You Can't Define Woke? Oh, But You Can!

By Codrin Stavri

The term woke has been subject to much debate in recent years. Those said to be aligned with the term have often sought to avoid discourse on the core meaning and its implications, realising that a defined word could be easily critiqued. This month, the issue became particularly fraught when commentator Bethany Mandel found herself struggling to define ‘woke’ during an appearance on Hill TV. Some on the left eagerly claimed that the term is nothing more than a slur. This, however, is far from the truth.

You may have come across terms like “white privilege is a product of systemically racist social structures” during your encounters with this ideology. They may focus on different issues, but the shared language and preoccupations with oppression, privilege, systemic power, and identity betray a coherent worldview.

But as soon as we try to give this ideology a name, we are accused of being problematic, bigoted or misleading. Woke, Critical Race Theory, neo-Marxism, Cultural Marxism, Critical Social Justice—all are deemed unacceptable, leaving us unable to critique this driving force behind sweeping social change from the left. Proponents will argue that terms like ‘cultural Marxism’ are dangerous because they are anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

Proponents of wokeness demand societal transformation while refusing to fully define their doctrine. They strive to present a disjointed set of movements that work together, despite the wide-reaching shared language and goals. The goal of this intentional vagueness is to ensure that the ideology behind these movements is untraceable and unchecked; if identified, they could be scrutinised.

This strategic ambiguity is designed to make it impossible for critics to label their ideology and, as a result, expose and examine its tenets. Once a term is established, it can be used to identify and scrutinize examples of the ideology in action.

So what is ‘woke’? The most concise definition I have come across is the belief that society is split into oppressor and oppressed groups, defined by race, class, gender, and other factors. These distinctions are backed by a larger power structure that those in privilege are likely to be unaware of. As such, the lived experiences of marginalised people must be heeded in order to uproot such injustice. 

In addition, Chinese political scientist Chenchen Zhang has proposed a word to describe the white liberal persons who are frequently associated with wokeness—Baizuo. This term implies those who come across as overly concerned for refugees, LGBT rights and environmental issues, without knowing or addressing more pressing social and political matters. In their misguided activism, they may also give themselves an exaggerated sense of moral superiority.

By acknowledging and defining ‘woke’, we open the door to a genuine examination of the worldview that lies beneath the surface of various social and political movements. Only then can we engage in meaningful dialogue and, when necessary, offer valid critiques.