The term “woke” is being used quite frequently these days. A number of elected officials and potential candidates have begun voicing their grievances, arguing that our Government is overly “woke”. This linguistic trend is truly intriguing. For a large portion of its history, “woke” has primarily been a part of African-American slang, but it has now become a common term for individuals from locales like Kerry or Offaly. It’s akin to hearing Willie O’Dea uttering a “Yo”.
Experts in language and societal trends date the term back to 1938 when it was used by American folk artist, Lead Belly. The phrase he utilised was “stay woke”, indicating the need to remain watchful of physical threats. However, the term’s mainstream use in non-Black American circles can be traced back to 2012, following the tragic death of Trayvon Martin. “Stay woke” quickly became a pervasive slogan, appearing on Twitter, clothing and various platforms as a call to stay conscious of racial inequality in America.
As time passed, the meaning of the term evolved to encompass other matters of significance to liberals in America. But it didn’t take long for it to be interpreted differently. In less than ten years, it’s now perceived as a form of leftist authoritarianism and a mechanism for enforcing self-righteous thought control. The term has morphed into a solely derogatory one.
One must acknowledge the clever linguistic manipulation by the centrist and right-wing people in bringing about this shift. By consistently labelling anything they disagreed with as “woke”, they skilfully painted their political opponents as unthinking zealots and themselves as the victims of a freedom-suppressing system. Interestingly, they also bizarrely managed to ensure that the media always uses quotation marks around “woke”.
This is not an unprecedented scenario. In the 1980s, the term “political correctness” or “PC” underwent a similar metamorphosis. The manipulation of language continues to be an ongoing process. Recently, I spoke with a representative for the Enhanced Games, a global athletic event backed by a few crypto/tech billionaires and slated for the coming year. The unique appeal of the Enhanced Games is its decision to refrain from any questioning or testing for performance-enhancing drugs.
The organisers of this rather curious event refuse to confront the grotesque reality of the concept. They choose to manipulate words and their meanings rather than candidly depict the nature of the event. The spokesperson informed me that the event won’t promote doping. Rather, the participants will have the freedom to choose. For reasons unknown, she insisted that the Enhanced Games would serve an educational purpose. She kept a straight face while making these unwarranted claims. Notably, she emphasised that the event aims to embody inclusiveness.
“Inclusiveness”, a term that often rubs individuals with specific political inclinations the wrong way, is being distorted thanks to the Enhanced Games. The event’s website criticises Wikipedia for allegedly using outdated and damaging language related to the integration of science in sports. It supports the “enhanced movement” in their push for Wikipedia to abolish derogatory terms such as “doping”.
The website provides a link to their Inclusive Language Guide, which posits that terms such as “doping” have colonialist and racist roots. Furthermore, the guide reveals that it drew inspiration from an Australian LGBTIQA+ language guide. Their goal is to change the meanings of words by using artificial conviction and frequent repetition – a tactic commonly used in culture war skirmishes.
The website proudly proclaims, “language matters”. However, it simultaneously demonstrates a rising trend of disregard for accurate language use. If we allow the same words to be used to describe vastly contrasting ideas, we risk losing the ability to convey meaningful ideas altogether. The mastermind behind this concept remains unknown, though it’s doubtful it’s the work of Armando Iannucci.