In my previous discussion, I hinted at delving into Musa al-Gharbi’s analytical framework and the assumptions presented in his book, We Have Never Been Woke. Let’s explore who constitutes the “we” in his narrative and the nuances of what he defines as “woke.”
To begin, al-Gharbi introduces a method he terms “analytic egalitarianism.” This approach insists on a uniform standard of analysis across various social groups:
In his examination, the behaviors of white individuals, racial and ethnic minorities, men, women, LGBTQ communities, and “cishet” (cisgender heterosexual) Americans are treated with equivalent scrutiny. This commitment, while it may seem innocuous at first glance, reveals a more radical undertone.
Al-Gharbi contends that applying the same standards across the board is a revolutionary stance, especially since contemporary sociological methodologies often display a lopsidedness that leads to inegalitarian interpretations. For example:
When racial and ethnic minorities show a preference for collaborating with coethnics, such actions are hailed as in-group solidarity or social capital building. Conversely, similar behaviors by white individuals are frequently scrutinized through a lens of racism and discrimination, leading to pathologization and censure. This trend persists even when harmful actions by other groups are acknowledged, often deflecting responsibility back to historically dominant demographics. For instance, hate crimes committed by African Americans are commonly attributed to white supremacy, while women’s exploitation of other women is blamed on patriarchy. As I’ve elaborated in other writings, these tendencies, albeit well-intentioned, are patronizing and often obscure the complexities of societal dynamics.
Al-Gharbi applies analytic egalitarianism to the concept of racism as well. He aligns with the definitions posited by Karen and Barbara Fields:
They characterize “racism” as the act of applying a social, civic, or legal double standard based on perceived ancestry. It’s crucial to note that their definition does not solely focus on double standards favoring the historically dominant group. Instead, any racialized double standard qualifies as “racist,” regardless of its intent or beneficiaries.
As the Fields articulate, “Racial equality and racial justice are not merely rhetorical devices; they are political acts with significant implications. Just as a half-truth is a form of deception, racialized concepts of equality and justice often morph into euphemisms for their opposites.”
While al-Gharbi’s analytical methods may seem radical at first glance, they resonate more closely with the scholarly works that social justice advocates often claim as their foundation:
Consuming analyses from the post-2010 era might lead one to assume that wokeness gained traction because a multitude of elites and aspirants immersed themselves in Marx, Adorno, Foucault, and Crenshaw, adopting their arguments wholesale. In reality, many practices associated with wokeness reflect a superficial engagement with the very literatures that purportedly birthed them.
For example, he references Patricia Hill Collins, who developed the “matrix of oppression” framework, illustrating how various forms of oppression intersect and reinforce each other. Yet, al-Gharbi points out that many interpretations of her work contradict her original intent:
The attributions made in support of the notion that certain groups are uniformly more oppressed contradict Collins’ clear rejection of these ideas in her seminal work, Black Feminist Thought.
This theme recurs throughout al-Gharbi’s book, where the principles championed by social justice advocates often starkly diverge from the actual content of the works they reference. Consequently, he asserts:
Wokeness cannot be accurately described as a result of individuals being indoctrinated through rigorous study of social justice texts. Instead, these oversimplified expressions of complex ideas stem from cultural enculturation, often mistaken for genuine scholarship, even in academic environments.
So, what exactly is wokeness? And who precisely are the “woke” individuals al-Gharbi refers to?
By invoking a concept as politically charged as “wokeness,” we risk igniting a perpetual debate over definitions. To mitigate this, al-Gharbi clarifies his interpretation of the term:
Importantly, I will not employ “woke” as a pejorative or slur within this text. Moreover, much to the chagrin of some, I will abstain from providing a rigid analytical definition of the term.
Such definitions are often universally applicable, a classic example being “bachelor” as a term for an unmarried man. However, not all concepts lend themselves to such clarity. Many significant ideas in English elude precise definition, as philosophical discourse has long demonstrated. Consider terms like “love,” “knowledge,” “justice,” “freedom,” or “beauty.” Their inability to be neatly defined does not render them meaningless.
Tracing the history of “wokeness,” al-Gharbi notes its roots extend back to the 1860s within a pro-worker, antislavery organization known as the Wide Awakes. In that context, being “Wide Awake” denoted an alertness to social injustice and a militant commitment to address it. Over time, it evolved into a call for vigilance—“stay woke” became synonymous with remaining ever-conscious of the injustices that permeate society. In examining its contemporary usage, al-Gharbi identifies several views that critics and supporters alike associate with wokeness:
These include support for antiracism, feminism, LGBTQ rights, and environmentalism, all perceived as interconnected; an appreciation of diversity and inclusion coupled with acknowledgment of historical grievances; a focus on identity and lived experiences; an explicit recognition of various forms of privilege; a belief in “unconscious bias,” which necessitates ongoing personal reflection; and a disproportionate emphasis on disparities among groups, with uneven application of this focus.
For instance, disparities favoring men are often interpreted as evidence of sexism, while those favoring women may be overlooked. Similarly, racial disparities favoring whites are scrutinized as racism, yet instances where other groups outperform whites may be ignored. Al-Gharbi also notes a “mystical” approach to identity within wokeness:
In this view, race is seen as a social construct that should be transcended but is simultaneously regarded as an immutable characteristic rooted in biology. Furthermore, discussions surrounding race are deemed essential for understanding social phenomena, while failure to do so is viewed as a refusal to engage with reality. Gender and sexuality, conversely, are seen as fluid constructs but are also viewed as fixed elements of one’s identity from birth.
Nevertheless, al-Gharbi clarifies that this “mystical” aspect of identity should not be construed as a criticism of woke ideologies:
The association of these ideas with wokeness doesn’t inherently indicate their correctness or incorrectness. My observation regarding the “mystical” nature of identity beliefs is descriptive rather than critical. As a Muslim, I don’t view such tensions as problematic—consider free will and divine providence—but it’s crucial to acknowledge and grapple with these contradictions.
So, if this encapsulates wokeness, who exactly are the woke? Al-Gharbi identifies this group as “symbolic capitalists”:
The individuals most likely to align with woke beliefs are often those positioned to become symbolic capitalists—educated, relatively affluent white liberals.
Symbolic capitalists represent a social elite—highly educated professionals with significant income. Al-Gharbi asserts that what is commonly referred to as wokeness is effectively the ideology of this increasingly influential elite:
Those genuinely marginalized in society are seldom the ones advocating for these ideals; instead, it is the educated and affluent who predominantly embrace and enforce these norms and discourses.
Interestingly, the political preferences of the woke often diverge from those they profess to uplift:
For example, many educated white liberals fervently supported the notion of defunding the police to align with movements like Black Lives Matter, even when this sentiment was largely rejected by African Americans themselves. It appears that signaling the “right” stance was prioritized over genuinely advancing the desires of marginalized communities or forming effective coalitions for tangible change.
This discrepancy extends to perceptions of social realities:
Post-2011, there was a notable shift in how highly educated white liberals responded to racial issues—a change not mirrored by non-liberal whites or non-white individuals across the political spectrum. By 2020, these white liberals exhibited more pronounced “woke” responses to racial inquiries than many Black or Hispanic individuals, perceiving significantly higher levels of racism than those who experienced it firsthand.
Before delving deeper into these dynamics, it’s prudent to pause and further analyze what constitutes a symbolic capitalist. What does it mean to engage in what al-Gharbi describes as the “symbolic economy”? What kind of “symbolic capital” do these elites wield, and how does it relate to the ideology of wokeness? These ideas will be explored further in the subsequent discussion.
