Word Wars: Wokeism and the Battle Over Language

David Brooks introduces himself and John McWhorter, setting the stage for an interview that will explore themes around language, wokeness, and societal issues. McWhorter shares insights on the power of language, suggesting that while language can indeed hurt, its capacity to shape thought is often overestimated. The conversation delves into historical examples of how changing language (like 'urban renewal' for 'slum clearance') didn't necessarily change public perception or realities. McWhorter critiques the belief that modifying language can directly lead to significant shifts in thought or social justice, highlighting the complexity of linguistic influence on societal change.

The discussion transitions into the topic of 'wokeness,' with McWhorter explaining its evolution from a term indicating political correctness to one that carries a negative connotation, signifying an uncompromising stance on social justice issues. He expresses concern that the term 'woke' has become associated with a punitive culture that demands conformity to a specific set of beliefs, under the threat of social ostracization. McWhorter and Brooks reflect on the impacts of such a culture on freedom of expression and the intellectual landscape, suggesting a need for a new vocabulary that encapsulates the positive aspects of being socially and politically aware without the negative baggage.

McWhorter and Brooks expand the conversation to include the intellectual underpinnings of 'wokeness,' touching on its roots in Marxist theory and its focus on oppressor versus oppressed dynamics. They discuss how this framework oversimplifies complex societal structures and histories, potentially hindering nuanced understanding and progress. The dialogue also covers the class dynamics within progressive circles, pointing out how academic jargon and elitism can alienate wider communities. McWhorter shares personal observations from his teaching experience, noting a reluctance among students to engage in open debate due to fears of social retribution.

The conversation takes a critical turn as McWhorter argues that certain progressive ideologies, while aiming for social justice, may inadvertently harm the very communities they intend to support. He critiques movements that, in his view, prioritize performative activism over substantive change, leading to negative consequences for black people in terms of police presence, educational opportunities, and internal community dynamics. McWhorter emphasizes the importance of focusing on tangible improvements in living conditions and opportunities rather than symbolic gestures or language policing.

Brooks and McWhorter discuss the topic of reparations, particularly in the context of housing and addressing historical injustices like redlining. McWhorter expresses a nuanced shift in his stance towards reparations, acknowledging the changing societal context and the need to address past and ongoing disparities in a tangible manner. He reflects on the potential for reparations to be a significant step towards acknowledging and remedying historical wrongs, while also expressing skepticism about the broader societal willingness to recognize such measures as meaningful progress.

The discussion touches upon the dynamics of cancel culture and the importance of allowing individuals to learn from and correct their mistakes. McWhorter recounts instances where individuals faced severe professional and personal repercussions for isolated comments or actions deemed offensive. He advocates for a more forgiving and nuanced approach to public discourse, where a single misstep does not irreversibly damage a person's life or career, emphasizing the importance of context, intent, and the capacity for growth and understanding.

An attendee from Jerusalem shares their perspective on the conversation, highlighting the cultural differences in how political correctness and 'wokeness' are perceived and navigated in different parts of the world. The discussion underscores the importance of compassion, listening, and understanding in navigating complex social and cultural issues, suggesting that a more empathetic approach could bridge divides and foster more genuine connections and understandings across diverse communities.

The conversation concludes with attendees raising concerns about the appropriation and misuse of culturally significant terms, emphasizing the power of words in shaping perceptions, identities, and legal outcomes. There is a call for acknowledging the importance of language in reflecting and respecting diverse experiences and histories, underscoring the need for thoughtful and inclusive discourse that recognizes the impact of words on individuals and communities.