No one earnestly uses the word “woke” anymore. At least not to describe themselves. The word has become a catch-all term to mean “the things that conservatives hate.” However, that does not mean it has lost all usefulness. It is still a good description of a certain strain of progressive liberalism. Still, I have yet to hear a good definition of what that strain is and, more importantly, what to do about it. So, I would like to do that myself.
Once upon a time, the word “woke” meant awareness of injustice against Black people. Since then, it has evolved to mean awareness of injustice generally. This change of meaning, in my opinion, means that being woke does not fit the common term used to describe it: “ideology.” The woke movement has an aesthetic element to it that needs to be addressed more than its ideological components.
Before we get into that, though, we need to talk about what “being woke” even means.
What Woke Means
Before it became a pejorative for conservatives to throw at the left, the word was used by Black activists to mean remaining aware of the injustices around them. As with most things that Black people made popular, like rock & roll and the Renegade, it was appropriated by White people.
The word’s meaning expanded to include not only Black people becoming aware of their own oppression but other marginalized groups as well. Most interestingly, it came to include awareness of others’ oppression. You could be woke about injustices experienced by marginalized groups to which you did not belong. Even if you were not a member of any marginalized group, you could still be woke. This is where it got messy.
It is one thing to become aware of the causes of one’s own misfortune. You can look at your neighborhood, wonder why the real estate is so poor, and discover it is rooted in city zoning laws that date back to Jim Crow. If you notice that in your neighborhood or one near you, you have identified a problem and can work to a solution. It is another thing entirely to create a system that rewards noticing problems.
Becoming woke used to mean something akin to leaving the Matrix. You noticed systems of oppression in order to take down the system or protect yourself from harm within it. People outside these communities did not suffer the harm of these injustices nor did they usually have the power to fix them. The only part of wokeness they could participate in was the noticing of problems, so that is what the word came to mean: noticing problems. Thus began the never-ending litany of “that’s actually really problematic” we are all familiar with. This self-congratulatory problem police are what destroyed the word “woke” in the end. The movement became a parody of itself.
The movement still exists. People on the left may not use the word anymore, but the system of rewards for noticing problems still exists. If there were no rewards for being woke, Apple, Disney, and Amazon would just not bother with it at all. Simply “raise awareness.” Tell people to “stop hate.” All one needs to do is become aware of a problem, preferably before the person sitting next to you. Leave it to another to do the fixing.
Of course, solutions are still offered. In fact, the solutions are usually framed as simple and obvious. “If we had universal healthcare, the system would be fixed!” However, this is just another opportunity to point out another problem. “The only reason we won’t get universal healthcare is because of those gosh darn Republicans!” They need to fix themselves, not me. I will not accuse the woke of being complete slacktivists, though. Some in the movement may push for solutions or even make them happen, but solutions are still not the point. The point of wokeness is the recognition and awareness of problems.
It is in failing to understand this that the right goes wrong.
Ideology vs. Aesthetic
The right is preoccupied with “wokeism” as its main antagonist. The right is upset because the “wokesters,” as I have heard them unironically called, are pushing an agenda. If you turn on Fox News after 6pm, take a shot every time you hear about wokeism or “woke ideology.” Ideology, though, is not a good word to describe what being woke actually is. (Neither is the suffix -ism, which implies an ideology.) Woke is an aesthetic, not an ideology.
An ideology (or –ism) is a set of doctrines or a way of explaining how the world works. An aesthetic on the other hand is a way of appearing (either to others or to oneself.) Someone purely committed to an ideology and another purely committed to an aesthetic may arrive at the same conclusion, but they do so for different reasons. One person supports the second amendment because they believe the world is safer when more people are armed. Another might support it because they think guns are cool and they want to own lots of them.
The former is an ideological stance. If you want more gun control and wanted to convince someone with purely ideological support of guns, you would have to argue about truth with them. Do guns achieve the peace they seek? Is there another way to achieve it without the side effects that come with mass weapon sales?
The latter is an aesthetic stance and for this, a debate would do little. No statistic or logical argument will convince them to stop thinking guns are cool. You would need an aesthetic argument to convince them they are not cool or are more trouble than they are worth, etc. This is much harder to do.
This is not to say ideological stances are always better than aesthetic ones. Both deal with transcendentals: one with truth and one with beauty. You just cannot move someone out of an aesthetic with an argument over what is true. You can prove whether “guns make people safer” is true or false. You cannot do the same with “guns make me feel cool.”
This is what the right gets wrong about the woke movement. The right tries to argue against the ideological commitments of the woke movement but fails to address the aesthetic commitments. This is a problem because, for most people, there is a blend of ideological and aesthetic commitments to a certain position. Even if you successfully address a person’s ideological reasons for the position, it has little effect on their aesthetic reasons for holding it. You can argue for gun control, but the aesthetic “guns are cool” remains. You can argue that marriage is between a man and a woman, but the aesthetic of “fighting for love” remains.
If the Church really wants to be rid of the woke movement for good, it cannot settle for just arguing that woke ideology is wrong. It needs to dismantle the aesthetic appeal. One could do that both negatively and positively, showing that the woke aesthetic is ugly and that the aesthetic of Catholicism is more appealing.
The Catholic Aesthetic
At its core, an aesthetic commitment is a desire for Beauty. Just like an ideological commitment is a desire for Truth and a moral commitment is a desire for the Good. A person committed to a false beauty needs a positive and negative argument to turn away from it. The negative presentation needs to show that the woke aesthetic is not as beautiful as it seems. The positive presentation needs to demonstrate the Catholic way of life is truly beautiful.
The positive and negative aesthetic arguments go hand in hand. If you only present the woke aesthetic negatively, you will imply there is nothing beautiful in it, which is not true. There is clearly some beauty corrupted in it, otherwise, it would not be attractive. Too much positive presentation could backfire and send the message that the woke aesthetic is compatible with Catholicism, which is also untrue.
Below are three aesthetic appeals of the woke movement. Each has a corrupt desire for beauty and a corresponding reality in the Church that fulfills that corrupt desire.
1. Progress
One of the key appeals of the woke movement is the appeal of progress. The drumbeat of left-liberalism is that one day, in the future, it will get better. This is why we hear the clichés of “the right side of history” or the bewilderment that someone could be so “backward” in “current year.” These are all rooted in the idea that humanity is progressing. This truly does inspire people and is why many get behind woke social movements.
This progress is alluring, but it is a false allure because it has no terminus. If progress is constant, it never ends, and we are stuck constantly seeking progress for its own sake. We are on a trip to nowhere. The rhetoric of progress is the same rhetoric that built the Tower of Babel, just with a horizontal orientation instead of a vertical one. It feels like we could progress forever, but we cannot. We are not infinite. We cannot build a tower to heaven.
In the Catholic vision, though, progress is not one constant movement for all peoples and at all times. Men and women all over the world in their own communities and cities are engaged in a process of renewing and perfecting their corner of the world. The burden of global progress is not laid on their shoulders. If they build a beautiful, holy city and someone comes and knocks it down, that is okay. The city existing on earth is not the point. “Progress” towards a more just society for the Catholic is a participation in the building of the Kingdom of God, a task that was and remains completed by Christ. This knowledge comes with profound peace.
For the woke progressive, there is constant anxiety about the progress being undone. This leads to the next point.
2. Understanding Evil
The woke aesthetic cannot comprehend evil. I do not mean that they have no concept of right and wrong. They certainly do. What I mean is, they cannot understand why someone would not be in favor of the progressive drumbeat. For someone to resist progress is absurd. After all, it is the highest good and why would someone not want the highest good? This leads to the anxiety I mentioned before. Every person who resists the progressive march is a threat to the entire system. If even one person holds “backward” beliefs, the progress must not have worked. Dissenters must be marked as idiots or evil incarnate, not to silence the opposition, but to maintain the peace among the elect.
Comparisons to Hitler are not made to win arguments, they are made out of sheer terror. This is not a cheap rhetorical trait, but a deeply felt anxiety.
The idea of eight years of Trump was unthinkable. A men’s rights conference is abhorrent. A conservative speaker sends the campus into a frenzy. This is not because the woke are crazy. It is because they understand that opposition of any kind means progress has failed. This leads to real, crushing despair, even if it only manifests itself in small ways.
I am not saying any of this to poke fun. I am not making a “TRIGGERED lib snowflake meltdown compilation 2016.” This despair exists on the right in its own way, but that is another article for another day.
For the left, evil leads to despair. Opposition to progress is a threat. Every ally is a potential enemy because they could oppose progress at any moment. For the Catholic, evil leads to hope. Christ came because of the sin of Adam. Opposition to the Kingdom is an opportunity to suffer with Christ. Every enemy is a potential Christian; a potential friend.
Additionally, for the woke aesthetic, evil comes from without. It is an alien force. For the Catholic, evil comes from within. When asked what is wrong with the world, the Catholic does not point to the other side of the aisle (or at least, they shouldn’t). Instead, they point at themselves. My corner of the world is broken because I am not the saint God is calling me to be.
In an ironic twist achievable only by God’s divine humor, sin is not a cause for despair. It is a cause for hope. It is an opportunity for God to act in the world. This is a much more attractive understanding of evil. It once again leads to peace.
3. Community
The final, and I think the biggest, aesthetic appeal of the woke movement is the community identity. Woke rhetoric uses the term “community” to describe different classes of people. You will hear talk about the “LGBT community” or the “Black community” as if these are homogenous groups with easily defined patterns of thought and behavior. This rhetoric is helpful to bring a sense of unity to those who otherwise feel ostracized from society, but it is a false sense of community.
Community is not based on demographics. A community is not made up of people from all over the country who share character traits or beliefs with me. A community is a local reality. It is based on bonds of friendship, particularly friendships with people who are different than you. The woke aesthetic creates communities based on similar patterns of thought, behavior, and action, while the Catholic conception of community is unified by place and faith despite differences in thought, behavior, and action.
Much like the earlier point about understanding sin, a truly Catholic community can comprehend when its members sin. This does not eject you from the community. That is not the case for the woke conception of community, where heretical thoughts can get you ejected. Ejection from these communities is easy since membership in the community is superficial. People are anxious (ironically or otherwise) about getting canceled on Twitter, but not from their neighborhood, for instance.
The Catholic vision for community is more secure, more compassionate, and more human than its woke counterpart. This aesthetic argument is, I think, the most compelling. Human beings desire a sense of belonging. The woke movement can give that to people, but usually online. Catholic community, done well, can provide a place of peace.
How do you argue an aesthetic?
Aesthetic arguments cannot be made over the internet. So, don’t post that picture of a priest surrounded by incense with the caption RETVRN. The Catholic vision requires a lived community to demonstrate its beauty. Making this argument means you have to make friends with people who disagree with you and invite them into your community, which is an admittedly difficult thing to do.
The common thread running through the three responses to woke aesthetic is the theme of peace. The Christian communities that converted the Roman Empire lived with a “peace that surpasses all understanding.” This kind of peace is impossible to attain through human means. It can only be attained through a mutual commitment to love God totally and love one another as Christ loved us. Our answer to the woke movement is our answer to every movement that has threatened the Church in the past: an overwhelming love that could only be divine.
As Catholics, we should not make the mistake the right makes and mark the woke movement as a pure ideology to be combatted by our own, better ideology. People are pulled into that world for good reason. They are seeking something. They need to be shown, not told, that the Catholic world can give them the peace they seek.