Too much of 'wokeism' can become too much of a good thing | The Straits Times
Being woke, or socially conscious of injustice, is a good thing. But there is nothing to be gained from hyper-vigilantly policing other people's words and thoughts, waiting to pounce on their 'mistakes'.
The "woke" movement seems to be gaining traction among the young people of Singapore today, judging from social media comments.
This should be a matter of some concern for everyone, whether or not you
identify as woke, or socially aware, and even if you have no opinion on
"wokeism" whatsoever.
This is because excessive adherence to woke concepts can have rather
more serious consequences than devotion to K-drama or sports teams.
The basic premise of being woke is fairly simple to understand in
itself. The term "woke" has seen widespread usage in the West for some
years, and was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2017 as:
"Originally: well informed, up to date. Now chiefly: alert to racial or
social discrimination and injustice".
So if you are woke, your eyes are opened to various societal injustices,
and you try your best not to perpetuate them and to raise awareness
about them. You are also prepared to take a stand against them by, for
example, censuring a friend or family member for a racist remark, or
calling for policy changes on social media.
Sounds like a good thing, right?
Sure, but there can also be too much of a good thing.
Make no mistake: I wholeheartedly believe in what "wokeism" - as the woke movement is sometimes called - purports to achieve.
There is no question that I would rather live in a society that is
respectful of individual differences and offers equal opportunity to
all, rather than in one where discrimination and inequality are part of
the status quo.
Entrenched stereotypes and biases held by the majority, the wealthy and
the powerful can and often do unfairly stack the deck against minority
groups.
At the same time, I cannot help but be dismayed by the toxic by-products
generated by increasingly prominent strains of wokeism: conflict
instead of compassion, constricted silence instead of open conversation,
and far too many "truths" and not enough grace.
There are three ways, I think, by which wokeism can be taken too far and become too much of a good thing.
Firstly, it is a short slippery slope from taking a firm stand against
discrimination to self-righteous bullying and ostracisation, especially
when behind the veil of Internet anonymity.
So-called "cancel culture", for instance, is an extension of woke
mindsets that involves denying money, attention or support for companies
or people that are perceived to have offended others through what they
say or do.
The underlying assumption is that if you disagree with what someone has
said, you have the right to punish them, all the more so if there are
enough people who agree with you.
Prominent past targets include Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling, who
was judged to have tweeted remarks offensive to transsexual people last
June.
Closer to home, celebrity blogger Xiaxue was dropped by sponsors last
year after a police report was made against her for allegedly racist
remarks tweeted in 2010.
But cancel culture has also made a victim of an African-American high
school security guard who lost his job in 2019 for using an
African-American racial slur while telling an African-American student
not to direct the word at him.
There are times to be forceful when pushing for change, but I am not
sure that punishing people for innocuous remarks taken out of context
can count as a victory of any kind.
If the goal is harmony and a shared respect between different groups in
society, then there is nothing to be gained from hyper-vigilantly
policing other people's words and thoughts, waiting to pounce on their
"mistakes".
Nothing except a smug sense of moral superiority, which is used to boost
one's ego or salve one's conscience. We can and should be better than
this.
Secondly, there is also a slippery slope from carving out a space for
all shades of identity to coexist, to enabling the weaponisation of
these identities and accentuating the differences between people
instead.
The question is one of degree, and I think it fair to say that there is a
clear difference between offering respectful reminders on minority
viewpoints, and aggressively thrusting said viewpoints in the face of
people who may not even be about to offend you.
One is needful, the other, at best, self-indulgent and entitled.
For example, I am a Chinese male and also a left-handed twin with a
predilection for miniature schnauzers and extremely long novels.
Suppose I live in a matriarchal society of a certain culture, where being a Chinese male is a stigmatised minority.
If someone who loves miniature schnauzers strikes up a conversation with
me, then the similarity is naturally what we focus on and how we relate
to each other.
I don't have to force him or her to relate to me as a Chinese male, or
to acknowledge the discrimination I may feel lifelong as a Chinese male,
especially if they are neither Chinese nor male and doing so only makes
them uncomfortably aware of how we are different.
Multiply this uncomfortable awareness a thousand times for every person
we might have to communicate with across just one year, and you get an
idea of how divisive a rigid overemphasis on certain aspects of identity
can be.
What we will end up with, in the worst case scenario, is a society
carved into thousands of pockets of micro-identities, each virulently
hostile to all others for the simple crime of being different.
We are all made of composite identities. While being woke sensitises us
to injustice, being human and considerate also teaches us to emphasise
common identities, not always pick at differentiated ones.
Thirdly, the strong emotions aroused by wokeism can equally be harnessed
to effect genuine change or be exploited to serve the agenda of
malicious, opportunistic individuals.
Last week, the Capitol Hill riots in the United States demonstrated just
how much damage an emotional mob can do to a hallowed societal
institution when incited by a sufficiently powerful and unscrupulous
person.
Young people attracted to woke ideas must be alert to the possibility that their good intentions can turn rancid.
The irony is that, at its most pernicious, wokeism can become exactly
what it says it is fighting - an ideological sledgehammer that brooks no
dissent and creates a new unthinking binary between those who are woke,
and those who are not. Wokeism at its worst creates a new in-group and
out-group.
Sensible woke people understand this and exercise their social
consciousness with consideration, and do not demand that others come on
board the journey immediately, or leave the vessel.
I doubt I am alone in being sceptical and a little worried about the
excesses of the woke movement and would encourage those with similar
concerns to voice them.
If not, we are tacitly allowing the more vocal and extreme adherents of
wokeism to shape and dominate discourse just because they are willing to
be louder, to the point that their message becomes the only message.
And if that is what being woke means, then I would much rather stay asleep.
Related:
"Many of you know that I initiated a national social movement - the Yellow Ribbon Project - with the aim to educate the public on the plight of ex-offenders and eliminate such prejudices against them. I am glad that as a result of this social movement, many in society have become ‘woke’, and many of our ex-offenders have found second chances and are now living meaningful and purposeful lives...
