Letter to the editor: 'Woke' lends itself to weaponization

One reads with interest the column “The problem with the word woke” (March 10, TribLIVE). Lori Falce decries how a word supposedly “meant to be about opening eyes turned into a club.” Such linguistic weaponization, however, might be implicit in the term “woke” itself.

Merriam-Webster defines “woke” as “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice).” Given that definition, the term “woke” itself is easily understood not just as describing an eye-opening process but also as an insult meaning that those who do not participate in or fully agree with the movement are either unaware of or inattentive to important issues. Such a potentially pejorative understanding apparently underlies both the “wokier” behavior of those on the left and the aggressive response by those on the right.

Perhaps greater self-awareness by those who proclaim their own “woke” status might lead to an understanding that a person who disagrees, in whole or in part, with their point of view is not necessarily a somnambulist merely passing through life unaware of the challenges facing our society. The problem may not be the words used to describe societal movements but rather with the all too apparent unwillingness of partisans on both sides to verbally abuse rather than substantively address the positions of others.

Until that underlying issue is resolved, retiring any specific word will not change the process whereby the label affixed to any viewpoint, whether voluntarily selected or imposed, becomes a badge of honor for the proponents and a target for the opponents.

David Thomas

Bradford Woods