In defence of the term ‘woke’
The word describes something that exists, even if it is insulting
In linguistics there is an amusing phenomenon called the ‘euphemism treadmill’. Apparently it was coined by part-time optimist and full-time linguist Steven Pinker, with an early description in the New York Times.
“People invent new ‘polite’ words to refer to emotionally laden or distasteful things, but the euphemism becomes tainted by association and the new one that must be found acquires its own negative connotations,” he wrote.
This was 1994, but it could have been written yesterday. Foreshadowing another jibe that could be made today, he added that “the latest term for a minority often shows not sensitivity but subscription to the right magazines”. These days such phrasing might be termed ‘virtual signalling’.
Some of my readers will have bristled on hearing that last phrase – not so much because we doubt that people say and do things to show they are a good person, but because accusing someone of virtue signalling makes you seem like a nasty rightwinger, or at least somebody who reads the same magazines as nasty rightwingers.
I mention this following a linguistic dust-up over the word ‘woke’ from our friends in the States. Earlier this month the Democrats lost the governorship of Virginia, with many pundits framing it as a backlash against leftwing ‘woke’ politics. American representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez argued that the term is “a derogatory euphemism for civil rights and justice”, prompting various calls for it to be retired.
‘Woke’ has an interesting history, originating as black slang for alertness to racial injustice. But language tends to evolve, and Ocasio-Cortez’s description is correct in that the term is now used negatively for those who advocate a broader concept of social justice.
Perhaps the best reason to avoid calling someone ‘woke’ is that they may well find it insulting, which is hardly conducive to good conversation. One of my more aggressively leftwing friends considers it a sign of imbecility and even association with the far right. He’s at least somewhat woke.
Even so, the term is useful because it describes a kind of radical politics that we’ve seen emerge over the past five or so years that seeks a radical re-ordering of society, and even whips up prejudice against currently privileged groups. Like all definitions it’s a bit fuzzy, but it’s there.
One can worry too much that it’s insulting as well: many political labels originate as insults. ‘Tory’ is among the most famous, derived from the Irish word for outlaw in the 17th century. Still apt three centuries later, the original meaning has nonetheless faded from view, and plenty of Tories don’t mind it.
The American leftist Freddie De Boer is probably right that some reject the term ‘woke’ and its equivalents because they are trying to evade scrutiny, but I suspect the greater portion just don’t like the connotations of any term on offer: wokie, cultural Marxist, social justice warrior.
The pattern of each term acquiring negative connotations brings us back to Pinker’s euphemism treadmill. Political groups who are widely disliked are going to acquire negative nicknames. A new name doesn’t change that. Just ask Mark Zuckerberg.
Boulton’s legacy. Part of the reason this newsletter is out on a Saturday was because I was filing this piece for UnHerd bemoaning the influence of 24-hour news on politics. Adam Boulton, soon to leave Sky News, has been credited for pioneering the format, so he can take the blame too.