Woke this, cancel that: where public discourse goes to die
By Wisley Lau
Wokeness and cancel culture is a flash point for many on either side of the political spectrum (Credit: The Guardian)
For media personalities, it’s a word that gets thrown around constantly; for academics, it’s a word to be feared; for reactionaries, it’s a sign the world has gone mad; for social media, it’s a never-ending cycle of outrage; for critics, it’s a subject that has been silenced; for the public, they are disinterested. Like it or hate it, the term “woke” is dominating the current socio-political landscape of the 21st century.
Seen everywhere from angry Twitter posts to political rhetoric from the left and the right, it is everywhere in people’s discussions. Many see woke culture going too far, others argue it is a fabrication, but these reactions are all built on vague definitions and interpretations. In this text, the author will first lay out his theory of the three versions of wokeness, before analyzing and criticizing positions from all sides regarding the culture wars.
For the first version of “woke,” we look to the original meaning. In the Oxford dictionary, the word “woke” is defined as being “aware of social and political issues, especially racism.” Generally, most people—regardless of political position—fit into the definition. They are aware of social issues like racism or homophobia, and they all have a heart that wants to change society for the better. But the differing opinions on how to do that contribute to the following two definitions of “woke”: the stereotypical side and the manufactured side.
The stereotypical side is what critics call the “woke” left. Social justice warriors (SJWs) call out any form of language or opinion they don’t like, whether it’s from a university academic to a celebrity or a random person online, members of the “woke” mob use spears like tweets and hashtags to “cancel” that particular individual and blow that person’s reputation into oblivion. Many associate liberals with this definition, especially young people and university students who have especially inclusive views on minority groups like the LGBT community or people of different races or creeds.
The manufactured side of “woke” consists of members opposing the stereotypical side. Manufactured wokeness likes to foment outrage and cultural conflicts sometimes seemingly out of nowhere, deliberately agitating and “owning” the other side with “facts and logic”. This group’s expertise lies in using news and social media to rebuke and pour gasoline on the already burning dumpster fire of pointless cultural debate. This side of wokeism is more associated with conservatives; many on that side of the political aisle have cemented their political ideologies and careers by manipulating the manufactured side of the “woke” universe.
When looking at how the woke debate is handled and discussed, there are a few major criticisms targeting people who belong to either side of this debate.
First of all, how people on the left deploy “wokeness” is a problematic issue. As pointed out before, the use of stereotypical wokeness usually involves social media. It originates at times from benign origins, created when there are simply ideological differences in politics and culture, which has metastasized from there. Often containing zero context or nuance, the pile-on from the “woke mob left” morphs itself into something more extreme as time goes on. Meanwhile, some from the “mob” will actively dig out old comments or mistakes that the “perpetrator” has already apologized for, or as critics of cancel culture point out, content created in a context that was different from today. Arguably, “cancel” culture’s targeting of people who hold politically opposite views or misguided views forms an environment of conscious censorship, and hence undermines the freedom of speech and expression when the opinions don’t fit the mainstream narrative.
Secondly, the virtue signaling and the performative acts made by the pro-woke side need some serious introspection. For example, many corporations have professed their support of social justice, touting the concept of ESG (Environmental, social, and corporate governance) as a method of generating value for corporate shareholders. But as critics point out, many companies like Disney promote “woke” values like LGBT rights while simultaneously funding politicians who campaign or support anti-lgbt causes. There is a level of hypocrisy that many do not admit to, and much of the virtue signaling is done just for show with no concrete demonstration of action. In replacement of that are shows of solidarity and awareness, even though these are warranted ways for gathering attention, that is the sole result with no contributions to actual solutions in regard to social issues.
Thirdly, the anti-woke side’s complaints of the woke mob are ironically reflected in themselves. Those who decry wokeness claim that wokeness simply targets everything the “woke left” doesn’t like. Ironically, in the very same sentence, they are ranting about people they don’t like and call them to shut up.Those who cry woke call them performative and hysterical, completely unaware of their own hypocrisy when condemning wokeness. People who complain about being canceled or de-platformed because of the woke left often still make appearances on Fox News, Newsmax, OAN, The Daily Wire, Tucker Carlson’s nighttime show, Tucker Carlson’s daytime show, Ben Shaprio’s podcast, Laura Ingram’s TV show…you get the idea.
At the same time, the anti-woke reactions to what they perceive as “woke” are, at times, simply pointless. For example, after a study found out using gas stoves increases the chance of childhood asthma, conservatives leaped onto the topic to claim that the Biden administration and liberals wanted to “take away your gas stoves,” even as Biden’s government had publicly noticed they considered a ban in the past but have no plans to do so now. In response, Florida’s Governor and infamous anti-woke warrior has pushed to make gas stoves tax-exempt in that state, even though only 8% of the population actually use them. There is nothing substantial coming out from this demonstration except a chance for them to “own the libs” and muddy the waters for a topic that is completely meaningless.
In connection with that, what do culture wars and wokeness actually accomplish? Do black squares on Instagram actually help solve police brutality? Does forcing students to compete in sports based on their sex assignment at birth really work? The answer to both of them is no. Instead of making people come together and actually solve social problems, culture wars and allegiances to wokeness or the other side create more divisions among groups, rendering them unsolvable as nobody is willing to budge and those who dare are at risk of bickering and “cancelation.”
And this continuation of culture wars is dangerous for political discourse in the long run. This article has mentioned before the risks they pose on freedom of speech, but the war on woke actually hurts relationships. Families and partners have fallen apart because of stark divisions on social issues, and the political disaffection has led to massive droves of people fleeing the political establishment, whether their concerns are warranted or delusional. Even more dangerously, the generalization caused by the culture wars gives space for truly evil characters. In cultural debates, sides often casually throw phrases like “libtard” or “racist” back and forth—some of them are derogatory at best. But the division of such debates lead to bigots to step onto the stage claiming their views are righteous, often pulling the excuse that “the other side wants to cancel me over my comments,” hence making them an icon to the anti-woke side, regardless of the content of their material.
To be frank, the author took a lot of time thinking about how to write this article, mainly because it is difficult to include nuance into a context-free debate. There are a lot of views that can be said about wokeism and the culture wars revolving around it, and there is so much more that can be discussed from the use of clickbaits that amplifies both sides to the extremes and the political opportunism surrounding not supporting wokeness. But in the end, the author wants to leave you the reader with two suggestions.
One, do not buy into the outrage. The best way for it to stop is not giving a damn about it, not caring or immediately rushing to conclusions or outrage is the best thing to do in this sort of situation. Listen to different sides, make your conclusions based on fact and reason, then discuss them with others in a rational manner.
Two, follow what the author created as the three rules to freedom of speech:
Freedom of speech is universal, regardless of content;
Freedom of speech should not be oppressed by any individual or group;
Despite the above rules, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences or criticism.