In a somewhat recent Dark Horse Podcast interview with Peter Boghossian, Dr. Bret Weinstein pondered if “Wokism” (which he calls a “mind-disease”) is a kind of foreign, psy-op act of warfare.
Having studied for a decade now many of the concepts that are often referred to as woke these days, I found myself intrigued.
There are three considerations to unpack here: first, what is Wokism; second, is Wokism a “mind-disease;” and third, could it have been imported as a form of cultural warfare?
Before we can interrogate these, however, we should get some First Principles established and out of the way.
As such, in the first installment of this series, I’ll begin by delving into the American-racial component of what it means to be “Woke.”
Woke
Grasping Wokeness is a difficult circle to square, particularly given that the term Woke has lost much of its original designation. Like the now-defunct SJW, there’s little shortage of things people won’t throw it at:
Granted, that article is little more than a strategic cherry-pick of random commentary (which not-accidentally distracts from the functionality of the term in common parlance). Nevertheless, it does still have value.
The word, I mean. Not the article.
It seems clear that at the very least, there is a through-line of most modern usage, which is a kind of ideological activism. Going back to some of its earliest roots, Lead Belly used it as a call to action, warning traveling black people of lynch mobs in the Jim Crow South. This is an interesting contrast with, perhaps, Childish Gambino, who said “stay woke” to express concerns of infidelity, albeit warning of a very different kind of creeping danger. I’ve argued before that it’s the Left’s “Red Pill,” inasmuch as they both denote an awakening to a perceived mental enslavement or threat, just through different ideological lenses — indeed, these days I’d go further to say that it’s waking to “Critical Consciousness.” Considering all of this, my definition here is to conflate a specific kind of awareness and action, particularly in regards to the various branches of post-Civil Rights’ “New Left” or “Neo-Progressivism.”
But if activism is a necessary component to a progressive civilization — which it absolutely is — how can Wokism be a mind-disease? Furthermore, wouldn’t this mean MLK was woke? If not, what’s different?
Is Veganism woke?
To find an answer, we need to touch on how Civil Rights and “New Left” philosophies, especially the action component of their activism, diverge.
Anti-Racism: Introduction
As Boghossian says, the contemporary “Woke Revolution” bears roots in Marx, Foucault, Derrida, etc. This is heralding back to Conflict and Critical Theory, specifically. Yet, perhaps it solidified its form as we know it through works such as Kimberlé Crenshaw’s “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women,” or Derrick Bell’s “Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of Racism.” We can certainly draw a direct line between Judy Katz’s 1978 group training guide, “White Awareness, A Handbook for Anti-Racism Training” and Robin DiAngelo’s more familiar, 2018 book, “White Fragility,” or the perhaps more-on-the-nose, “How to be an Antiracist” by Ibram X Kendi.
Now, I’ll take a moment to admit I’ll be doing a bit of conflation here among different thinkers for convenience, and having engaged their work, I can certainly appreciate the variance among their views and beliefs. However, this nevertheless is an honest attempt to steelman a framework, which they appear to share, as I’m certain that its relevance to the concept of Wokeness can’t be overstated.
This is likewise an effort to steelman my impression of Weinstein’s approach, as well as to clarify my own. My intention here isn’t to argue for or against these ideas, but to simply offer a brief overview of them.
Having said that, for the sake of this piece, I believe we can fairly aggregate the underlying themes of these thinkers with the moniker, “Anti-Racist.” This is not to be confused with simply not being racist: Anti-Racist (or Antiracist as Kendi spells it) here means activism, given that, to DiAngelo, Kendi, and Katz before them, just “not being racist” isn’t enough.
One further crucial distinction goes beyond just the activism component, to the specific agenda of said activism: many may agree on a problem yet disagree on the solution.
To wit — You can not-be racist, be opposed to racism itself, and even be an activist fighting racism, and still not be an “Anti-Racist.”
The foundation of the Anti-Racist model can be summed up by the following principles:
All races are born equal.
Therefore, all racial inequities are the result of systemic, or unseen, racism.
Racism is so inherent in our system that it cannot be removed or changed.
Therefore, the only solution to racism is to either dismantle the system or fight discrimination with discrimination.
Note that “inequity” is not to be mistaken for “inequality;” though the words are often analogous, in the Anti-Racist vernacular, equality means “equality of opportunity” whereas equity means “equality of outcome.”
To the Anti-Racist, there can be no such thing as equality of opportunity, be it from the lingering ramifications of slavery, Jim Crow, and Redlining, to disabilities, and generational wealth, among other concerns. They believe the concept of equality of opportunity is the proverbial dangling-carrot of the status quo — a tool for the hegemony to maintain power.
As Kendi notes:
Reasonably, in order to establish what kind of “Antiracist Discrimination” needs to be applied, there must be a vigorous investigation into institutional dynamics.
Intersectionality
Anti-Racists believe that the experience of oppression impacts various identities in different ways. They will consider many different traits as identities, be they race, sex, gender, disability, etc.; so long as there is a perceived power struggle between the dominant identity and another, you can find an application of that identity in a matrix of oppression, painting the experience of the person. Indeed, though there are potential exceptions, each identity is believed to generally have a “lived experience.”
This is to say, a white person cannot understand the black experience any more than a man can understand that of a woman, and so on. The oppression of a male vis-à-vis female dynamic will be different than white vis-à-vis black dynamic. Therefore, a black woman will experience a different kind of oppression than a black man.
Kimberlé Crenshaw coined this as “Intersectionality.”
This means approaching various intersected-identities in different ways. As Crenshaw observed:
Perhaps expanding on the value of such intersections, Audre Lorde wrote There is No Hierarchy of Oppression, arguing that all identities vie for power, and the various identities are complex and inextricable — she was not black first and gay second, she was both simultaneously. To her, there must therefore be a coalition of intersected-identities:
“Within the lesbian community I am Black, and within the Black community I am a lesbian. Any attack against Black people is a lesbian and gay issue, because I and thousands of other Black women are part of the lesbian community. Any attack against lesbians and gays is a Black issue, because thousands of lesbians and gay men are Black.”
Like most Anti-Racists, Lorde believed that all identities were consistently vying for power. To that point, the concept of power is crucial to this framework — remember, egalitarianism isn’t possible, there only exists a continuous struggle for that power in dominance. The result is to view society through a systemic lens of various collectives, each of which interface uniquely with the overarching power dynamic, yet unify as a counter to the dominant identities maintaining the power to oppress.
Whether divisive or unified, to the Intersectionalist, identity is paramount; any sense of individual-self is molded by the lived experiences of one’s identities. Thus, such identities must be placed at the forefront to participate in the continuous work of Anti-Racism.
Institutional Racism
At the core of this framework is a reimagening of racism itself; no longer simple racial prejudice, Anti-Racists posit that racism should be understood as prejudice in conjunction with perceived institutional power, or P+P=R (prejudice plus power equals racism).
This concept was first presented in 1972, by Patricia Bidol-Padva, in Developing New Perspectives on Race: An Innovative Multi-media Social Studies Curriculum in Racism Awareness for the Secondary Level.
Bidol argued that only those with institutional hegemony had any real power to enact racism. This is to say, though a white person can be the victim of racial prejudice, they would suffer no true harm from it — being called an anti-white slur wouldn’t impact their ability to find a job — yet conversely, they could enact real harm through their own use of the prejudice.
This naturally changes the focus of racism: with the redefinition, only white people can be “racist,” and all baked-in baggage of the historically-charged label automatically relates to systems as opposed to interpersonal engagement, and as a white concern as opposed to a human concern.
Of course, this isn’t to ignore non-white racial prejudice entirely. In her 1983 book, In Search of Our Mothers’ Gardens, Alice Walker coined the term Colorism to describe “prejudicial or preferential treatment of same-race people based solely on their color.” The term has grown in the wake of the P+P redefinition, both to explore the importance of observing shades of color (specifically when contrasting degrees of oppression even amongst black vis-à-vis black dynamics, for example) and to have an expression for racial prejudice from non-Whites with their own race. For some, the term has expanded to mean any BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) vs another, which is to say, any “non-white” with another “non-white.”
Obviously, a companion to this redefinition is a generalized understanding that America is inherently an "imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" that thrives on "Whiteness" and overtly, as well as inadvertently, manifests a zero-sum which empowers white people while discriminating against BIPOC, chiefly gay women of African descent.
Echoing Lorde, such an approach necessitates a distinction between all oppressed identities and the oppressor; it’s here that we see the common use of BIPOC, or POC (People of Color) before it, to indicate, in a discussion of race, “being specifically not-white.” Likewise, we see a similar approach with the LGBTQ+ label (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, etc.), which is to indicate, in discussions of sex, gender, etc., “being specifically not-straight, Cis, Male,” and so on.
In Anti-Racist vernacular, the word “Inclusion” therefore means something different than what one might think. Whereas the latter is understood as the inclusivity of various things, such as all races coming together, the former means the explicit inclusion of BIPOC. Viewing the world as white dominant, it follows that the inclusion of white people would be grossly unnecessary, or worse, would further empower the inequity of racial participation. Therefore, “inclusion” necessitates an exclusion of this specific identity.
Through this lens, there will always be a Black America that is mutually exclusive from a White America, and, as Kendi said, the only solution is Anti-Racist discrimination.
Whiteness
Smithsonian’s National museum of African American History & Culture
To the Anti-Racist, American hegemony is Whiteness, or White Culture.
Whiteness is somewhat vaguely defined as a general term, though there are plenty of in-depth examples given by various authors, as seen in the chart above. Most simply, I see it referred to as:
“…a shorthand for the privileges and power that people who appear white receive because they are not subjected to the racism faced by people of colour and Indigenous people.” (Emphasis theirs.)
Yet, even Whiteness can be seen as malleable. When pressed by Stephen Colbert on The Late Show — “As demographics change and white people become a minority, will there be a positive stray from Whiteness?” (paraphrased) — his guest, author, MacArthur Fellow, and “one of the most influential black intellectuals of his generation,” Ta-Nehisi Coates responded:
“Your question assumes there’s a static definition of whiteness.”
He goes on to reference when the Irish were not considered white, as with Italians and Jewish people (whom indeed, many do not consider themselves to be white). While these people are considered white by most modern standards (certainly by the CARED definition above), they historically experienced their own cultural and institutional oppression. Even these days, some go so far as to say non-white people who benefit from this system embody “Whiteness” or “White Culture.” In fact, Asians are sometimes seen as white adjacent or a model minority.
Regardless of how we view the social and political construct of Whiteness (or more apropos, whom may benefit from it), when observing this diagnosis, Coates would say the prognosis is poor, and that that there is no hope, perhaps because the system is just that racist.
Cultural Appropriation
According to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History & Culture, the establishment of Black Culture emerged in the 1960s and ‘70s. They sum the concept up with the phrase, “Black is beautiful.”
The term is intended to inspire a sense of acceptance and pride in being black. This reasonable counter to centuries of oppression would influence the cultivation of a unique vernacular, as well as the embrace of their own hair stylings, fashion, music, and art.
In 1971, scholar Addison Gayle published “The Black Aesthetic,” a series of essays that plead for black people to embrace their own aesthetic and identity, to eschew European paradigms. The project demonstrated an already fever pitched drive to not only refute White America, but to find their own sense of self.
The sanctity of this distinction is paramount. To wear an afro with a pick was not simply fashion, it was a statement. It was activism. To speak differently than the king’s english was to fight back against the ever-present racism of the country.
Incidentally, I believe it’s this very sanctity for which we see such an ardent defense of “Black Culture” from Anti-Racists, particularly in debates over black culture’s role in modern inequities.
Nevertheless, the logic also follows, then, that the idea of white people adopting this culture is problematic, principally being the very identity from which black Americans are seeking to distance themselves. This is compounded by the idea that white adoption erases the black history of such cultural artifacts.
In 2018, the Oxford English Dictionary updated its definition of Cultural Appropriation to read:
“…the unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the practices, customs, or aesthetics of one social or ethnic group by members of another (typically dominant) community or society.”
The term is rather old, however. Its usage heralds back to Anti-Racist academia in the 1980’s, specifically touching on Colonialism and systemic power dynamics. Britannica expands on this:
“Cultural appropriation takes place when members of a majority group adopt cultural elements of a minority group in an exploitative, disrespectful, or stereotypical way.”
Now, it would be easy to assume that, when we contrast this with the established concept of White Supremacy and the power dynamic of white vis-à-vis BIPOC, cultural appropriation is limited to white people adopting other cultures (not just Black Culture). Indeed, many casually presume as much.
Video: A white San Francisco State University student assaulted for wearing dreadlocks (a hairstyle often falsely assumed to be exclusively an aspect of black culture).
Yet the term certainly can include POC. Perhaps the most public example is award winning musician, Bruno Mars, who was challenged in 2018. The accusation sparked debates, calling for more clarification of what truly constitutes appropriation.
When asked about these claims, the artist defended himself, pointing to the credit he’s given to his inspiration — the artists and culture that came before him:
"This music comes from love and if you can't hear that, I don't know what to tell you…"
Regardless, this is far from obscure. Even the NIH (National Institute of Health) weighed in on the subject. In attempting to clarify the difference of Cultural Appropriation and Cultural Appreciation, they wrote:
“Appreciating different cultures and traditions is encouraged with some caution—culture is not a hobby or a collectible item, it is a meaningful part of life, identity, and community. To start appreciating a culture different from your own, begin with good intentions and learn about the culture. This involves avoiding the temptation to assign new meaning to "cultural markers (such as food, clothing, or physical appearance).”
Despite these efforts, many remain loose with their use of the term, and the value of Black Culture to the Anti-Racist framework is absolutely paramount.
Microaggressions
When one approaches the world through an activist mindset, one invariably becomes sensitive to the nuances and subtleties of their adversity. In the Anti-Racist model, this is known as Microaggressions.
Microaggression, as a concept, was first coined by Harvard Professor, Dr. Chester Middlebrook Pierce, and was well-described by Derald W. Sue as:
"The everyday slights, indignities, put downs and insults that people of color, women, LGBT populations or those who are marginalized experiences in their day-to-day interactions with people."
At first blush, this references the subtle examples of being racist/sexist/etc., like saying “you’re one of the good ones,” asking “what do your people think about that?” or using identity slurs casually, such as calling a genre of music “gay.”
It does, however, often go beyond this, from encompassing anything triggering an insensitivity to even toeing political agendas. As Medical News Today notes, it’s a microaggression to simply not find the Washington Redskins’ name offensive (which would ironically include the Blackfeet man who designed it); to not want to use any given gender identity; or to even recognize that a hire based on race is a “diversity hire.” Some find simply presenting obesity or transgenderism (Gender Dysphoria) as health concerns to be a microaggression, even though the former is linked to a plethora of negative health conditions and the latter is represented in the present DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition).
There is no universal, comprehensive, static list of microaggressions, and there really isn’t a clear limit to what can be considered one. As a result, much of the concept is predicated on subjectivity and emotion. Reflecting the general Woke consensus on the matter, Harvard Business Review shirks context in instructing us on how to respond to a microaggression accusation; in their coverage, there’s no space even given to the possibility that the inference could be unjustified, that the recipient could be wrong. It’s generally assumed that the onus lay upon the accused, regardless of intent.
Cancel Culture
While it certainly works to the benefit of the Anti-Racist (as silencing opposition does for any political agenda or ideology), Cancel Culture is not an aspect of Anti-Racism.
It is, however, a crucial facet of Wokeism, and it’s here that we start to explore the cleanest distinction of what one truly expects from the woke. Also, while Anti-Racists don’t typically call for the explicit removal of their interlocutors outright, they certainly can make comfy bedfellows with Cancel Culture, specifically given some views on freedom of speech, as well as a penchant toward the activist maxim that “the ends justify the means.”
The debate over speech, of course, is very old, and wound in the fibers of American history. As John Stuart Mill wrote:
“The only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind.”
And, of course, many have heard Associate Justice to the United States Supreme Court Louis Brandeis’ old adage, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
Like the concept of equality, however, many Anti-Racists are less trusting of such unregulated speech. They see this as another tool of the powerful to maintain the status quo. They also believe it is less effective in combating institutional racism.
In Images of the Outsider in American Law and Culture: Can Free Expression Remedy Systemic Social Ills, prominent Critical Race Theorists Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic coined the term “Empathic Fallacy” to address the notion that:
"…we can somehow control our consciousness despite limitations of time and positionality ... and that we can enlarge our sympathies through linguistic means alone."
They contest the premise that “good” Anti-Racist speech is the best remedy for “Bad” racist speech, and, as NPR adds,
“…the empathic fallacy leads us to believe that "good" speech begets racial justice and that we will be able to tell the difference between it and racist hate speech because we are distanced, objective arbiters.”
The “Marketplace of Ideas,” some say, simply serves to maintain white hegemony. It can even “enslave the mind.”
All the same, many of Cancel Culture’s proponents say that it doesn’t actually exist. Arguing with an air of disappointment, they ask how it could when J.K.Rowling is still writing books, Joe Rogan is still on top of the world, and Dave Chappelle continues to perform to sold out stadiums?
But as Laci Greene noted in 2021, the real impact of Cancel Culture isn’t the “Too Big to Fail” figures, but the unspoken average folk who bear the brunt of most woke practices. And there is little denying that if you ask a lay-person what they think is woke, they’ll likely point to some variation of Cancel Culture from the outset.
Anti-Racism: Supplemental
Returning to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture, they did remove their chart after receiving a good deal of backlash. How could concepts like hard work, independence, optimism (“tomorrow will be better”) and objectivity be aspects of Whiteness? The implication that other races were incapable of achieving such things, or that these were tools specifically used by white people to suppress others, or that they were inherently bad at all, baffled the lay-thinker.
The museum apologized and the story ended. Yet, nothing presented was actually new: indeed, these are the very concepts covered in Katz’s “White Awareness,” and actively taught by DiAngelo and Kendi. This is the Anti-Racist diagnosis, and these very precepts are being presented across the country, not only in business trainings, but in government and, most importantly, schools.
Only just last year, for example, educators were sharing the document Dismantling Racism in Mathematics Instruction. Consider the language used:
“The framework for deconstructing racism in mathematics offers essential characteristics of antiracist math educators and critical approaches to dismantling white supremacy in math classrooms by visualizing the toxic characteristics of white supremacy culture.” (Emphasis mine.)
As author and professor of Linguistics John McWhorter observes, their outlook is that “focusing on getting the right answer;” to require students “show work;” for it be of concern when expectations of a student aren’t met; and even the expectation of a student raising their hands before speaking, are each an instance of Whiteness and must be addressed.
A more recent example is a teacher’s union agreement that white teachers should be laid off first, regardless of tenure. This, of course, is being called into Constitutional question. In anticipation for such a reaction to such a proposal, Ibram X. Kendi has called for an amendment designed to circumvent already-enshrined anti-discrimination protections in the name of bolstering “racial equity,” while also establishing a “Department of Anti-Racism” that would be:
In April of 2021, The Department of Education released a proposal for public comment, stating that $100 million in federal funds should prioritize “Anti-Racist” pedagogy. Speaking to Kendi’s legitimacy of institutional influence, their proposal referenced him directly, as well as the controversial 1619 project as inspiration and an example of just what they meant with the term Anti-Racist.
Regarding the corporate world, even if your Senior Leadership team doesn’t pay for a Katz or DiAngelo seminar, SHRM (Society for Human Resources Management) has an entire series lecturing the concept of Microaggressions to Human Resources professionals (now People Operations Leaders) across the globe.
Indeed, one can find their coverage and promotion of all aspects of the Anti-Racist framework addressed in this article.
Even banking institutions are increasingly embracing the Anti-Racist discrimination.
This is only just a small handful of examples of Anti-Racism at work in our institutions. Perhaps its full presence is only just percolating through to the surface.
Critical Race Theory
While I generally refer to the Anti-Racist framework as “Neo-Progressivism” or an aspect of “Wokism,” many, especially on the political right, inaccurately call it CRT (Critical Race Theory). Christopher Rufo, a Senior Fellow at The Manhattan Institute — and arguably the man to bring mainstream awareness to CRT — certaintly does. In fact, he wants us to ascribe the label to anything unpleasant related to “cultural constructions.”
I reject this strategy; it may be effective for his cause, but it’s antithetical to an honest effort of tackling the many problems facing this country. Nevertheless, there is some truth to the correlation, and he has done well to highlight how CRT has impacted much of the world, and it can’t be disputed that thanks to him, CRT is now a household name.
Yet, what then is CRT, really? If you hear only Left leaning pundits speak on it, you’d be forgiven to think it’s some obscure, academic legal theory that’s only ever encountered in university. You might also believe that opposing CRT in schools really just means not-teaching black history, and that there aren’t correlations between the Anti-Racist agenda and Critical Race Theory.
CRT is a topic worth its own coverage, but for the sake of this article, I will attempt to keep my description concise.
In truth, contrary to what many say, it isn’t critical (in terms of critical thinking), nor a theory (in scientific terms). Rather, in its broadest sense, it is a jurisprudential, sociological lens through which one roots out hidden institutional-racism in a given social system through collectivism and systemic deconstruction. It is indeed academic, but like most academics, its application doesn’t end in the classroom.
The Anti-Racist structure is a model for instruction and action based on the understandings of the CRT lens.
Put simply, Anti-Racism is CRT praxis.
To say that the Anti-Racist agenda isn’t related to CRT is like saying Nazism was not related to Lebensraum or the concept of race itself.
However, CRT and Woke are not interchangeable. While the former plays a distinct role in the latter, CRT itself is the racial expansion of Critical Theory, which, alongside Conflict Theory, is at the trunk of this tree.
Nomenclature notwithstanding, the diagnosis is this: America was founded on white supremacy; a system that fosters oppression; and a zero-sum power dynamic (not specifically in terms of class, such as the Bourgeoisie vis-à-vis the Proletariat, but on a generalized matrix of oppression vis-à-vis oppressed, based predominantly on immutable traits) between white, straight, cis, male, etc. and everyone else.
The question is not if there is racism, but rather where is the racism?
Understanding CRT is crucial when it comes to understanding other Critical fields, such as Critical Queer Theory, but we’ll get to that later.
Conclusion
As you may have gleaned by now, I disagree with this model. While, as previously stated, I have no intentions to argue against it here, it’s my view that Anti-Racism utilizes an outdated lens and proposes to quench a flame with fire. Its diagnosis and subsequent solution to treat the modern world is to our detriment.
Having said that, I must be clear: while I don’t believe in race (I share the American Anthropological Association’s stance on the matter), I do believe that racism and sexism, etc. are alive and well, and I’m cognizant of their presence in institutional, cultural, and interpersonal contexts. Everyone can be a victim of racism. Yes, even white people. Likewise, I don’t discredit Anti-Racism entirely; I have nuanced positions on their agenda, I respect some of their prominent voices, and I do think there's a place for this lens at the table. I just think they shouldn’t hold every seat and should be reasonably, and honestly, critiqued.
Likewise, I must reiterate that not everyone referenced here is harmonious, nor is every person whom we might deem woke for that matter.
When Jill Scott expressed a struggle to extricate “the African story” of America from interracial marriage, for example, Ta-Nehisi Coates countered by exploring the individuality of such unions, and the limitations of collectivist axioms. Further, when many challenged Bruno Mars of Cultural Appropriation, the very racist publication The Root — in achieving a rare moment of intellectual honesty — held such claims to the fire. While all of the voices speaking to this topic may share a great deal of similar underlying views, particularly in regards to the construct of racism, there are yet others who might argue even Coates misses the mark by attempting to strip the weight, history, and presence of racism from the institution of marriage. Perhaps Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic might argue that shedding race from any aspect of society is simply impossible.
Regardless of such disparate minutiae, there is enough cohesion within the Anti-Racism framework to justify recognition. Yet, it is also only one part of what it means to be woke.
In my next installment, I will expand upon other branches of this tree.