Hope folks realize that a part of the reason the Right pounced on “woke” and now use it as a meaningless catch-all pejorative is because folks on the Left stripped it from its context in the Black experience, and made it mean “excessive social awareness.”

It didn’t mean that.

“Woke” wasn’t actually about virtual signaling, but ironically became virtual signaling because folks farther and farther from its Black social and linguistic root made it mean what they wanted it to me or took it to mean.

“Woke” is just contemporary way to convey the need for Black folk to be aware of their social condition in order to at least survive it, at most change it. When folks distant from the Black experience started using it, they could only take the awareness component of it.

Academic and media elite started to focus on the excesses of social awareness, since the missing (Black) social conditions didn’t match the need for excessiveness. But back at woke’s origin, most Black folk are excessively socially aware (I hope I don’t have to explain why).

This made it easy for many (not only, but especially non-Black) folks to be weary of the excesses of wokeness, and suspect it as irrational and unserious. All of the plausible explanations of wokeness being “excessive virtue-signaling” was served to the Right on a platter.

It has moved so far down the line to the right, now “wokeness” means whatever they need it to mean for negative connotation warfare. No technical meaning, just a word that engenders disgust. It’s like if you combined “Yuck!” with the N-Word (hard R).

This is a cycle of co-option of Black language and I would speculate that it follows a pattern:

-Black Folk
-Real Allies
-Skeptical/Contingent Allies
-Challengers
-Opponents
-Anti-Black Folk

The irony of all this is that since African Americans came into existence, we have always poked fun at the virtual signaling and performance aspect of woke. And yet (mostly, but not only) non-Black folk have taken that as the actual substance of the word.

This leaves Black folk with the work of explaining this stuff so well-meaning folks will stop misusing it, so allies have the language to combat rightwing reactionary virtual-signaling, of reclaiming the word or treating it like mayonnaise. It’s kinda exhausting.

But I don’t really have necessarily complex analysis on why the Right uses “woke” so much and so negatively. That should be more or less obvious.

So when well-meaning academics and journalists define woke as "(excessive) social awareness," you're essentially cutting its definition in half. The Black half.

If you need help trying to conceptualized "woke,", read "If Black English Isn't a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is?" by James Baldwin. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/29/specials/baldwin-english.html?_r=1The

In my opinion, this is the essence of "woke":

& I think this encapsulates the reaction to it:

"It is not the black child's language that is in question, it is not his language that is despised: It is his experience...A child cannot be taught by anyone whose demand, essentially, is that the child repudiate his experience..."

Also, be on the lookout for my piece with great analysis from @_ravensnest @meredithdclark and @aeriELLE_allen on this topic.
Should drop next week on @Colorlines

Also, my bad bout the typos

Also, I use “on the left” very broadly. I understand the distinctions folks make about liberals, progressives, leftists, etc. (sure there are a few more). Humbly but honestly, I’m not as interested in them as it pertains to this topic, cause it kinda lets folks off the hook.

Gentle reminder that “woke” wasn’t always a joke. Think folks are making that claim because the first time they heard it was in a satirical context. This is a logical fallacy.

Also don’t want folks to think Woke is never satirical, cause that’s obviously not the case