Debates over terminology are often dismissed as hollow. Yet, we shouldn't overlook the impact of language driving social justice movements. Consider, for instance, how conservatives accosted the word "woke." Many are now familiar with its true origins. But, given persistent efforts to misinform the public, it bears repeating. The black community used the term to reference awareness of racial injustice. While it's often portrayed as new, the word appeared in newspapers as early as the 1920s. Now, the term has become a catch-all phrase to describe support for progressive ideals, from promoting environmental protections to advancing gender equity. To dampen public support for these movements, some use the word "woke" as a slur. And position it as a harmful ideology. This is no coincidence but rather part of a broader attack.
According to one study, misappropriating "woke" reflects a unique phenomenon. Professor Nicholas D. C. Allen described it as context-collapsed contributory injustice in Synthese. This refers to the suppression of a marginalized group's hermeneutical resources. Put another way, each group has a shared set of concepts and ideas they use to communicate. In African American Vernacular English, words can take on layers of meaning. "Woke" is but one example. Every group has the right to speak and relay meaning. Reframing "woke" as harmful undermines the "epistemic agency" of Black people. It's an effort to "obscure the collective understanding" of their social experience. Since fostering social change depends upon communication, this reframing has a distorting effect.
If you have ever played the telephone game in a classroom, you will understand the concept. That's when the teacher sends a message through the class by whispering to one student. Each student repeats the process until the last student hears and relays the message. More often than not, the phrase differs in some way from the original message. Of course, this is partly because people speak at a low volume during the game. But it's also true that some people are chaos agents. Some insert something new into the equation to distort the message. And that's precisely what's happening with the contortion of "woke." Social justice terms play an essential role in shaping our conversations about progress. And the lack thereof. Removing that framework makes it easier to suppress social movements. And dampen public support for advancing progress. So, we cannot afford to ignore the linguistic battle.
The latest attack on so-called "woke initiatives" stems from the White House. The Trump administration has been purging words. A New York Times article warned as much, sharing a growing list of terms. Journalists compiled it by reviewing federal memos sent to various departments. Presidents often shift the official language used to reflect their approach to policy. Yet, it's the nature of this shift that's raised eyebrows. Such as targeting language associated with social justice movements. They flagged terms identifying marginalized groups, such as "Black" and "Native American." As well as terms related to discrimination they face. Such as "marginalized, biased," and "stereotyp[ed]." Strategies that mitigate prejudice include diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. "Equal opportunity" and "racial justice" were also on the chopping block. Each of these terms has a different meaning. However, the relationship becomes clear when we see the entire mosaic. Social justice terms are being targeted.
Some claim that purging these words has no significance in our everyday lives. They may argue that it doesn't matter what terms appear on federal websites. After all, we are free to use whatever terms we choose daily. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution asserts that we have this freedom. Yet, this perspective overlooks the federal government's power to set a tone. Retail companies such as Walmart and Target slashed their DEI programs. Following an executive order that called their use "illegal," many companies changed course. This indicates that language does matter, as it influences their adopted policies. And thus, how they treat members of marginalized groups. Researchers often rely upon federal funding for studies. Delegitimizing social justice language makes it difficult to secure approval for proposals. Thus, this discourages scholars from investigating these topics.
The federal government has a history of suppressing domestic social movements. Purging language such as "racial equality" and 'racism" seems consistent with these efforts. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) launched COINTELPRO during the 1960s. Agents investigated groups like the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense for fifteen years. One of their more well-known programs was the Free Breakfast for School Children program. FBI director J. Edgar Hoover led a smear campaign, instructing agents to go door to door. They told parents that the group taught their children racism. And lied to others, claiming the food was unsafe to eat. Like conservatives in the modern era, they were claiming reverse racism. In doing so, it perpetuates a hermeneutical injustice. Distorting terminology Black people used to describe a phenomenon and stripping it of meaning.
Social justice movements are never about one or even a few people. Instead, they focus on uplifting groups, giving them the power to make decisions for themselves and their communities. As a result, you cannot halt their efforts by eliminating a single organization or even silencing particular activists. But instead, by attacking their ideological framework. And the language they use to communicate with others. Diluting the meaning of social justice terms is an effort to obscure the intention of various movements. And dampen support. Take, for instance, the back-and-forth observed following the police killing of George Floyd. A viral video of the incident sparked wide-scale protests in May of 2020. This, in turn, sparked national conversations on systemic racism. For a brief moment, it felt like a dam was breaking. However, this was a false alarm as this shift was short-lived. Counter-protestors weaponized the slogans "All Lives Matter" and "Blue Lives Matter." They sought to distract from the specific harm inflicted upon black communities. Their retort reveals the significant role language plays in social justice movements.
On the one hand, we're witnessing social justice terms purged from federal websites. On the other hand, these terms are permitted when used as derogatory. For instance, the Education Department launched a hotline to "End DEI." This reveals hypocrisy. Because authorities can discuss these terms, but only to diminish their impact. Not to discuss them in good faith. Or accept these values as legitimate. Those promoting social progress are often labeled "too woke" these days. This is reflective of the country's political shift to the right. It's become a way of pressuring people to abandon social justice movements. Professor Kristie Dotson described three types of epistemic injustice relevant to this case. Testimonial injustice is "a negative identity-prejudicial stereotype that affects" perceived credibility. Overlooking the meaning Black people established is a prime example. Secondly, as described before, obscuring the collective understanding of social justice terms is an example of hermeneutical injustice. Lastly, contributory injustice refers to the willful ignorance that facilitates epistemic injustice.
As early as 1927, Black Americans used the term "woke" to refer to awareness of racial injustice. A Houston Informer article, "Stay Woke," sheds light on this enduring tradition. Editor C.F. Richardson said the following. "The person that does not 'stay woke' will soon find himself or herself not only bringing up the rear, but trailing even the rear." During the Jim Crow era, Black people faced constant danger. Their newspapers often included guidance on how to navigate this hostile environment. Historian Paul Schleuse found this evidence while researching Black local musicians. Huddie "Lead Belly" Ledbetter is often credited with using the phrase first in a 1931 song. It described the story of two Black teenagers falsely accused of raping White women. The lyrics relayed sound advice, "best stay woke," to the black community.
Polarizing social justice language attempts to diminish support for these movements. This is true for those advancing racial progress and those advocating for immigrants' rights. From environmental protections to gender equity, these struggles are inextricably tied. It stands to reason that various groups will identify their shared struggle. And work together to mitigate harm. Yet, there is a disparity in power that should be addressed. Black people cannot secure progress in a society where members of the majority, white citizens, engage in willful ignorance when the terms introduced by the lack community are flippantly disregarded rather than carefully examined. When terms such as "racism" and "woke" become prohibited language, prejudice hardens. These efforts seek to delegitimize constructive discourse addressing long-standing social problems. Something we can't sacrifice if we hope to advance.