Once again: Is there a better word for “woke”?

February 17, 2022 • 8:45 am

I keep using the words “woke” and “wokeness” (and in fact the next post contains them); but in other places, or in private emails, people keep kvetching to me because I’m “always criticizing wokeness, and that’s rude.”

Indeed, “woke”, as I use it, does have connotations of the pejorative. But I use it like I use the word “Republican”: it stands for a set of principles that I happen to largely disagree with. But sometimes I use “Republican” as a neutral descriptor, as in “Republican senator Mitch ‘666’ McConnell”. (See? I usually sneak some disapprobation snuck in.)

Still, I’ve tried substitutes. “Politically correct” is passé, “The successor Ideology” is cumbersome and, to many, opaque. John McWhorter likes “The Elect”, but that’s a noun and not an adjective; one can use “wokeish” as an adjective. Even McWhorter usually reverts to “woke” in his NYT columns.

If you have a word that’s better, let me know. I put up a version of this post a while back, and the sentiment was overwhelmingly to keep using “woke” or its variants. What say you now?

Or perhaps I should stick with the pejorative usage and ignore those people who want me to lighten up on the woke. . .

79 thoughts on “Once again: Is there a better word for “woke”?”

    1. It is clear and understood by all, as well as lending itself to the amusing term “The Great Awokening”, which has affected every field (including medicine), the NEJM having just posted a “Call for Antiracist Action”.

    2. Is it really that clear though? How would you define the term? I suspect it’s one of those things most people have the same general idea and assume we’re on the same page but if asked about which specific individuals are “woke” versus not it would devolve into confusion.

      I remember back around 2014/15 people on certain internet communities referred to the “woke” as “SJWs” but for some reason the latter term got replaced by the former and I still can’t put my finger on how or why this happened, the latter term seemed to get the point across about the same.

      1. You’re right, DrBrydon, ‘SJW’ seems to have been originated by the group itself, while ‘Woke’ does not.

        In my understanding, the African-American community pioneered the use of the word ‘Woke’, while the Left pioneered the use of the word ‘Social Justice Warrior’. The New Left used the term SJW to describe themselves before I ever heard of it.

        Then, of course, ‘SJW’ was picked up and shifted to a dysphemism, the same way ‘Woke’ is being shifted today. The Euphemism Treadmill at work… In a few more years, we’ll have cycled through a few more terms.

    5. I think there’s an important difference between merely being woke oneself and trying to force one’s woke ideology on the rest of the world — similar to the difference between merely being a Muslim oneself and being an Islamist who aims to create a world ruled by Islam. For this reason, I favor the term “Wokeist” to refer to the extremist sort of person who aims to convert the entire world to the religion of Wokeism.

        1. Perhaps as many who are Muslim but not Islamist? My point is that not all deserve the same level of ire/contempt, and it’s worth distinguishing between the more reasonable people and the extremists.

      2. I go with “woke” and “radical woke”. In short, to me woke should just mean becoming aware of all the ways in which some problems in black culture are due to mistreatment by some whites. [Things not widely known before, like Tulsa or Wilmington “riots”.] Radical woke say all problems are the fault of whites, and all whites should feel guilty. But I think Jerry”s view is prevailing; all “wokeness’, good or bad, will be included in the term “woke”.

  2. Please, please stick with Woke and Wokeness. Don’t succumb to the opposition’s attempt to dodge criticism by going nameless. While I don’t subscribe to the Right’s claim that Wokeness will destroy our democracies and countries, or install fascist governments, it is a very destructive force. Perhaps a whole generation of students will get less instruction in legitimate subjects, many qualified people will lose their jobs, helpful discussions will be suppressed, and the Woke’s attempt to dismantle merit is bound to hurt progress. Last but not least, Wokeness does little to combat racism and xenophobia.

    2. Yes, the Woke have as their fundamental goal the destruction of merit. Why? Because they despise the wealth that accrues to merit, defined more broadly than scholastic achievement and including technical/manual skills, work ethic, and all those attributes that make you want to hire and pay one person over another. Terrible idea.

      Yet further down, you describe your tribe (“we”) as seeking social justice. But what is that except blunting the power of merit to drive one’s success? The Woke do it through deplatforming and Twitter screeching to prevent merit from ever emerging. Government DEI functionaries are needed to enforce this. The SJ crowd does it through redistributive taxation, which prevents the meritorious from enjoying the full benefit of their endowments and hands the take to the non-meritorious without even demanding that they work. Government welfare functionaries (with their own DEI apparatus now) are needed to administer this transfer. How exactly is that different from what the Woke seek? After all, don’t the Woke nearly always support redistributive taxation, too?

      I think perhaps that “Social Justice Warrior” is a serviceable alternative to “Woke” if it starts to get stale. I don’t see a fundamental difference. Both are hostile to merit as the way to a just economic distribution. Both think that trickle-down should instead be a gusher from some suitable reservoir. The Woke seek the exhaustion of the reservoir as the route to Revolution. The SJW just deludes herself that the meritorious will still continue to work meritoriously, to replenish the reservoir, even when the incentive is taken away. Same outcome, just takes longer.

      1. I understand why the Woke don’t like merit. Those who are in the top tier of our society have the most merit, by definition, and are most often white. In a socially just society, skin color wouldn’t matter. However, getting rid of merit is not the solution. The Woke solution to Woolworth’s whites-only lunch counter would be to outlaw lunch counters.

        I think we are seeking social justice but not using the methods recommended by the so-called Social Justice Warriors. My point was that coming out against the SJWs can easily be made to look like we’re against social justice, which we’re not. Or at least I’m not. I hope that’s clearer.

      2. Wealth is not just money. It is also education – precisely, having worked to become educated, or otherwise enlightened. Wealth can also be richness in friends, in relationships, in family. And so on.

        Its easy to forget that – I’m just sayin’

  3. “Neoracist” seems the best term to me, as it’s both the most descriptive and the most pejorative – and I believe McWhorter also gets credit for that one. Unfortunately, language has a life of its own and nobody really gets much say in which terms end up sticking. I expect it’ll be “woke” for a long time.

  4. Keep using Woke. It is perjorative. Also Woke ideology is not limited to discussion of racism. In the UK it is focused on issues of transgender and accusations of transphobia. In Canada is appears in discussions of race but mostly in discussions of indigenous relations.

  5. You could use “Democrats” as — in this context — it too can stand for a set of principles you disagree with. Arguably, it makes sense since “the woke” are predominantly, if not exclusively, Democrats.

    It also makes sense — if one is willing to lump all Republicans as a monolithic assembly — that it should be the case for the other side.

    Myself, I use “Republicans” to decry the far-right since that’s who drives the Republican positions on many issues, and I use “Democrats” to decry the far-left since that’s who drives the Democrat positions on those issues.

    Alternatively, and interchangeably, I use Liberals and Conservatives as they too can be considered broad (self-describing) synonyms for the ideologies of the parties.

    To be clear, I’m not being flippant, but it seems strange (to me) that Democrats get the benefit of nuanced divisions and not Republicans. Also, I’m not advocating excusing either, but rather, to hold both parties accountable for what they condone by their failure to criticize.

    Of course, we could just talk about the issues without calling out any one group, but that goes counter to the purpose of labels.

  6. I stick with ‘PC’. I am not overly concerned about a phrase being passé. It just leads us back to the euphemism treadmill; every decade or two, the word will have to change again and again. If you let them make you change your words because they have declared them ‘out of fashion’, you are letting them win.

    There was a great Doonesbury strip a few years ago where Mike was talking to his mother and kept correcting her usage: She said ‘colored people’, he said she couldn’t say that, she asked ‘But what about the NAACP’. She shifted to a different word, to which he objected again, and for which she offered another non-profit (United Negro College Fund, IIRC); and again, and again. Finally, in exasperation, she asked what term she could use; he responded ‘people of color’; she tried it out ‘people of color… colored people.’.

  7. I wouldn’t object to replacing “wokeness” by ‘wokeity’; cf. recent ‘words I hate’ thread That’s not said really seriously. And except for the negative seriousness of some wokeness, it might be appropriate as a slightly more mocking sounding labelling of the many utter idiots speechifying woke nonsense.

    1. When every word used to describe an ideology becomes a pejorative, that might be a sign that the problem lies with the ideology, not the language.

  9. Its going to have to be woke, bc what are we other than a drop in the social media ocean? We really have no say in the evolution of our own language.

    I don’t consider the term to only refer to the negative aspects of persons on the far left. Their negative aspects being their performative behavior, their emotional-over-factual histrionics, and their full willingness to ruin the lives of harmless (and often innocent) persons. And so on. And on. How I define wokeness is a bit broad, so I also attribute to them much of the positive social progress that we have seen over the past 10 years or so. So the term is not entirely pejorative, imo. But I am not even a drop in the social media ocean.

  12. I would leave it as woke. The only alternatives I can come up with is “Far Left Lunatics” and “Far Right Lunatics”.

  13. I use the term “social justice left.” It’s not as succinct as “woke,” but it has the advantage of being a neutral descriptor (rather than a pejorative).

  14. I keep using the words “woke” and “wokeness” (and in fact the next post contains them);

    It also contains the word “wokesters” which, if you made it up, was inspired.

  15. ‘Woke’ is in fact a veiled insult to those not ‘woke’ — the unenlightened dozy whites who cause all the problems. To see the term evolve into a boomerang dismissal of those who considered themselves the only ones awake to injustice tickles my sense of justice.

  16. Although “social justice warrior” may seem more precise, it has the problem that those against their worst ideas can easily be accused of being against “social justice” interpreted literally. We’re definitely not against social justice, just the misguided views that some of them have. We are against racism but don’t agree with Kendi’s anti-racism thesis. It may be that these views are held by most of those who are fairly labeled “social justice warriors” but that doesn’t matter. We have to leave them room to reform their ideas. They like the name for these very same reasons. They aren’t deplatformers or anti-free-speech warriors but simply want social justice.

  17. To be honest and logical and consistent, I would say “far left.”

    To be realistic, there are less “far left” than far right. Apparently (and I’m using 45ers as a yardstick) approximately one third of Republicans are far right (to my everlasting horror when friends and family voted for 45); while (using wokeness as a measure), approximately ten percent of Democrats are far left. It used to be just those people willing to carry out violence on the “behalf” of the left (mostly concerning environmental issues during the old days) that I used to be worried about. But I still believe evidence confirms most political violence comes from the right.

    I consider myself to be a “1960s liberal” (which I believe I first heard on this site). I still stand for nutzis marching in Skokie, but I’d be right out there to counter-march.

    I also consider myself liberal in thought and conservative fiscally (which is why my wife and I could retire in our mid-fifties; her working part-time at a small-city library and me doing freelance tv/internet work).

    I know; more than you wanted to know.

    1. The problem with “far left” is that it contains no reference to ideas and, therefore, is a moving target. If by some miracle we eliminated the Woke tomorrow, there would still be those who are leftmost.

      1. Respectfully disagree. We know EXACTLY what a far-righter (“far-rightist”?) is; being woke IS being far-left.

        Both “fars” seem to be inflexible and uncapable of debate, constructive criticism, and critical thinking.

        Both are, by almost any definition, cults, with religious devotion.

  18. I don’t see how criticizing wokeness would be “rude”. You’re doing it on your own website, which no one is required to read, you’re not getting in anyone’s face and shouting at them or barging in front of them, or trespassing on their property, you’re addressing “wokeness” on its merits (or relative lack thereof). It’s fair enough if someone disagrees with your specific criticisms, but…rude? That makes no sense.

  19. “Woke” is fine. Up until yesterday I would have said the drawback is that if you use it in argument the cool kids in their 30s will just roll their eyes at you and dismiss you with, “OK, Boomer.” (Of course they do anyway unless you’re Bernie Sanders.) Better to criticize the actions and views of the woke without actually calling them that. It just encourages them to call us racists, even worse, old racists who use dated terms. Being criticized as rude is no worry. Being ignored is worse.

    I said up until yesterday because I watched a clip of people in New York City demonstrating in support of the Canadian truck protests. While there were a few anti-vax loons, including a fired nurse who ought to have known better, most of the people interviewed were sensibly worried about government over-reach. One young black woman finished an articulate message longer than a sound-bite with, “I used to be ‘woke’ but now I’m awake.” So if “woke” still has currency in New York, it’s good enough for me.

    1. I was just thinking of the phrase ‘OK boomer’ this week – I do not support the use of the phrase, and would never use it myself. One family member complained that another family member criticized too much; I ended up having to explain to someone the difference between a cheap shot/insult and actual criticism. People who say things like ‘OK boomer’, ‘Wokistan’, or ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ are engaging in cheap shots, rather than actual criticism. Cheap shots are designed to rile people up and make people feel emotional, while criticism can be used to engage people rationally. Cheap shots are frequently used to set up an emotional reaction, before anyone even starts engaging in calm criticism.

      The family member above had actually used the term ‘Wokistan’ – which basically links PC-aligned people with foreigners (possibly Muslim, with the association that Muslims are terrorists) or with Communists. It alienates other humans; and yet my family member above thought it was ‘cute’, and other family members claimed not to see it as an insult or a cheap shot.

      I personally tend to avoid all emotionally charged words, if there are no neutral synonyms. They get in the way of calm communication. It is interesting to see both the New Right AND the New Left opposing some emotionally charged words, and introducing others (Do you remember when people started using ‘illegal’ as a noun?)

      And don’t get me started on emotionally-charged capitalization. John McWhorter still writes (big-B) ‘Black’ and and (small-W) ‘white’…

      1. Without going further off on a tangent, I’ll just say I’m inclined to agree with McWhorter’s reasoning on this and do so myself, especially when talking to Americans, as I mostly do nowadays. I can understand disagreement, though.

        Edit: And yes, my reference to the “young black woman” in my original post was a slip.

        1. Interesting. That might be worthy of a discussion later. I know my opinions on equal nomenclature are not always the most popular here, but I suspect it is on this topic. But I won’t go on in this thread.

  21. “Or perhaps I should stick with the pejorative usage and ignore those people who want me to lighten up on the woke…” Have at them, I say.

  22. Woke is fine as long as it’s used correctly, and PCC does use it appropriately.

    I’ve seen it increasingly used by right wing loons as a pejorative insult for any perceived “liberal” idea with which they disagree. For example, I’ve seen people in favor of mask mandates referred to as “woke.” When it’s used like that, you can safely dismiss the user as a nutter.

  23. Agree with keep using a name.

    Needs a name.

    Puritan? New Puritan? Too confusing?

    Wokeology
    Electology
    Electism
    AntiMLKism

    Dunno… I’m flummoxed.

  24. To refer to the phenomenon, I liked “The New Faith” as suggested by N. S. Lyons in that substack you linked to a few days ago. What an eye-opener.

    To refer to the individual people involved, I like “The Elect”.

  26. I don’t think there is. It’s the one term that everyone more or less gets and that requires no explanation.

    And: They arrogantly brought it upon themselves. And they still want to tell us we need to be too.

  28. The reason ‘woke’ is powerful is: The Wokes tried to construct it as a clarion call, virtue signal, and insult to the ‘sleeping’ all at the same time. Over-reach. Turns out it is a perfect short, punchy stinger when turned against. Everyone opposed ‘got it,’ and have ganged up on the use of it to skewer and mock. All the attempted euphemisms drain this flipped strategy.

    The reason “woke” was over-reach: those of the true-believer ilk are not actually Americans, as in the original Enlightenment Foundation. They did not and do not grasp how offensive and antagonizing words, sayings, tactics, and behaviors — which sound normal and correct to their choir — seem to the (possibly 30%) remaining Foundational Americans. Wokes woke us up.

  29. I agree entirely with Paul Topping’s comment #2.

    “Woke” has the additional linguistic advantage of its adaptation to “great awokening”, “wokery”, “wokeism”, “wokely”, and so on. “Far Left” is out of the question because it is merely topographic, with little implication of content; “Ctrl Left”, “Regressive Left”, and “Performative Left” serve that purpose but are clumsy. “Woke” refers to the complete set of clichés, attitudes and superstitions under discussion, some of them only vaguely associated with the historic Left. These include Kendian racialization of every subject; romanticism of everything Indigenous (Cf. New Zealand, Canada); generalized hostility to all European culture and science; the fanatic “trans” denial of Biology; the onslaught on meritocracy and all tests of ability; and the clear tendency toward a Blank Slate view of human behavior.

    1. Conservatives insist that “religious right” is an insult, even though Jerry Falwell used it. Conservative economist Thomas Sowell said that “trickle-down economics” was a meaningless term invented by the liberal media to ridicule conservative policies; it was actually coined by David Stockman, Reagan’s director of the Office of Budget and Management.

  32. How about SocJus? It’s suitably Orwellian, reminiscent of Ingsoc, Miniluv, etc. And it’s pronounced “sock juice,” which sounds unappealing, as it should. SocJusers are people who follow the SocJus ideology, and SocJucy is the adjective (e.g., “That article in Vox was very SocJucy.”)

    OK, I’m just kidding. The problem, as many other commenters have pointed out, is the euphemistic treadmill: as soon as you come up with a new term, the SocJus/woke/SJWs/far-leftists will complain that it’s pejorative and will insist on a new term; wash, rinse, repeat.

  33. In a Goldilocks sense, I use modifiers: ‘uber-woke’ and ‘unter-woke’ when something is inappropriately over- or under-woke, and plain ‘woke’ when it is just right.

  34. Woke can be too broad. There are anti-racists who are not pro-trans, and pro-trans people who are not anti-racist. A broad term makes it easy for people to think “that is not me, I am not all of those things” and ignore the criticism. I think it is more effective to zero in on the specific topic being criticized.

  35. Since they are the “elect”, and it is a religion, and they worship at the “Church of the Perpetually Offended”….call them POL’s, for the Perpetually Offended Left.

  36. I tend to associate the use of the stereotype “woke” with right-wing culture warrior bros and the lying Murdoch-owned propaganda machine so I simply exercise my right to skip over the posts that contain the word.
    There’s still plenty of excellent and interesting posts here.

  39. “John McWhorter likes “The Elect”, but that’s a noun and not an adjective”

    Just “elect” by itself is an adjective. “Those who are elect” is predicate adjective, while “those who are the elect” is predicate nominative. Nouns, adjectives and verbs are generally somewhat fluid along certain grammatical lines. Like Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) said- “Verbing weirds words.”

    The problem is, so many possible adjectival phrases seem to apply. “Racist anti-liberal, anti-scientific” comes to mind, but that’s too long of course.

  40. The Gespacho, capitalized for the noun and lower case for the adjective; maybe even verb it. 😆

  42. In one 1990s satire of Political Correctnes, people like the ‘Woke’ were refered to as ‘Totally Sensitive’

  43. As an old Democrat Liberal/former hippie, I absolutely abhor the term “Woke”. It feels like an insipid term for that which is so much more important: respect for civil rights and the multiplicity of cultures that America harbors and protects. As in “The Lady in the Harbor”. We are in the midsts of deconstructing the hard work of the last fifty years instead of building upon it. Sophomoric and plain old silly, “Woke” does not represent any of the values that I consider serious. That is why so many people are appalled by and reject the term.

    1. I see you haven’t read the Roolz about civility. It’s just like the first-time commenters to come over here and lambast everyone. Well,I’m sorry, but I don’t think those people who I refer to as “woke” are building on the hard work of the last fifty years; they are in fact ripping the country apart. And, you know, the term “woke” changed its meaning a while back.

      As you see, most of the readers here don’t agree with you. But that’s fine. What you aren’t allowed to do is be rude and uncivil.

      Not only that, but you suggest no more “neutral” term to use for those virtue-flaunters whose politics is purely performative. The purpose of the website was to find another term, and instead you just ranted. And if you think Kendi, for example, is building on the hard work of the last fifty years, I feel sorry for you. Have you seen his constitutional “star chamber” amendment?

      1. Well, first of all, my objective was to comment on the term not the other commenters. If you feel that my comment was rude or uncivil, my apologies, you are the boss here. However, it seems as if we are on the same team because you state “I don’t think those people who I refer to as “woke” are building on the hard work of the last fifty years; they are in fact ripping the country apart.” Which is exactly my original point. Terms are both subjective and changeable, again, as you pointed out. So perhaps having a single term to cover a myriad of ideas might be a choice that looses all definition in time.
        BTW, on your suggestion, I read the Roolz. And I too, am a big cat fan.

  44. How about -olatry, as to distinguish rational thought from a zealotry – as Pinker has distinguished The Enlightenment from Enlightenmentolatry.

    Raceolatry, for instance.

    1. The magic words “Diversity”, “Inclusion”, and “Equity” figure prominently in the sacraments under discussion, and some of its religious rituals focus on other words which must be forbidden, and those who utter them placed under interdiction. So, I suggest that Wordolatry sums it all up.

      1. That brings to mind another possibility: “wordaholic” — both noun and adjective– Those whose “scholarship” consists only of what they have encountered in the postmodern academic thought bubble, often earning a PhD by contributing to that bubble. In other words, those afflicted with a particularly expensive form of Dunning-Kruger style ignorance.

Comments are closed.