The Bible says” that out of the mouth speaks the words of the heart.” This is certainly true in many instances.
It is important however to take this a step further. What comes out of the mouth can manifest itself into social policy which can have an affect on the broader society.
Calling people into account for their words, past or present, is nothing new. The whole idea of Christian Grace is for past and present indiscretions.
The term woke is seen by many as a recent term but its history begins in the 1930’s. The term came about as a way to encourage people to increase awareness of racism and its insidious effects. Over the years people from blues legend Leadbelly to Erykah Badu have utilized the term in one way or another. Dr. King in his “ Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution” address to Oberlin College alludes to it as well.
In recent years the concept has been rightfully expanded to include increasing awareness of oppressive policy and attitudes that affect the wellbeing of other marginalized communities.
Lately “woke” has been under attack by people stemming from talk show host and seemingly closet conservative Bill Mahr, Rupert Murdock, the previous president and others. That in of itself should make one suspect of criticism of the term woke. Nonetheless, one of the problems is that the concept has been co-opted through marketing and commercialism while at times it has engaged in what can be described as an infantile reaction to innocuous situations. The second is that an anti-woke campaign has been waged to turn the term woke into a pejorative. This is not new. Those within the Protestant community know that that description was originally meant as an insult as was to be called Lutheran.
Nonetheless, the problem is not being “woke. “ Yes there have been excesses. Getting the new host from Jeopardy fired for past comments is not a victory. It’s a pyrrhic victory which makes more important victories harder to obtain. Attacking Helen Keller is insane. Some of its suggestions for an academic curriculum is questionable at best. It gives ammunition to the dominant culture which always seeks ways to absolve itself from accountability by pointing out excesses of its accusers.
Given the precarious nature of the nation, there needs to be more exposure of people whose views if manifested into policy would have a tremendous debilitating effect on the wellbeing of already marginalized communities.
In his book “The fire next time” James Baldwin writes. “Try to imagine how you would feel if you woke up one morning to find the sun shining and all the stars aflame. You would be frightened because it is out of the order of nature. Any upheaval in the universe is terrifying because it so profoundly attacks one’s sense of one’s own reality. Well, the black man has functioned in the white man’s world as a fixed star, as an immovable pillar: and as he moves out of his place, heaven and earth are shaken to their foundations”
In many instances a religious narrative has been bestowed upon European imperialist adventures deeming it as providential that land should be appropriated and slaves maintained. This same providence deemed women to be subservient, Native Americans to be savages or gays to be damaged. It therefore should not be a surprise that much of the critique comes from white conservative males who believe their dominant stature is under attack by those they believe God has ordained them to reign over. The woke community has called the dominant culture into account for its racism, homophobia, xenophobia and sexism.
The critique against so-called cancel culture conveniently forgets the cancel culture that took place in the 1960’s with the assassination of King, Malcolm, Medgar and the Kennedy Brothers. They refuse to acknowledge the cancel culture which prohibited people from living out their destiny and dreams. If there is to be a critique of cancel culture include the cancel culture which cancelled millions from their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness because of their gender, race, faith or sexual orientation.
Too much of the critique of being woke has to do with the excess as opposed to the central reason for its relevance. Being woke is a reaction to decades and centuries of policies and behaviors that diminished the humanity and potential of those who are not heterosexual, white, Protestant males. The reaction to one’s dehumanization cannot be dictated by those who have profited from their dehumanizing. Nonetheless, those who recognize the reality of how they profit from being part of the dominant culture should not be shunned.
Malcolm X was once asked by a young white female what she could do to help. His response was “nothing.” Later in his life he said this “I regret that I told her she could do nothing.’ I wish now that I knew her name, or where I could telephone her, and tell her what I tell white people now when they present themselves as being sincere, and ask me, one way or another, the same thing that she asked. Well, I’ve lived to regret that incident….Something like this kills a lot of argument. . . I tell sincere white people, ‘Work in conjunction with us… Let sincere white individuals find all other white people they can who feel as they do – work trying to convert other white people who are thinking and acting so racist.”
Like any philosophy, excesses can occur especially if it has had success. One question that must be asked however, is what has been the cost exacted by the woke community and who has paid that cost. Some may suggest that the cost is in the diminishing of rational reasoning in the issue of race. Others may say that it has also resulted in people seeing racism in everything. Still others will say that the rise of “wokeness” has led to the increase of white grievance. These sentiments have an element of reality. The solution however, is not to go to the extreme of see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil but rather to be cognizant of the reality of real concrete progress and it’s benefits for society while speaking of the need for continued progress.
One of the limitations of the woke community is that it seems not to have an expectation or acceptance of transformation and reconciliation. Too often it seems retribution is the ultimate goal. Clearly transformation and subsequent reconciliation is important particularly in the world of faith and should be central to any quest for social justice. It has been the hallmark of the black church experience. For good or bad the black church community remains the greatest proponent of this central tenet of Christian thought. It was no accident that after presidential candidate and staunch segregationist George Wallace was shot, he was visited by then congresswoman and presidential candidate Shirley Chisholm which many say aided in his eventual transformation. One of the congresswoman’s staff members was extremely upset about the visit. That staff member is now Congresswoman Barbara Lee who is now best friends with the daughter of George Wallace who has made it her life’s work to combat racism and bigotry.
The second limitation is a trap that every philosophy and belief eventually falls into including Christianity. It is enlightened arrogance that accompanies what was once noble in its intent. It is this arrogance that moves a movement that was once judicious in its selection of battles to become enamored of its own existence. It becomes so convinced of its own righteousness that it becomes blind to its own limitations. Nonetheless, that critique can also be applied to the critics of being woke. In the words of Reinhold Niebuhr “The very social scientists who are so anxious to offer our generation counsels of salvation and are disappointed that an ignorant and slothful people are so slow to accept their wisdom, betray middle-class prejudices”
Still the issue is not the critique of the woke community but rather forgetting the necessity for it.
The problem is when people like Bill Mahr, Megan Kelly, or Ann Coulter complain that they are being targeted for their whiteness. They tend to forget that their success is in large part due to their whiteness. Their faux indignation is legitimized when they are seemingly supported by people like the brilliant linguist John McWhorter who critiques Ta-Nahesi Coates for being caught up in his blackness while ignoring the fact that it is because of his own critique of black orthodoxy that he is endeared to the white conservative community.
The woke community is right however, in their belief that what people speak and feel can manifest itself in social policy. Stephen Miller is an example of how words become policy with negative consequences.
As the nation witnessed the insurrection of January 6th and the politicos who protect them, rise of domestic terrorism as the predominate threat, lies about vaccine, why is being woke such a problem.
Unfortunately, when one juxtaposes the woke community against the nation at large the choice becomes between being woke or remaining comatose. The problem is that the nation still has not come to grips with its hypocrisy when it comes to race, gender and opportunity.
It is pure fallacy to suggest that progress has not been made in this nation. It is equal fallacy to suggest that the nation does not have a long way to go.
The woke community has been in existence through its various formations for over eighty years. They have gotten more right then they have gotten wrong. As the majority of the nation marginalized or otherwise have sought avoid conflict, the woke community has served to agitate the status quo.
Reinhold Niebuhr. in his seminal book Moral, man and immoral society said this “Those who benefit from social injustice are naturally less capable of understanding its real character than those who suffer from it. They will attribute ethical qualities to social life, if only the slightest gesture of philanthropy hides social injustice. If the disinherited treat these gestures with cynicism and interpret unconscious sentimentality as conscious hypocrisy, the privileged will be properly outraged and offended by the moral perversity of the recipients of their beneficences”
Many of the people who are part of the woke community are in their 20s and 30s and see a different world and reality than those who are older and have gotten comfortable with their own situation. They will point out when they were of a younger age. This is a selective memory of history. Even in the civil rights movement, it was the younger community, that had grown impatient with what they saw as gradualism, that pressured the elders to become more radical in their quest to obtain freedom and equality. It was Dr. King who took a young fiery John Lewis and mentored him and helped to direct his righteous anger. These critics have little or no relationship with people within that movement. One suggestion for the elders who once sought social justice is to reach out and share your wisdom. If not, sleep well and get out of the way.