Dear Editor, – I was enthralled by Joe Humphreys’s perceptive and enlightening piece on political rhetoric (“Seeking Willie O’Dea and Sharon Keogan’s definition of ‘woke’, Unthinkable, March 18th). He drew insights from Jennifer Mather Saul’s latest work investigating the intricacies of political discourse and sought clarification of the term “woke”.
The term anti-woke, I believe, is simpler to define. It reflects a highly reactionary form of conservatism, a deep-rooted opposition to development and change, and a longing to maintain bygone assurances. It displays an unwillingness to confront current and future trials and is often an emotionally charged state of mind.
An Anti-woke perspective embraces traditionalism, archaic values and a nostalgic view of the past. It vehemently rejects anything foreign or unknown. As a result, anti-woke can sometimes signify a lack of faith in the advantages of societal advancement, indicating a profound hostility towards diversity, plurality, and the slightest hint of progress. – Yours sincerely,
ANTHONY LAYNG,
Dublin 4.
Dear Editor, – There’s no need for Joe Humphreys to seek clarification from Willie O’Dea and Sharon Keegan regarding their definition of “woke”.
He could simply refer to the Oxford English Dictionary. The term “woke” is defined there as the doctrinaire, self-righteous, or destructive political and social viewpoints typically connected with a state of consciousness or readiness. – Yours sincerely,
Dr JOHN DOHERTY,
Gaoth Dobhair,
Co Dhún na nGall.