn't mean you are unwilling to look; you may simply have never thought about it, or you may have been handed some very neatly packaged misinformation that tells you, for example, that if you are aware of injustice it means you hate white people.

Now, you list a lot of things above that I agree are problems, namely the attitudes that:

-unless you are gay you can't have an opinion on sexual orientation
-everyone who is white (or black, or male) is inherently blind to the problem and thus cannot fix it
-all white culture is oppression

and those are part of the inevitable backlash you get when (for example) gay people have been criminalized for centuries and they suddenly have a voice.  You are going to hear a lot of extreme, intolerant and reactionary opinions, now that gay people can't be arrested or fired for being gay,

But those positions are somewhat orthogonal to being aware of the underlying biases that caused those injustices of the past.

 

[mbohu 77]

8 minutes ago, billvon said:

Now, I am sure people who call themselves woke have said all those things - indeed, probably 90% of the authors of such opinions consider themselves woke.

Right, you always have extremes. But it's more about the ones who call themselves anti-woke, or who get called that by others. Have you listened to John McWorther, for example, or read some of his NYT articles (or maybe read his book called "woke racism"--I mean what else could be more anti-woke? I admit I haven't read that book (yet) but I've listened to him quite a bit and read his articles--on various subjects, including "wokeness") There is simply NO WAY to accuse him of not being "alert to injustice in society" or simply unaware of structural inequalities--neither can you accuse Sam Harris of that, if you listen to his podcasts.
They are strong critics of the thing that many do call "woke" (both on the pro- and anti- side)
And on the pro side: Have you read "White Fragility"? This is considered a cornerstone work in this area (I have to admit I could not get very far through it, but enough to confirm that the summaries I've heard in podcasts seem to be accurate) The conflation I may be guilty of, is not coming out of nowhere! The attitudes/philosophies/statements I mentioned, are not only criticized by the "anti-woke" but are promulgated actively and proudly by some of the strongest advocates of the "pro-woke" movement.

 

Again, to come back to the original start of the topic: There are many that are considered "anti-woke" that have very valid points to make. I think they should be listened to and their ideas integrated. They can't be dismissed as being unaware.

 

But even from a purely strategic point of view (if one wanted "wokeness"--by whatever definition one may hold--to win out) it seems to be bad strategy to simply assume and declare that the "anti-woke" are simply not aware, or unconsciously racist/sexist/etc., when it is obvious to many people who listen to them, that this just simply isn't the case. It would be good to familiarize ourselves with what they talk and write about, and what their real points are. (Even if it is just to oppose them.)

 

PS:

51 minutes ago, billvon said:

and those are part of the inevitable backlash you get when (for example) gay people have been criminalized for centuries and they suddenly have a voice.  You are going to hear a lot of extreme, intolerant and reactionary opinions,

You have a point there, of course. Yet as much as the expression of that backlash should be listened to in terms of making space for the expression of the anger/rage/etc that may be behind it--I don't think it should be listened to in terms of basing real solutions on it.

[jakee 1,254]

2 hours ago, mbohu said:

These attitudes are also freely expressed (in talks, at rallies, but also in books and "scientific" papers) by proponents of the "woke" philosophy. 

Give some examples.

[wmw999 2,121]

I see there being a difference between being "not woke" and "anti woke," kind of like the difference between being the kind of atheist who says "there's no evidence for a god, so I don't think there is one," and the one who says "there IS NO GOD!!!" And to me, anti-woke is closer to the second; it acknowledges the discomfort that the declarer has with the topic. Whenever someone expects that every.single.instance of data counter to an assertion be justified (when we're not talking about disproving a scientific/physical/chemical theory -- those generally have much simpler rules because of how they're bounded), then they're anti-woke, not just not-woke.

And bringing up the fact that some blacks owned slaves, or the fact that some indentured servants were treated cruelly, or some women abuse men, etc. really kind of points one at the difference between denial and cluelessness.

Wendy P.

[gowlerk 1,910]

10 hours ago, BIGUN said:

I agree about internal guilt vs. using it as a weapon.

If teaching the facts makes someone feel guilty then so be it. But making children feel guilty for what their ancestors did is unlikely. What children or people in general do you know who assume responsibility for the actions of others? Why would white children feel guilty, it is not in human nature and especially not in the nature of children to believe that their parents are anything but old fools. The whole concept of history making children feel guilty is just a total bullshit excuse for hiding unpleasant things we would rather not dwell on. 

 

[billvon 2,396]

10 hours ago, mbohu said:

Right, you always have extremes. But it's more about the ones who call themselves anti-woke, or who get called that by others. Have you listened to John McWorther, for example, or read some of his NYT articles (or maybe read his book called "woke racism"--I mean what else could be more anti-woke? I admit I haven't read that book (yet) but I've listened to him quite a bit and read his articles--on various subjects, including "wokeness") There is simply NO WAY to accuse him of not being "alert to injustice in society" or simply unaware of structural inequalities--neither can you accuse Sam Harris of that, if you listen to his podcasts.

I don't claim that anyone who says they are "anti-woke" have no good ideas, or are unaware of injustice.  Those good ideas, however, are not "anti-woke."

Let's take a recent comparison.  Anti-vaxxers were a big thing around the time that the first COVID vaccines came out.  Some were just nuts and thought that Bill Gates was putting 5G mind control chips in the vaccines.  Most were just ignorant.  But a few who supported their claims were quite intelligent; some were even doctors.  America's Frontline Doctors, for example, were pretty rabidly anti-vaccination, and regularly appealed to the anti-vax crowd in their communications.

Now, these are educated people; some were indeed doctors although most weren't.  Do they really think that vaccines are a huge threat?  No, of course not.  (Not the sane ones anyway.)  But they used the language of the anti-vaxxers regularly - they just wanted to "make sure patients were informed of the risks."  They asked questions about "sudden adult death syndrome" and wanted more study of it.  They asked if vaccines were linked to it.  They wanted more freedom for doctors to speak out on healthcare topics.

And those are all indeed things that intelligent doctors have discussed in the past.  You can't dismiss any of them; no one would argue that patients should not be informed of risks.  So why did they get on the anti-vax side of things?  Because they wanted an audience; America's Frontline Doctors is funded by telemedicine appointments, and the more of an audience they have, the more they make.  And by saying they were anti-vax and publishing a lot of reasonable arguments, they could conflate "anti-vax" with "real science" and garner a huge audience - and that audience benefits them.

The same thing is happening here.  The people you list above are not anti-woke or unwoke; indeed, given your examples, they are quite aware of the injustices in society.  But there is a huge backlash against being woke, because people don't want to hear about (for example) how blacks are killed by cops far more often than whites.  So by saying they are anti-woke and then publishing woke articles, they garner a huge anti-woke audience (people who are truly anti-woke) who are seeking validation for their approach.

In fact, I would argue that many of them could make exactly the same argument and call it woke (since it does indeed point out injustice in society) - and they would immediately lose 99% of their audience.  Those people in their audiences are not listening them for enlightenment; they are looking for something to hit woke people over the head with.

Quote

Again, to come back to the original start of the topic: There are many that are considered "anti-woke" that have very valid points to make. I think they should be listened to and their ideas integrated. They can't be dismissed as being unaware.

Oh, I agree.  But Karl Marx, Machiavelli, Ted Kaczynski and Rush Limbaugh all made great points in their writings as well.  Their points cannot be dismissed as invalid either.  But that doesn't validate terrorism, Marxism or far right ideology.

Quote

 it seems to be bad strategy to simply assume and declare that the "anti-woke" are simply not aware, or unconsciously racist/sexist/etc., when it is obvious to many people who listen to them, that this just simply isn't the case. 

That comes from the definition.  It's not a "strategy."  I mean, is it a strategy to claim that anti-vaxxers oppose vaccines?  Or is that just the definition of the word?

[billvon 2,396]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Why would white children feel guilty . . . 

Because certain right wing groups gain political ammunition if they do feel that way.

[mbohu 77]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

...In fact, I would argue that many of them could make exactly the same argument and call it woke (since it does indeed point out injustice in society) - and they would immediately lose 99% of their audience....

The entire first section of your last reply boils down to the argument: "They are not arguing in good faith." I think this is not at all true of the specific people I listed. But it is also a point that simply cannot be argued, as we cannot objectively observe their intentions. Yet, if you listen to any of them, I think the indications are pretty obvious. One thing can be judged objectively though, and that is that all of them had huge audiences before they ever talked about wokeness or related topics. So no, Sam Harris would not loose 99% of his audience. In fact, his other views--for example on religion, on trump, on science, etc.--are so diametrically opposed to most of the audience that I think you are describing, that it's hard to imagine he has a large audience in that group at all.

 

9 hours ago, billvon said:

Oh, I agree.  But Karl Marx, Machiavelli, Ted Kaczynski and Rush Limbaugh all made great points in their writings as well.  Their points cannot be dismissed as invalid either.  But that doesn't validate terrorism, Marxism or far right ideology.

Not sure how someone arguing against some aspects of what is called "wokeism" is related to terrorism? However, yes: There are extremely valid observations and realizations in Marxism, and yes, they should be engaged with honestly and should even be adopted, where they point to truth, and the fact is they HAVE been adopted in our culture...just no one admits or remembers where they come from (actually some underlying principles in wokeism have their roots in ideas, first popularized by Marx) and of course the same is true about Machiavelli. Haven't read Kaczynski, but a search says that "The manifesto argues against accepting individual technological advancements as purely positive without accounting for their overall effect"--well, I doubt he's the first to say that, but it's hard to argue that this idea doesn't have value (maybe we can just go to a different source?)...Ok, with Limbaugh you got me!
Not sure what you are trying to get at with "terrorism": only one of the 4 you mention has anything to do with terrorism and none of the people I mentioned does.

I may be missing your point here.

 

9 hours ago, billvon said:

I mean, is it a strategy to claim that anti-vaxxers oppose vaccines? 

No. Neither would be saying that people who oppose aspects of "wokeism" oppose aspects of "wokeism". But saying they are unaware of systemic inequalities is either just false (when applied to people who have written about these topics extensively, so cannot be unaware of them) or it is a rhetorical strategy.

[billvon 2,396]

54 minutes ago, mbohu said:

The entire first section of your last reply boils down to the argument: "They are not arguing in good faith."

Some are, some aren't.  Some are simply pushing their (valid) observations while trying to get a larger audience, and saying they are "anti-woke" gets them a huge audience - and they figure their observations are orthogonal to the woke-or-not axis.  Some really believe that being woke is defined as teaching kindergarteners how to have gay sex by drag queens, and of COURSE they don't support that!

But others know full well what it means, and are just doing what makes them the most money.  (Not referring to the people you have listed here.)

Quote

Not sure what you are trying to get at with "terrorism"

Simply that if someone has a valid point, that does not mean that idea defines (or is even relevant to)  the group they are in.  The fact that Ted Kaczynski had good points does not mean that terrorists are taking a valid approach, and that a more peaceful approach is invalid.  I am sure if someone said "terrorism makes some good points!  Look at Ted's manifesto!" you would argue that just because he makes good points, that does not support his use of violence.

And just because someone who claims they are anti-woke makes good points, that does not show the value in ignoring injustice in society.

Quote

There are extremely valid observations and realizations in Marxism, and yes, they should be engaged with honestly and should even be adopted, where they point to truth, and the fact is they HAVE been adopted in our culture.

OK great, I agree.  Now imagine that someone who were arguing those Marxist axioms while saying they were anti-Marxist - because they wanted conservatives to support them.  That's the situation we have here.  If someone did that, they either do not understand the terms they are using, or are intentionally misleading people.

A more common case is seeing someone claim over and over that they hate socialism - and also advocate for more spending for veteran's hospitals, police, roads and support for military families.  To them, socialism is simply "that which is bad," and the socialism they support is not bad and therefore is not socialism.

Quote

Neither would be saying that people who oppose aspects of "wokeism" oppose aspects of "wokeism". But saying they are unaware of systemic inequalities is either just false  . . . or it is a rhetorical strategy.

Agreed.  It is false; they are indeed woke according to the definition of the word.

[mbohu 77]

On 5/9/2023 at 9:33 PM, billvon said:

Some are, some aren't. 

 

On 5/9/2023 at 9:33 PM, billvon said:

(Not referring to the people you have listed here.)

Yes, I was just talking about the specific people I mentioned (even though, yes, I could probably list a few more examples). But again, in the case of these individuals, it's hard to argue that they are acting in bad faith or craving a right-wing anti-woke audience.
And of course, I could list a whole lot more people where what you say applies. (Well, maybe I can't. I just don't listen much to them.)

On 5/9/2023 at 9:33 PM, billvon said:

And just because someone who claims they are anti-woke makes good points, that does not show the value in ignoring injustice in society.

Absolutely. I don't think they are. Neither am I intending to, by pointing out they make some good points.

On 5/9/2023 at 9:33 PM, billvon said:

they are indeed woke according to the definition of the word.

Yeah but see, that is kind of an anti-woke statement in itself . Because the woke thing would be to let them define their own identity on their own terms, and they do identify as anti-woke or at least woke-critical.

and wait, where have we heard this before:

you are really a ..... because the definition of the word ..... is .......?

Insert <man> <man> and <having a penis>. ...and the statement is anti-woke
Insert <racist> <racist> and <advantaged by structural inequalities> (or simply <white, male, cisgendered and heterosexual>) ...and the statement becomes woke