An excerpt from the book Trump Again? How Could America Let This Happen? (2024) by Sean Dempsey
As illustrated in the previous chapters, Wokeism is often hard to properly describe or objectively criticize because of its over-reaching (and ever-changing) definition(s). “Woke” has to carry a lot of water for the Left because it has become such an over-generalized term for “everything Progressive.” As such, a Metamodern deconstruction, and critique, of Wokeism is perhaps appropriate to move forward and reach a new paradigm that is more efficacious.
Corrupted Language
George Orwell once wrote:
“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
This axiom highlights the dangers of using vague or manipulative language; doing so often restricts critical thinking and understanding. Orwell accurately assesses the self-evident and reciprocal relationship between language and thought, suggesting that imprecise language will shape and limit how people perceive and engage with the world. In contemporary society, debates over terminology, such as pronouns, identity labels, or redefined terms for common words like “exercise” or “overweight,” illustrate how language changes can influence collective thinking, sometimes fostering greater inclusivity but also creating deep ideological divides. Orwell’s warning begs us to approach language with critical awareness, ensuring it reflects truth and clarity rather than serving as a political tool for controlling thought or stifling dissent.
I bring this up to highlight the dangers of Woke culture using intentionally obscure and convoluted words, phrases, idioms, or other language all the in the name of “protecting” one’s delicate sensibilities and/or to avoid offending.
Here is one example. My sister-in-law visited her medical practitioner in Vermont earlier this month. She was asked to fill out a short form as part of the administrative check-in process. One of the health questions read “How Often Do You Joyfully Move Your Body?”
My sister did a double-take and had to consider the question for a minute. Joyfully move my body? With careful reflection, she finally realized this must be an overly complex new euphemism meant to replace the simple and unambiguous word “exercise.” Once she figured that out, she was able to answer the question.
Yet the obvious concern now becomes: why did language for a simple medical onboarding questionnaire need to be so altered as to make it unnecessarily convoluted and esoteric? Why was it changed? Well, for seemingly good intentions: to protect an extremely small subset of persons who might conceivably be offended by the word “exercise.”
For to properly speak in tongues of the Church of Wokeism, this modification to the language was exercised (no pun intended) because “it frames physical activity in an inclusive way, reducing mental and emotional anxiety some may associate with harmful rhetoric when using the word ‘exercise’—which is known to have a negative connotation or triggering effect.”
However, let’s consider a few reasonable counter points to these kinds of arguments. For starters, changing language is especially harmful to those who leverage English as a second language. Imagine an immigrant to this country attempting to read and decipher important medical questions on the form. “Joyful movement of the body” is not a recognizable term in English, much less in another world language.
Secondly, let’s consider other negative externalities of this revision. At best, this change in vernacular will invariably create bloat and inefficiencies in the patient onboarding process; at worst, it may serve to make the staff or practitioners at the medical office appear to be “a joke.” This is a particularly dangerous outcome if it increases the likelihood of patients in need of important care to be distrustful of their doctors’ medical advice. The presence of nonsensical “woke” jargon may potentially discolor the value of medical prognoses or prescriptions provided. Certain patients may leave their doctor’s office asking themselves, “Why would I listen to that quack’s advice when he’s obviously given into the ‘woke mind virus?’” This kind of thinking might cause them to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” In short, in this increasingly divided political climate, the unintended consequences for a medical facility simply trying to “prevent offending” its patients, may ironically cause more harm than good through the application of nonsensical jargon. Such practices create a self-inflicted wound and serve only to perpetuate a mad race to the bottom.
War on Words
The anecdote just described is certainly not all-inclusive of the silliness that occurs with respect to the bastardization of language. In addition to the political “War on Drugs,” “War on Terror,” and “War on Poverty,” a variable Postmodern “War on Words” might be in the making, with the Progressive Left initiating a comprehensive set of preemptive strikes over the last several years. Specifically, the proliferation of new words, new phrases, and new idioms have entered the cultural zeitgeist with reckless abandon. Here are just a few examples worth noting:
- Phrases like “human milk” or “chest-feeding” are replacing “breastfeeding” to be more inclusive of non-binary or transgender parents.
- “Menstruators” is now used instead of “women” or ”girls.” This term includes all people who menstruate, regardless of gender identity, such as transgender men and non-binary individuals.
- The term “pregnant people” is used instead of “pregnant women” to acknowledge that not all individuals who can give birth identify as female.
- The term “homeless person” has been replaced with “unhoused” or “person experiencing homelessness” to focus on the individual rather than their condition.
- “Mother” has been replaced with “birthing parent” in certain medical or legal contexts.
- “Bodies with vaginas” instead of “women” has been used to ensure inclusivity for transgender and non-binary individuals who may not identify as women but have the anatomy referenced.
- “History makers” instead of “forefathers” is the new gender-neutral term because it avoids male-centric language.
- Similarly, “Snowperson” is now recommended instead of “snowman.”
- In an effort to replace an already replaced word, “Global Majority” now is recommended to be used to replace “people of color” (which itself was created to replace other racial terms).
- “Parenting Partner” is recommended to replace “mother” or “father.” This new term is used to describe parents without assigning traditional gender roles, focusing on the partnership dynamic rather than biological or gendered distinctions.
- A new “ism” has been created in the last few years; “Speciesism” now describes prejudice against non-human animals. This term was coined to challenge the idea that humans are inherently superior to animals, often used in discussions about veganism and animal rights.
- “Lived Experience” now serves as a stand-in for “anecdotal evidence.”
As might be expected, critics of the Postmodern framework argue that such terms are imprecise, ambiguous, excessive, or confusing, creating unnecessary complexity in language. Critics also point out the “silliness” of being offended by words which we all know and have used for many hundreds of years. However, practitioners of the Church of Wokeism view such terms as components in their spiritual lexicon and critical tools to foster inclusivity and respect.
Legal Challenges
Examples abound of shifting language causing challenges in day-to-day life. Some daycares reportedly have begun listing “people caring for children” instead of “parents” on forms, leaving grandparents and nannies wondering if these terms apply to them. Other instances occur in corporate workplaces where new “equity-focused” policies refer to employees as “members of our collaborative ecosystem,” leading to puzzled reactions about the chain of command. Similarly, a city council recently labeled garbage collectors as “sanitation heroes,” causing confusion when multiple residents sought to confirm trash pickup schedules.
Adding ambiguity to language can also cause significant harm, specifically when precision in language is critical, such as in legal or medical contexts. For example, in custody disputes, “woke” language such as “non-birthing parent” has created confusion regarding parental roles and rights. For instance, cases involving same-sex couples or situations where the biological and gestational roles differ often highlight the term’s limitations. One notable case involved a dispute between a biological parent and a “non-birthing partner” over custody and parental responsibilities, which led to extended litigation due to unclear terminology and legal recognition of parenthood. Prolonged court proceedings, expert testimonies, and the need for appeals can result in legal fees exceeding tens of thousands of dollars, burdening families and complicating the lives of the children involved.
Speaking of legal challenges, multiple lawsuits have been filed related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. For example, in 2023 no fewer than thirty-seven (37) federal lawsuits challenging DEI initiatives were filed in the U.S., up from eleven (11) in 2021. These cases often allege constitutional violations, with some high-profile lawsuits, such as Duvall v. Novant Health, leading to multimillion-dollar damages. Such cases often stem from ambiguity in the language used in policies and training, which can result in misinterpretation or allegations of bias.
Companies implementing DEI programs have faced formal accusations alleging reverse discrimination, with plaintiffs arguing that these “Woke” initiatives unfairly disadvantage certain demographic groups, particularly white employees or men. Multiple lawsuits have been filed against employers for using terms like “systemic privilege” or emphasizing “equity of outcomes” in ways that plaintiffs claim create a hostile work environment or violate anti-discrimination laws. Such cases often focus on whether DEI programs, as implemented, cross the line into legally prohibited forms of discrimination
Another issue arises when ambiguous language from the Church of Wokeism’s DEI initiatives causes confusion around implementation or compliance. For instance, companies might outline vague goals like “achieving equity,” leaving employees unclear on how success is measured or what actions are required. Ambiguities can lead to inconsistent enforcement or accusations of favoritism, sparking legal disputes. Financially, defending these cases can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, particularly when they involve protracted litigation, reputational harm, or the need to revise corporate policies to align with clearer legal standards.
Many of these aforementioned examples are emblematic of potentially dangerous shifting goalposts and an alarming propensity for the Postmodern era to morph directed language into muted or politically sensitive language. Sadly, this cultural disposition only makes our world less colorful and more restricted. We wind up talking much but saying little. We sacrifice precision, or even veracity, on the altar of politeness.
Society has been gravitating towards a proverbial “euphemism treadmill,” which is a term first coined by Steven Pinker. This effect refers to the phenomenon where words initially used to be polite or “politically correct” soon become associated with negative connotations, forcing people to constantly invent new, less offensive terms to replace them, creating a continuous cycle of replacing words that have become stigmatized, essentially, a “treadmill” of needing to find new euphemisms as old ones become ‘negative.’
Political language – and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists – is designed to make lies sound truthful and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
—George Orwell
An Appeal to Common Sense?
It sometimes seems necessary to shout into the wind, “Are we all taking crazy pills, people?!?”
There is no rational reason to relabel the term “exercise” to “joyful moving of the body.” Exercise is a succinct, clear, and perfectly useful term to explain physical activity. That some super small minority of people might possibly take offense to the word (or be “triggered” by it) should not be a catalyst for shifting our entire language to the left. There should exist a higher bar for words or phrases to morph.
The backlash to what many see as sheer absurdity is understandable and defensible. The Progressive Left speaking in tongues of the Woke, and specifically the act of forcing that language on non-practitioners, may cause a similar level of media backlash that the Pentecostal Church has faced from within and without its ranks. Religious Faith and using the lexicon of the Church is one thing, but blind faith and ungrounded vocal hysteria is something completely different.
The term Woke has become toxic to many Americans. This is just a fact. Even if one fully embraces the merits of the ideology, including standing up to prejudice and power imbalances, the term simply no longer is a good standard-bearer for the Progressive movement. The well has become polluted. The word carries too much baggage.
One may blame the Right for this. Opponents on the conservative side let fly the word “woke” from their lips with it dripping with righteous disdain. Yet the Left should consider taking a long, hard look at its own dogma when reflecting on the cultural divide.
Did the Progressive Left “spike the football” in the era of rampant Postmodern thought instead of allowing nuance and civil discourse to take place? Many on the Right feel strongly that the Church of Wokeism has poured hot bile down its throat for more than a decade. From this perspective, the heretical countermovement to Wokeism and its Holy Doctrine is mostly the making of the Progressive Left. The Left often blames “the resurgence of racism” largely on Donald Trump. But consider that the rise of Trump, as a populist movement, was directly because of the self-righteous zeal coming from The Church of Wokeism. Postmodern America has been facing movements and counter movements, actions and reciprocal actions. The pendulum has swung far to the Left … and then swings back even harder to the Right. Back and forth, back and forth. This deadly dance and grueling game of political machinations does little to evolve the cultural wellbeing of our country. A little humility is in order; some temperance and acceptance of the other side would go a long way – instead of touchdown celebrations and constantly forcing “your enemy” to eat humble pie.
Woke Irony
One peculiar irony of Wokeism is often the movement’s efforts to make the world more egalitarian and diverse backfire and produce the exact opposite effect. Many of the most ardent advocates and proponents of Wokeism use the philosophy as a badge of virtue (e.g. “virtue signaling”) at the expense of the very persons and groups they profess to want to help. DEI efforts by corporate entities are a great example of this. As of January 2024, 76.1% of “Chief Diversity Officers” in large businesses were white. Thus, even the DEI departments are not “helping the cause” they espouse. Ergo, they aren’t “practicing what they preach.”
As a result of the data evidenced above, many argue that the Woke movement (initially started for very laudable reasons such as bringing awareness to plights faced by the Black community) has slowly morphed over time to be nothing but white people (and big corporations run by white people) virtue signaling. These self-benefiting DEI programs have been a courageous badge of honor for white progressives in academia, white persons in the media, white persons in Big Business, and white persons with non-STEM college degrees.
As these DEI programs die out (now under fire within the racist MAGA Presidential regime), Woke Progressives will self-righteously proclaim that Black and other under-represented persons are those most compromised! However, the sad truth is that Wokeism in the corporate workplace has devolved into becoming nothing more than a ‘grift’ for mediocre, white college graduates. Their overpriced, worthless degrees were ideal for a Woke ‘industry’ that did not demand critical thinking or nuanced problem solving for complex problems.
Another sad irony of Wokeism is that its concerted efforts to cast a spotlight on injustice and improve the world have backfired and made society far more divided. This is not a criticism of its motives, but its methods. Like a Pentecostal preacher, The Woke have sought to use the bully-pulpit to affect change and bifurcatebelievers from unbelievers. But this modality is crude, ineffective, and often violently misfires.
The current reality is that the Church of Wokeism is turning off more people than it is converting. The “fire and brimstone” sermons are losing their desired effect. The “sexist and/or racist wolf” has been cried too many times. As a result, many followers are turning away from Wokeism and running in the opposite direction as fast as they can.
As a result, many on the Far Right are turning to blatant racism as an overreaction/overcorrection to Woke Culture. All one needs to do is point to the 2016 rise of Trump/MAGA and also to the 2024 Trump reelection as clear examples of this! The wild and intelligible screaming by frenzied Woke preachers in the sacred halls of the Church of Wokeism boomeranged. Because of Wokeism, the Right galvanized its base and found its own ‘righteous’ cause to rally behind: Donald Trump.
Since this is clearly the case, the Church has no one to blame but itself. Temperance might have been a wiser course of action than blood conquest. But just as in any Holy War, when dividing lines are starkly drawn and one’s faith is righteous, there is a “take no prisoners” attitude. You’re either with us or you’re against us. The faithful will live in Woke heaven; the unfaithful will perish in Conservative hell.
More importantly, from a political perspective what this crude bifurcation means is that Trump wins and sanity loses! When the Progressive Left stretches the rubber-band so far, it inevitably snaps back in its face. And when the political rhetoric is this divisive, as can truly occur only in religious affectations, then there can be no mercy. It’s kill or be killed, do or die, become Woke or become the enemy. And the great irony is that the scourge of Wokeism shall die by its own self-righteous sword.
===
Please consider reading more and diving deeper into metamodern philosophy and the rise of Donald Trump by purchasing Dempsey’s book Trump Again?! How Could America Let This Happen? on Amazon.
