Over the last few years, the word “woke” has been
used, and praised, in some circles, largely misunderstood and/or ignored in
others, and castigated in some. But what about it? Is it bad to be “woke” as
some charge?
Definition of “Woke”
Perhaps it is best to start with a good definition
of “woke.” Here’s one: “Woke means being conscious of racial discrimination in society
and other forms of oppression and injustice.” This is from Dictionary.com’s “slang
dictionary,” which also summarizes the historical development of “woke.”
The above article also includes this
explanation:
Woke was quickly appropriated by mainstream white culture in the mid-2010s, to the criticism of many black observers. In many instances, woke did spread in keeping with its activist spirit, referring to awareness of other forms of injustice, such as sexism, anti-gay sentiment, and white privilege.
Criticism of “Woke” in Religious Circles
In my May 30 blog post about the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), I made a brief reference
to the new movement calling itself the Conservative Baptist Network (CBN). I
first learned about it in “Conservative Baptist Network launched amid 'woke'
trend in SBC,” a Feb. 15 Christian Post article
Being “woke” was linked to ideas CBN deems
objectionable. On their website they state
clearly, “The Network rejects various unbiblical ideologies currently affecting
the Southern Baptist Convention such as Critical Race Theory, intersectionality,
and social justice.”
Russell
Moore and Al Mohler are two prominent SBC leaders whom CBN finds most
problematic. Moore is a former professor at The Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary (SBTS, where Mohler is president) and since 2013 has been the president
of the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.
It seems quite ironic to me that Mohler, whom in
my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism I discuss as one of the four most
influential fundamentalist leaders after 1980, is now being attacked by
conservatives for being too “woke.”
The Black Lives Matter (BLM) organization was started
by people who affirm Marxism. So perhaps partly in response to the criticism of
him earlier this year for being “woke,” last month Mohler wrote an article
titled “Black Lives
Matter: Affirm the Sentence, Not the Movement.”
The BLM movement is criticized mainly because the
founders are Marxists.
Critical Race Theory (CRT), which is supposedly
being (or has been recently) taught at SBTS is seen by some as linked to
Marxism, or Marxist ideas at least. (If you need a neutral description of CRT,
check out this Encyclopedia
Britannica article.)
Among Christian conservatives and others, it
seems to be widely held that the concept of “systemic racism” is a Marxist
idea. That is one main reason why they, as well as conservative (Republican)
politicians, are prone to deny there is systemic racism in the USA.
Intersectionality basically means that “people are
often disadvantaged by multiple sources of oppression: their race, class,
gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, and other identity markers.”
This, too, gets linked to Marxism and thereby criticized.
So, SBTS is being criticized by CBN for being “woke,”
that is, too much in favor of Critical Race Theory, intersectionality, and
social justice, all linked, in one way or another to Marxism—and by extension,
perhaps, to socialism, currently the big bugaboo to the Christian Right and DJT's base.
Criticism of “Woke” in Political Circles
DJT has made some attempt to reach out to Black
citizens in the U.S. He wants and badly needs their votes if he is to have any chance
of winning the Nov. 3 election.
A webpage on the DonaldJTrump.com reelection campaign website has a page
advertising a Woke cap (for $35). The sales appeal says, “Proudly wear your
official Woke hat and show your support for our great President.”
But
in reality, DJT seems to have been moving in the opposite direction in recent
days. A July
2 article in the online Intelligencer is titled, “Trump Believes That He Is
Losing Because He Hasn’t Been Racist Enough.”
That
piece quotes DJT as saying that he wants “no more of
Jared’s woke s[**]t.”
Enough said.
Much of American evangelicalism in the 18th and 19th centuries had a critical-theoretical approach to American society. American evangelicalism has consistently, in the 20th and now 21st centuries, been an excellent example of the ideological nature of religion, confirming Feuerbach's critique of religion (Marx's source of religion critique). If American evangelicals knew what they were talking about, they'd realize their real problem is with the insights of sociology, not with Marxism per se. Marxist sociology is only one macro-school of thought in a social science that analyzes the systemic (also, organic) nature of society. It's an interesting question why and how American evangelicalism flipped from a critical to an ideological perspective in the U.S. A publisher once contracted with me to write a book that was going to be titled "The Great Reversal," examining this change in conservative Protestantism. I didn't get the book written. Perhaps that's your next book.
ReplyDeleteAnton, thanks for your helpful comments.
DeleteI was interested in what you wrote about "The Great Reversal" and your planning to write a book with that title. (And, no, that is not something I will be doing; unfortunately, my book writing days are over.)
What surprised me was that I read a good book by that name in the 1970s. The title was "The great reversal: evangelism versus social concern" and was by David O. Moberg. It was re-published in 1977 and then again with a new subtitle in 2006. It has been a very long time since I read any of that book, but I remember it as being a significant one when I read it 45 or so years ago.
Yes, it is a shame that conservative Christians tend to see Marxism primarily as an atheistic ideology rather than a serious economic system based on a sociological analysis of society. The liberation theologians of Latin America saw it as the latter, of course, but were soundly criticized not only by conservative Protestants but by the Pope as well.
For all the admitted problems with Marxism, it has at least been asking the right questions about why there are so many people in society who are poor, marginalized, downtrodden, and suffering from racial prejudice. And they see that mistreatment of large segments of humanity as based on social structures that need to be changed. Perhaps the Marxist proposals for change are not the best, but it continues to puzzle me why conservatives (whether religious or political) don't want to admit to systemic racism.
Here are pertinent comments from my faithful Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago:
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Leroy, as always, for providing some perspectives on the 'Woke' movement.
"I personally do not like the term 'woke' for rhetorical reasons; I would prefer 'awakened.'
"The term 'Marxist' is another label, along with terms such as 'conservative,' 'liberal,' or 'socialist,' which has lost much of its original meaning. Because of its negative connotations among many Americans, however, the Marxist label is conveniently being used to denigrate a movement with legitimate issues and concerns. Whether the founders of BLM are Marxists or not, I cannot say, but I doubt they are Marxists in the original, stricter sense of the term.
'Whether or not those issues and concerns are legitimate should be debated on the basis of their merits, not the labels imposed on them.
"Joe Biden famously wondered very recently why any black person would vote for Trump. Some blacks, and many predominantly black church denominations, however, are socially conservative. They oppose abortion and gay marriage, two positions, among others, which Trump has adopted. Outside of social issues, Trump has nothing to offer to people of color and, as you have pointed out, he is becoming increasingly racist in his remarks, so any support he has among racial minorities is puzzling."
Thanks for your comments, Eric. I certainly agree with your last sentence.
DeleteAccording to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, "Woke is a slang term that is easing into the mainstream from some varieties of a dialect called African American Vernacular English." So, while you and I and many other educated white people may not particularly like the way "woke" is being used, I think we have to accept the way people communicate in their language of choice. While we don't speak AAVE, those who do have the right to do so. The problem is when a word, or words, then are appropriated into the standard vernacular where it doesn't fit well.
What you said about Marxism is correct, I think, and I encourage you to read Anton Jacob's comments above and my response to him.
Although I have walked many a mile for causes shared by people who use the term "woke", I dislike "woke" for the same reasons I dislike the Christian evangelical word "saved". Both words are self-congratulatory generalizations that communicate only to those in the user club who adopt them; both are used by club members to separate the world into simplistic categories of those who are "in" and "out". What they communicate to me is glibness, smugness and arrogance.
ReplyDeleteRon, I generally agree with whatever you say/write, but I am not sure I can agree here. What you say about "woke" may be true for the way the word is used by whites, but I'm not sure it has the same negative meaning when used by Blacks.
DeleteLocal Thinking Friend Debra Sapp-Yarwood sent me an email this morning that began, "What was your source on this sentence: 'The Black Lives Matter (BLM) organization was started by people who affirm Marxism.'? This is the first time I've read that."
ReplyDeleteHere is the reply I have just sent her:
Thanks for reading my new blog article, Debra, and for your question. I have seen several references to them being Marxists, and I don't know now what my primary "source" was. And I was surprised that a Google search didn't yield much in that regard. But there was this article [*] in the June 25 issue of the New York Post; it is titled "Black Lives Matter co-founder describes herself as ‘trained Marxist'." And it links to a 2015 interview in which Patrisse Cullors, one of the three founders, said clearly that she and one of the other two founders are "trained Marxists." Here is the link[**] to that interview; what she said about being a trained Marxist is shortly after the seven-minute mark. (BTW, the New York Post is a tabloid newspaper now, but it was founded by Alexander Hamilton in 1801, as I learned a few minutes ago. It went downhill after Rupert Murdock bought it in 1976.)
In Al Mohler's article denouncing the BLM movement, he emphasizes that it is "grounded in destructive Marxist ideology." I was surprised to see that in that article, at least, he didn't refer to the founders as being Marxists."
* https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/
** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCghDx5qN4s&feature=youtu.be
Leroy:
DeleteYour recent blog certainly "woke" me up to a new term. I must confess that I haven't heard the term before. I am disappointed about the "Black Lives Matter"movement. The rioting and destruction of property have gotten out of control and ruined the movement's credibility. Police brutality is also disappointing so it looks like both sides need to do some work on their public relations and attitudes. That's the best I have on this, Leroy.
Thanks for your email about my article.
Truett
Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky wrote,
ReplyDelete"I’m not too keen on using slang. It is too easily twisted. But I support the Black Lives Movement even if it has Marxist connections. It highlights terrible inequities in our society that I want to see addressed."
Thanks for your comments, Dr. Hinson. As I have indicated in response to other comments above, the slang is a part of African American Vernacular English, and Blacks have the right to use their own dialect. The problem is when that is appropriated by the general public, and some Blacks have, perhaps fittingly, objected to that appropriation.
DeleteAnd, yes, we in dominant society need to listen to the BLM movement regardless of what group(s) it may be associated with in order to understand better the inequalities and injustice so widespread in American society.
After I became totally confused in attempting to get a clear definition of Marxism, I decided that what ever it meant or now means, those who oppose BLM base on their thinking negatively (and in my opinion faulty) concerning those who do not fit the traditional mold concerning gender preference, who constitutes a family, or which authority figure to place on top. I recently viewed an updated "Doll" experiment and learned that children as young as five have already absorbed the prejudices of their parents/adults who care for them. Therefore, we would all do well to look beyond the particular dialect and affirm the message of liberty and justice for ALL.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Virginia Belk, for your comments. (I'm sorry blogspot.com posted you as Unknown instead of using your name.)
DeleteBeing woke is good, but calling yourself woke is presumptuous (a.k.a. not sufficiently humble). If a black person calls a white person woke, it’s probably a compliment. But if a white person calls another white person woke, it’s probably intended to be a sarcastic insult (assuming that only a DJT supporter would do so).
ReplyDeleteThanks, Clif. I think your comments were correct and helpful.
DeleteLocal Thinking Friend Will Adams, who is William Jewell College Political Science Professor Emeritus, sent the following significant comments within the past hour:
ReplyDelete"So Black Lives Matter, Critical Race Theory, systemic racism, intersectionality, social justice, and being woke, are all linked to Marxism. When I went to school, Marxism was a theory of history that alleged that '[t]he history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of the class struggle.' When primitives enslaved those whom they defeated in war, slaveholders became the ruling class because their use of slaves enabled them to exercise more power than those without slaves. Over time, however, land owners grew in power and eventually overthrew slave holders, becoming the ruling class and ushering in feudalism. Still later, merchants and tradesmen (the bourgeoisie) came to control the dominant means of production and overthrew feudalism, establishing capitalism. In time, however, the working class (proletariat) will acquire more power and will overthrow capitalism, ushering in socialism and a classless society. What does all this have to do with BLM, CRT, etc.?
"The reasoning goes something like this: Some of those supporting these ideas and movements are Marxists, therefore these ideas and movements must be Marxist. And Marxism is, of course, bad, therefore these ideas and movements are all bad.
"By that logic, if I am at the same time a Democrat and a Baptist, and Democrats are of course subversives (according to the Trumpist Republicans), then the Baptist faith is also subversive and must be rejected.
"Labeling, and therefore rejecting, is a common tactic critics of any idea or movement often use to short circuit reasoning and persuade some gullible people to reject an idea or movement without considering it analytically. As a teacher for over 60 years I struggled to get students to use their brains rather than their emotions and look at things without labelling them. Sometimes I even succeeded. But I guess that is a battle that is never won."
Dr. Adams, thank you so much for taking the time to write such significant comments about yesterday's blog article. Clear thinking is, unfortunately, a rather rare commodity, it seems, and I will credit you when/if I use your comments in other places.
ReplyDeleteHere are comments received yesterday from Thinking Friend Virginia Belk in New Mexico. (She refers to Fred, who is her husband; they both were in the same 1959 graduating class at William Jewell College with June and me.)
ReplyDelete"I asked Fred about Marx & Marxism; he referred me to a passage in one of his European History books. I now understand Marx's theory. I read Freire's theory on oppression years ago and like his idea's on restorative justice; I also read Vine Deloria's description of how that worked for plains tribes.
"Navajo/Dine' collaborative negotiations to settle differences fits in nicely. And I also read Part of Nancy Isenberg's 'White Trash. The Untold History of Class in America.' The free enterprise of capitalism vs. socialistic democracy appears to have become not only a struggle between the rich and the poor but a struggle between White Trash and People of Color. The latter feel that it is now or never to gain the God given rights; WASP Fundamentalists use a single scripture reference in the OT as the basis for their definition of The Family; BLM founders, due to slavery history had a differing definition; many Indigenous People trace lineage through the mother, as well. All races have those with differing gender orientation but Indigenous people seem to have accepted and accommodated much more easily than Caucasian groups. I'm not sure where Africans were on this issue, but African Americans seem to have absorbed the prejudices of their Caucasian captors' ancestors. THAT, I believe is the basis for Mohler's stance on accept the principle, not the words.
"I think it is important to understand what is behind or underlying the stance someone or some group takes before we can begin to negotiate a compromise...(and I mean true negotiation, NOT imposing sanctions, etc. as is the policy of our federal government...)."