In universities and newspapers, nonprofit organizations and even corporations, a new set of ideas about race, gender, and sexual orientation has gained immense influence. Attitudes towards these ideas, commonly referred to as “woke,” have resulted in a divide between those who blame them for all of America’s problems and those who defend them without question.
Right-wing critics often dismiss these ideas as a form of “cultural Marxism,” arguing that it replaces economic class with identity categories like race, but ultimately seeks the same goal of communist revolution. They use the concept of wokeness to oppose anything they disagree with, such as comprehensive sex education and alternative versions of American history.
On the other hand, many media and political figures argue that wokeness is simply about justice and decency, a way to acknowledge America’s past cruelties and recognize their continued impact on the nation. According to former Republican congressman Joe Walsh, being woke means having empathy.
However, both sides misrepresent these ideas, failing to understand their true essence. Over the years, writers, activists, and scholars have combined diverse concepts from postmodernism, postcolonialism, and critical race theory to form a new worldview that drives progressive movements today. This ideology represents a significant shift in what it means to be left-wing.
Amidst the heated debate, it is crucial to evaluate this ideology in a fair and balanced manner. We should consider both its interesting and potentially beneficial aspects, as well as its undermining effect on the values it claims to champion. To truly understand and critique these ideas, we must explore their origins.
It all starts with Michel Foucault.
During his early years, the French philosopher was influenced by the prevailing “grand narratives” of his time. He initially studied under Jean Hyppolite, a Hegelian philosopher who believed that history represented the gradual realization of freedom in the world. Later, when Foucault studied Marxism with Louis Althusser, a staunch defender of the Soviet Union, he embraced the notion that the proletariat would lead a global revolution. In 1950, Foucault joined the French Communist Party but left in 1953 due to disagreements with their strict orthodoxy.
Foucault’s commitment to left-wing ideals and his skepticism of grand narratives, including Marxism, form the basis of his published works. Throughout his books, he challenges the prevalent belief that modern societies have made progress in areas such as criminal punishment and mental health treatment. Rejecting claims of objective truth, Foucault argues that societies have become more adept at controlling individuals rather than becoming more humane.
From this perspective, Foucault presents a groundbreaking argument about power. He suggests that power operates in a much more indirect manner than traditionally taught in schools. True power lies in the normative assumptions embedded in our society’s discourses and the identity labels we use to perceive the world. Power is constantly produced and wielded, shaping our lives at every point.
This perspective fosters Foucault’s skepticism regarding the perfectibility of our social world. He believes that people will always resist the prevailing forms of power throughout history. However, Foucault warns that even successful resistance movements contain the potential for new forms of oppression. Even the noblest struggle may inadvertently bring about its own brand of power and control.
Foucault’s legacy left his followers with a complex inheritance. On one hand, they recognized that his philosophy allowed them to question prevailing assumptions and institutions, including claims of objective truth and universality. On the other hand, Foucault’s pessimism about the possibility of creating a less oppressive world disappointed some adherents. Noam Chomsky, who engaged in a famous debate with Foucault, described him as a profoundly amoral individual.
In the late 1970s and 1980s, postcolonial thinkers like Edward Said and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak attempted to reconcile this tension. Influenced by Foucault but dissatisfied with his fatalistic conclusions, they sought to reintroduce the potential for political agency into his ideas.
Edward Said, a Palestinian American literary theorist, argued that Western writers’ portrayal of the “Orient” served as a means of exerting power over it, resulting in real-world harm. Said’s analysis, influenced by Foucault’s concept of discourse, revealed how the discourse of Orientalism justified colonial rule and later motivated US interventions in the Middle East. His goal was to free readers from the lingering power of Orientalist assumptions.
Said’s critique set the stage for a more politically engaged form of postmodernism. Many readers of Orientalism believed that cultural analysis should be oriented towards empowering the marginalized and challenging dominant discourses. This approach gained widespread popularity, finding traction in social media and traditional media outlets alike.
However, Foucault’s rejection of grand narratives presented a second challenge for postcolonial scholars. He not only doubted the idea of universal values and objective truth but also criticized identity labels like “women,” “proletarians,” and “Third World masses” as reductive. He believed these generalizations perpetuated injustices by assuming a shared set of characteristics among diverse groups of people. According to Foucault, the oppressed did not need intellectuals to speak on their behalf.
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak disagreed with this perspective. Coming from a different background, she argued that those with social privilege could afford to reject identity categories while the underprivileged lacked resources and recognition. In countries like India, the “subaltern” lacked a voice. To address this, she proposed embracing identity markers strategically, recognizing their practical utility despite potential theoretical shortcomings. “I must say I am an essentialist from time to time,” she noted.
These cryptic remarks sparked further discussions. Postcolonial scholars, concerned with issues of gender, media, and minority experiences, saw the need to challenge dominant discourses and critique cultural artifacts labeled as “problematic.” This approach gained mainstream popularity, especially on social media and in traditional news outlets.
Foucault’s legacy and the subsequent contributions of postcolonial scholars have created a complex landscape for understanding and critiquing the ideas behind wokeness. To truly grasp their nature, it is crucial that we examine their origins in a fair and balanced manner.
(This article is adapted from The Identity Trap: A Story of Ideas and Power in Our Time, now available.)
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
