Russians

[Menger 79]

A further clarification may be in order: the term “woke” reportedly originated on the left. However, it is now predominantly used (largely as a pejorative) by everyone except the left.  That is the use I am seeking to explain. 
 

From the perspective of the left, “woke” is a nothing burger, devoid of meaning, mere “political correctness”, or perhaps universal truth. Like fish in water might be unaware of water. 

[TomGoodheart 373]

To me "woke" is just a dismissive term for things some people don't like. It's become so much a catch all it's almost meaningless beyond a rallying cry.

Were philanthropists such as Lever 'woke'? They'd have possibly said they were spreading the ideals of Christian brotherhood. Similarly those who opened university education to women or advanced suffrage. All things that I suggest, were they proposed today, might get shot down by some.

Leftists (I include myself) just feel there could be more compassion and recognition of the difficulties faced by 'under-dogs' in society, whether they are poor, an ethnic or religious minority, or differ from the majority in some other way. However it feels as if almost any attempt to provide opportunities for them to achieve their potential, or to recognise that they do struggle because of the attitudes within society, is often labelled as woke.

Of course, to question how a number of so called Christian conservatives drifted so far from the message of Christ and now actively focus on issues such as gender, abortion, sexuality, to further divide society and ridicule those that disagree with them, is peak woke. That they play a part in punitive laws against, homosexuality and womens rights being introduced in parts of Africa, Russia or Hungary is not something often discussed in our media. Perhaps because they are busy targeting refugees. How woke of me to suggest it.

[Menger 79]

6 minutes ago, TomGoodheart said:

 Were philanthropists such as Lever 'woke'?

Was their philanthropy based on racial, sexual or gender criteria? 

[TomGoodheart 373]

15 minutes ago, Menger said:

Was their philanthropy based on racial, sexual or gender criteria? 

Well, they were generally supportive of womens suffrage and wider access to society. And likely anti-slavery. As for gender, that's a more modern issue as science and society have progressed, though there were people living as another gender as far back as the 19th century .. I expect they would have been labelled 'liberal' and criticised for interfering with a free market and 'tradition' ..

Ultimately I see this through the lens of those detective stories where one has to ask 'who benefits/gains from this?' 

If you are a weak and not particularly popular leader, what better way to dilute your opposition than to get the general population angry about minor issues over the important ones? A 'war' with Ukraine distracts from problems in Russia. Abortion, gender and 'the swamp' distract from poor social support and increasing division of wealth in the US. A focus on homosexuality or religion/race distracts from questions about freedom of assembly, excessive prison terms, killings of opposition supporters elsewhere.

Woke is now just a pejorative, like 'anti-fa' or BLM for what a long time ago would probably have been thought of as part of being 'socially conscious'.

[Menger 79]

9 minutes ago, TomGoodheart said:

Well, they were generally supportive of womens suffrage and wider access to society. And likely anti-slavery. As for gender, that's a more modern issue as science and society have progressed, though there were people living as another gender as far back as the 19th century .. I expect they would have been labelled 'liberal' and criticised for interfering with a free market and 'tradition' ..

Agree. Sounds like classical liberalism (individual rights irrespective or race, sex or gender ; not group rights based on race, sex, or gender). So more John Steward Mill or Martin Luther King than Foucault or Derrida.  In other words, the antithesis of woke. 

Edited September 3, 2023 by Menger

[TomGoodheart 373]

But doesn't that ignore the connections between personal experience and larger social and political structures? Which is perhaps the purpose of weaponising such terms as woke. To get people arguing about the details, while their rights are gradually taken away.

Rights aren't like cake. Someone else getting better access to society doesn't mean everyone else gets less. We all gain when society is fairer and it's not unreasonable to judge a society by how it treats it's least members. Unfortunately the focus at the moment seems to be on those that have most and just want more. Not that that's a new thing.

[Menger 79]

3 minutes ago, TomGoodheart said:

But doesn't that ignore the connections between personal experience and larger social and political structures?

Not sure. Sounds like post-modern gobbledegook.  “Power relations” and wot not. Perhaps a good basis for a gnostic cult, but I think individual rights (irrespective of race, gender, sex or religion) have proved a better basis for western society. 

[TomGoodheart 373]

6 minutes ago, Menger said:

Not sure. Sounds like post-modern gobbledegook.  “Power relations” and wot not. Perhaps a good basis for a gnostic cult, but I think individual rights (irrespective of race, gender, sex or religion) have proved a better basis for western society. 

The personal is political

[Menger 79]

22 minutes ago, TomGoodheart said:

The personal is political

Yes indeed. This is why I am skeptical that woke (the shift of the left away from class activism to activism based on race, gender, sex or other myriad immutable characteristics) is mere “political correctness”. Any facet of a person can be converted into a group identity. The personal becomes political; and the political becomes total. No division between public and private. Precisely what the classical liberals abhorred in the total state - totalitarianism. 

Let’s hope it is a mere millennial fad. 

Edited September 3, 2023 by Menger