After all, where's the urgency in addressing racism and why ask whites to do anything about it? Shrug.
9
I have found that much of the logic of "wokness" from either side is the desire to stake out a position of moral superiority. Its partly to establish this superiority over those on the "other side", but sometimes the nastiest fights are among those trying to one-up those without their own camp. Thus you get gun rights people wanting to allow virtually anyone to have any kind of gun, and to carry a gun virtually anywhere. And you get the arrogant close minded students like those at Evergreen University in Olympia WA who intimidated a professor for a reasonable disagreement over how to best support the interests of marginalized students.
10
Again, many of the Most Recommended comments about a Brooks article respond to either something Brooks has said in the past or a Rorschach blot picture of what he is saying in the present.
What I might reduce his essay to is:
1/ Talk and indignation are cheap.
2/ Actual change requires more than moral indignation.
3/ The perfect can be the greatest enemy of the good.
4/ Manichean politics tends to accomplish very little.
What Brooks says is:
"In an older frame of mind, you try to perceive the size of a problem objectively, and then you propose a solution, which might either be radical or moderate, conservative or liberal. You were judged primarily by the nature of your proposal."
"But wokeness jams together the perceiving and the proposing. In fact, wokeness puts more emphasis on how you perceive a situation — how woke you are to what is wrong — than what exactly you plan to do about it. To be woke is to understand the full injustice."
"There is no measure or moderation to wokeness. It’s always good to be more woke. It’s always good to see injustice in maximalist terms. To point to any mitigating factors in the environment is to be naïve, childish, a co-opted part of the status quo."
"Indignation is often deserved and always makes for a great media strategy. But in its extreme form, whether on left or right, wokeness leads to a one-sided depiction of the present and an unsophisticated strategy for a future offensive."
What Townes Van Zandt says:
"It's snowin' on Raton."
6
First, your use of false equivalency doesn't help to sell your argument.
And I'd sure like to see for myself what "blunt facts" lead you to believe that "most great social changes occur from moments of optimism". In my experience, most great social changes occur from years and decades of pent up rage sufficient to challenge the status quo despite facing physical assault and death to push forward the change. Unionization, civil rights, women's suffrage, to name three major movements.
As usual David, you grasp at straws to try and support your preconceived notions drawn from your conservative point of view. Why don't you try allowing reality and the evidence to form your conclusions rather than allowing your conclusions to shape your reality?
15
Where is the real David Brooks? What have you done with him? A good piece, I agree with many points here, for a change.
9
Excellent. Insightful. And fair. I was wondering if you would mention right wing wokeness. These days, if you aren't sufficiently anti-left you aren't woke to the mortal threat that the left poses. It's getting crazy out there. I wish more people would read Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now. What the world needs now is not love sweet love, but reason, science, humanism and faith in progress.
Thank you David.
1
"Woke" is just another way to claim only _you_ see the world as it really is. Just another way to ignore what others think as irrelevant rather than trying to understand and realizing that maybe everyone who thinks differently from you isn't a complete idiot.
Just like "Sheeple", and so many other terms - in the end they only say that the person using the term had no comprehension of both sides of the argument, preferred to battle a strawman, and wanted to keep their blinders firmly in place.
15
"Wokeness"? Really, Mr. Brooks? I should think a serious writer like yourself would instinctively avoid using a silly, self-congratulatory fuzzword like "woke" -- with or without quotation marks -- and take on Coates along with the issues of racial guilt, tribal hatreds, reparations, etc. head on.
4
David it would be great if you or some other prominent conservative columnist needs to call out that it sure appears that the Russians are swarming all around Trump and his administration.
David unless this crazy roller coaster ride ends the administration could come after you if you write something they don’t like.
3
Mr. Brooks—if we are talking about guns and kids dying I would invite you to enroll one of your own in a public high school and not worry about them getting shot or
Killed. Tough not to be rigid in those moments.
In regard to your meta message that thought requires real effort if life is going to be made better—I agree.
For the rigid bi-nominal thinkers like myself you would be much easier to relate to if you you would pick a gut-driven fight with one evil figure and define a road map
on how to bring him and the institutional structure that supports him to heel.
13
David misses the point – the intolerance he encountered is deliberate and not intended to lead to conversation, dialogue or negotiated improvements in society. Its proponents (SJW - social justice warriors) oppose law and convention, seeking rather confrontation as a means of resolving struggle in identity politics. To do this they conflate “woke” with deconstruction, post-modernism and Marxism. In 1962, the NYTimes introduced the Black Vernacular English “woke” – used in that largely segregated community as the understanding that disparate treatment was not fully recognized for the pernicious discrimination that it was. To that SJW adds 1) deconstruction – opposing the dominant paradigm of US constitutional law as a valid bill or rights, 2) post-modernism – the idea that politics devolve only from group identities added up numerically (intersectionality), and rely on that aspect of post-modernism that devolved from disgruntled homosexuals ejected from European communist parties in the 1960s as too deviant. They retain two Marxist ideas, 1) that entities are in a state of struggle (with class warfare replaced by identity warfare), and 2) that revolution is required (no gradualism). But David is correct that this phenomenon characterizes both the alt-right and the neo-Marxists.
4
The problem isn't wokeness. The problem is Brooksness. We've passed the 500-day mark of the Trump administration, and it is all but impossible for anyone to fully enumerate the ways in which Trump, his family, his billionaire cronies, his Cabinet and Republican politicians in thrall to him have damaged America. Rather than honestly taking conservatives to task for their myriad failings, Brooks dissects the left using caricatures of his own devising. Since it's clear that Brooks will stay Brooks, I will stay woke, and daily resist all attempts to normalize this horrendous administration.
24
Very, very true.
Both sides do it - the issue must be presented as the worst thing ever - or else you are minimalizing and not woke. It's the same instinct that wants to call all mass shooters a "terrorist", ignoring the meaning of that word.
To ignore middle grounds, to ignore proportion and perspective, to demonize your opponents and anyone who doesn't agree with your beliefs is a path to accomplishing nothing, and raising your blood pressure and misery at the same time.
8
More pseudo-intellectual dribble from Mr. Brooks as he fiddles while what's left of our democracy is laid waste by a narcissistic evil leader aided and abetted by feckless corrupt congress. U S Grant: "There only two political parties now patriots or traitors". Let's all get busy and win back the Congress in the midterms.
Jerry W N E Kingdom VT
2
I grew up in the white evangelical community and I find it fascinating to see fellow progressives, many of them adamantly secular, celebrating attitudes taken directly from religion. Pride in one's own conversion and pity for those less fervent in their faith is one. The language of awakening is very familiar here. We used to essentialize others as "infidels", or "sinners"; now they are "racists" or "misogynists". Maybe religious language and feelings are unavoidable or even essential to achieve necessary social change?
14
Today's column is why I read David Brooks.
8
There is no equality regarding the problem of wokeness. It belongs to the Republican party, and Newt Gingrich in particular. His response and that of this party to the 1992 election of Bill Clinton was that politics was war. Well, guess what, it was the ever more rightward Republican party that created that war and refused to accept that there are actually two or more sides in a functional democracy, and compromise/consensus is fundamental to governance. Trump has simply escalated this "war" and congressional Republicans have utterly failed to push back. No checks and balances, no rule of law. We're doomed as a society unless Democrats are voted into office and restore democratic governance.
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
6
"I’d add that it’s a blunt fact that most great social reforms have happened in moments of optimism, not moments of pessimism, in moments of encouraging progress, not in moments of perceived threat."
Words are incredibly beautiful and useful things sometimes. Woke is nothing if not optimistic, even while it's being used to explain a state that you find difficult to understand. We are waking from something disturbing. We are woke to the way things are, and to a new possibility. To realizing we have the ability to turn from something bad towards something better. Simple words I know, but there’s no point in trying to dress it up more than it requires. This isn’t hard to understand.
Of course all words are up for interpretation.
This isn’t a liberal thing Mr. Brooks. Idealism is hard to swallow when it’s not your idealism, just as outrage can be terrifying when it isn’t yours. The thing I find most confusing now is how team spirit has become more important than recognizing what’s right in front of us.
Instead of trying to put the brakes on a movement, I wish more people would realize that what we need is to come together for the sake of our country. Sometimes it’s not just okay to be outraged, it’s absolutely necessary. None of this is normal, and these are not good times.
It's going to take a lot of hard work, but I am optimistic and I have hope. See?
10
"I’d add that it’s a blunt fact that most great social reforms have happened in moments of optimism, not moments of pessimism, in moments of encouraging progress, not in moments of perceived threat."
. . . If you're going rest part of your argument on "blunt facts," it would be helpful to enumerate them.
Otherwise, thanks for speaking for the moderates in the room!
1
This age is an age of moral indignation, but moral indignation expressed only if it brings no bad consequences for the indignant ones. There is lots of fake "courage" out there, even more insincerity.
But then, when has this NOT been the case?
7
Enjoy your columns and books. Still believe in intangible things like sin and a person's soul (and we just lost two more apparently tortured
ones). Even so, it does seem that we can be too "woke."
1
I think Brooks's point is ultimately quite simple and quite important. We have to be as woke about the good things in our society as we are about the bad things. Otherwise, we lose our way and make bad decisions.
My favorite example is the War on Poverty. What both conservatives and progressives get wrong is that the war has been mostly won. Sure, inequality of income and opportunity remain, but that's not the same thing as poverty. Being impoverished today is nothing like it was 75 or even 50 years ago.
7
I guess David Brooks found it easier to dismiss Ta-Nehisi Coates thoughtful and powerful writing by offhandedly mentioning him in a discussion of "wokeness" rather than engage with or dispute the substance of Coates' thesis that racism and white supremacy are foundational to America. This is a point that could lead to truly valuable discussion. Brooks, once again, fails to engage with ideas.
8
The term “woke” is essentially just a sugar cube for the self-righteous. A little treat, a blue ribbon that a person can wear for repeating mindlessly what everyone else in their echo chamber says.
Here’s some advice - next time you are confused by the word “woke”, replace it with “self-satisfied” or “self-righteous” and see how quickly the passage makes sense.
18
This White House is an open advocate of racism and xenophobia, and racism and xenophobia are flourishing. Brilliant: Mr. Brooks assures us that the principal problem is "wokeness." Thousands died in Puerto Rico after the hurricane because of this White House's racially inflected FEMA help. Generous: According to Brooks, the right has a problem with wokeness, also. For the first time ever, ICE is taking children away from families who have asked for asylum at the border. Fair minded: Brooks makes the case that, when it comes to wokeness and its concomitant "one-sided depiction of the present," both sides do it.
5
The problem is "wokeness" - regardless of the side using it. The White House and those supporting Trump consider themselves "woke" to the problem of immigrants and 'those' people. On the other side are people who are 'woke' because they're sure the police are racist and wrong in pretty nearly every shooting, even the ones where the officer was almost killed, where the threat to his life was actually real and immediate.
5
Mr. Brooks has pioneered a style of writing I like to call “The Problem with Omelette.”
First, he starts with an idea: ‘I like omelette. I like to write. I will write about an omelette.” Gold.
Then, he does research: He stood in line at an omelette bar in a hotel in Connecticut. He watched the chef make his omelette. Mr. Brooks thinks, “I saw a man make my omelette. I’m a chef.”
Research concluded, he begins to write his column on his vast, personal experience on the cooking industry (he’s been in his kitchen before), the intricacies of making an omelette, the colorful characters he’s encountered waiting in line for an omelette.
And by the end of the column, we get his recipe for omelette. It’s presented on a shiny plate, and it’s a soup of raw eggs and onions, and it’s presented with a knowing smile and a wink. He is a chef, and here is your omelette.
His ability to consider other peoples information or experience extends only to the metaphor he’s already constructed inside his head.
As long as you don’t complicate your life with the mess of it, then you can be an expert on anything. Congratulations Mr. Brooks, you are a chef.
The Dunning Kruger Effect is a cognitive bias that implies that people with a lack of self-awareness often overestimate their cognitive abilities. Conversely, people with higher cognitive ability tend to underestimate theirs.
11
This is hilarious and I highly recommend you write a joke op-ed along these lines and submit it somewhere!
2
It is an emotional issue-it involves our children, but we also have to confront facts, not matter which side of the issue we are on. Guns kill and should not be in the hands of emotionally unstable people, not just mentally ill people. Teenagers qualify as such since they are prone to over-reaction, particularly on social issues. This is something we can do something about.
But it is also true that violence is down in society. Steven Pinker's work has shown this with empirical and sociological data. Recognize your emotions but act on the facts.
The data shows that school shootings are more of a risk than terrorism in America but it also shows that the biggest terrorists are even a bigger risk than both of these, Drunk Drivers. Out emotions rank them one way, but the data tells a different story.
6
Today again Mr. Brooks reigns as king of false equivalences. But outrage isn’t a form of extremism; Ta-Nehisi Coates isn’t the equivalent of Meir Kahane; and only a man in a bubble of privilege thinks today’s crisis calls for equal parts optimism and pessimism. That is to say, Mr. Brooks is neither “woke” nor asleep; he’s willfully oblivious of reality no matter his state of rest. It seems he’s imitating his president and the president’s supporters. Like them, in their narcissistic way, he creates his own reality, one in which no column should be about anything too real lest he have to deal with reality itself; dimestore philosophy is easier. Now don’t get too upset, and if you do, don’t say so. The moderators have apparently decided certain words must not be spoken about Mr. Brooks. (They seem happy to hear anything about Charles Blow.) But let us say anyway that Mr. Brooks is the Times’ undisputed master of false moral equivalences. The subject of the column is irrelevant. Last week it was about how those terrified by Trump should embrace his supporters in the name of some illusory America “marriage,” as if supporters of democracy were morally equivalent to supporters of a traitor selling out his country to the Chinese and Russians. (Trademarks and bank loans do wondrous things; Mr. Brooks hasn’t noticed.) This week it’s another bunch of false equivalences. But ever self-satisfied Mr. Brooks remains the great philosopher, vacuous and fatuous in his comfortable oblivion.
6
Every day one strives not to allow outrage to dominate one's opposition to Trump, then once again he does or says something completely outrageous. Outrage is not the answer, but neither is going back to sleep.
4
The problem is too often one’s “wokeness” is derived from only one source of information, and too often it’s from a 30 second story or a 15 minute interview. There’s nothing inherently wrong with choosing Coates or West or Fox News as a source of information. The problem comes from choosing a favorite agreeable source and sticking with it no matter what else happens or what additional counter opinions might be available. Maybe the inability of Americans to analyze a situation and develop one’s own take on the matter has been lost. Maybe we never had it.
12
A few years ago, I asked everyone I knew if they understood the "bitcoin" thing. No one knew how it worked. Now I'm asking "what is this thing 'wokeness'"? No one seems to really know that either. After reading this column, it's still fuzzy to me. I did know what Pres. George H W Bush meant when he mentioned "the vision thing", although he himself might not have completely grasped the concept when he uttered the words, or so it seemed.
I'll console myself by saying that we'll all get the idea, eventually.
About the statistics on school killings. If it's fact, it's a fact--not an alternative fact. Facts are usually foundation pieces of an argument.
No wonder we're all messed up.
5
I will NEVER forgive myself for not buying any Bitcoins years ago when I briefly lived in Oakland, CA and people were selling them for like $600 apiece.
Well, it isn't so much the 'buying' as it is knowing when to sell. Still, I get your point.
But then, we digress.
The "woke thing" occurred to me when I was transporting medical marijuana home from a dispensary in West Hollywood, back then a sanctuary city for medical marijuana. I realized that I was safe on the road because racial profiling put me, a white lady with a wedding ring driving a minivan, at the very end of the line when it came to police scrutiny. Young black men were at the head of that line, thereby shielding me from police attention.
Well, here I am, I thought, a white liberal anti-racist, benefiting from racism. Racially biased policing is providing me, an anti-racist, with my sense of security.
That sudden readjustment of my sense of who I was and what I was doing in life is what I call being "woke."
But we're not messed up. We're in a constant state of flux, fixing what we can, using what time and energy we have for fixing. And lots of woke people are fixing marijuana prohibition, by legalizing marijuana and thereby removing the chance for racially biased policing to make an impact.
Apparently Trump has even announced he'll support the federal bill now in Congress to allow the states to proceed with that on their own. (Still trying to find out if that is true however.)
2
"Wokeness" obviously poses a problem when it becomes a single-issue obsession.
3
Racism is not a single issue. It's an attitude that is still floating about in the national consciousness and it influences all issues.
3
This reminds me of a live show of Pod Save America at Radio City Music Hall. Civil rights activist and journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones was the guest. She told the (mostly white) audience that they were not as progressive as they thought they were. She went on to explain that New York City parents are responsible for the segregated and unequal public school system, and that privileged individuals who use their influence to get their children into better schools are indirectly perpetuating racism against families of color. When the audience applauded, she said "Don't clap, send your children to black schools". Later, when one of the hosts asked what makes Nikole hopeful, Nikole responded "You're talking to the wrong woman. I don't think America is ever going to do right by our black children."
To me this was an example of the "wokeness" that David warns against. Nikole was surrounded by a sympathetic audience and hosts, but managed to erect a barrier. She shamed the audience, offered one path to redemption, but then closed by saying that she had little faith that anyone will change. To me, this was a missed opportunity to open a dialog about how we can find shared policy solutions to school segregation. We were left with the message (1) the school system is racist (2) it is white people's fault, and (3) it will never change. Left me feeling more alienated than woke.
9
You got the correct message. We've had nigh on to two centuries since slavery was abolished in the US and you are calling for more dialog? Everyone knows what "policy solutions to school segregation" are but I guess the hard part is the "shared." The alienation is all on you.
2
You can be 'woke' without responsibility. Social media offers it cheaply. We'll get a better measure at the ballot box.
3
Great insights in this article. I'm tempted to make a modest attempt to expand on the idea since some people seem to have a problem with the word itself as in its implications. This form of wokeness is willfully rejecting all contradictory ideas to the point of solidifying confidence in your own righteousness and as a result becoming ever more intolerant of opposing views and the people favoring them. Is this not very descriptive of what is happening today?
5
@Brendan McCarthy. Maybe that’s what’s happening today. For one, I’m intolerant of opposing views suggesting that totalitarianism is good, selling out America to its enemies is good, and being a racist, sexist, homophobe, and traitor is good. If I’m intolerant of those views, there must be something wrong with me. Find me a “reeducation camp” and I’ll get on the closest train. It worked for Mao. Surely it’ll work for Trump.
Mr. Brooks, only 22% of registered voters here in California voted in this week's primary. Being "awoke" is the least of our problems, David. You conservatives, the GOP, and no-nothings like Trump thrive when so many Americans are asleep and apathetic about our political life. When is your keen journalistic eye going to focus on that cancer?
2
I find Brooks' analysis intriguing as is usually the case, but after looking at the comments I have to ask: Am I the only one that reached the end of this article still not knowing what Brooks actually means by the notion of wokeness?
A few definitions I glean from the article. Wokeness is...
1. A mode of perception that is itself a mode of action
2. A mode of perception as opposed to a mode of action
3. A mode of perception that inhibits action
4. An uncritical mode of perception
5. An excessively critical mode of perception
6. A diverse phenomenon
7. A narrow and extremist phenomenon
Some of these might apply, but they evidently don't all apply. There's also a more basic point that Brooks doesn't quite make clear: The word taken up has a specific, and short etymology, leading us directly to the Black Lives Matter movement. This movement (the word implies political and social action; I wonder what Brooks would say) is concerned with a specific problem in the U.S. and its history rather than the entirety of the array that Brooks puts at stake. So what about the following (I leave it up to you to decide how this matches up with Brooks' analysis) – wokeness is...
8. Attentiveness to a specific historical injustice, as well as a project of rendering the consequences of this injustice visible at present in ways previously unseen by most.
2
Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains." John 9:41
2
I reviewed the article that Brooks cites as evidence that "Four times as many students were killed per year back then than in recent years." I don't see it. More were INJURED, perhaps, but not killed, at least not after the ban on automatic weapons.
So while all attacks are terrible, the mortality is increasing, which I take to mean, based on other articles about how the shooters study previous attacks, that the shooters are trying harder to kill as many as possible. This is indeed something to worry about, to be "woke" in the sense of engaging in critical thinking.
1
Thank you, thank you for putting some of my thoughts into words! I feel utterly alienated from the political Left, yet I can hardly embrace the Right.
Today's Left reminds me of academia: all critique, all the time. Those of us trained in this way of thinking (formally or by absorbing the examples of those close to us) think it means we're doing the right thing - we're being smart, conscientious, not blind to injustice. Instead, we are now blind to beauty and progress and all the good that has been done and the good that is still going on. It doesn't help that snarkiness and "zingers" are perceived as wit.
I'm tired of humans, and put my attention on plants and animals.
8
When will Brooks move on from criticizing Ta-Nehisi Coates? He clearly feels deeply attacked by Coates' work. He's dedicated multiple editorials to his views on the author. It's utterly laughable to use Cornel West as a mainstream foil to Coates' radicalism. I've taken two of West's courses at school in the past couple years, and Coates comes up often...as an example of a black voice coopted by the white elite, especially after Coates' book about Obama. West was one of Obama's harshest critics from the left and of black scholars. He's certainly not telling Coates to be less angry about injustice.
5
For some of the responders here - stop putting someone down because he's white and a man. He's also Jewish, intelligent, etc. Ah the easy condescension and racism of the extremes right and left.
7
I would feel better about this column if Mr. Brooks practiced "wokeness" himself. Please come out of your safe little tower and talk to "ordinary" people.
2
I remember on NPR right after the 9/11 attacks a reporter posed the question of whether blood donations were needed. The presumably liberal government official responded blandly,"Yes. Blood donations are very important. Average Americans need to feel they are contributing to relief efforts." I thought at the time the respondent was a fringe liberal, a caricature of a liberal who felt the public could not responsibly handle the truth that blood donations had already exceeded the amount medical respondents needed to deal with 9/11 casualties. If I thought a critical mass of liberals thought like this I would become apolitical or a libertarian. Facts are facts, truth is truth.
4
Thank you Mr. Brooks for this insightful commentary on wokeness. You've captured in words some of the feelings I've had about wokeness and its use over the last year. A lot of the criticisms in this comment stream seem to reinforce your point about the maximalist approach. There is some irony here I think. All ideas, including wokeness, should be thoroughly questioned and carefully examined.
5
You sir, are of course, right. But the exclamations of the ignorant will continue on, until western civilization is dead.....
3
I'm "woke" about racism and drug policy. I feel some moral urgency about that cause. But I woke 20 years ago, when I realized as a white female medical marijuana patient that racism was protecting me, because the police were more likely to harass a young black man than get curious about what I was up to. So it's been 20 years of wokeness. It's hard to keep the same sense of urgency for 20 years. Still, we have a marketplace of ideas, and wokeness on drug policy is starting to sell really well. Socially informed and moderated change is happening every day.
1
Once again, I find myself agreeing with David Brooks. I don’t know if I will have to relinquish my “liberal” credentials but I never understood the ‘woke’ thing and never identified myself as such.
Ta-Nehisi Coates is a wonderful writer and a man I mostly admire. He might be a pessimist about Black future in America (with Trump as President I fear for ALL our futures). The continued police killing of Black men is horrible - but not really new. Publizing it is new(ish). So is publizing the mass incarceration of Black youth and the awful consequences of bail for non-violent for those who cannot pay is. Change is possible, maybe more slowly than we wish, but still possible because it is being made public. Kudos to the football players who took a knee to shine a light on these issues and shame on the NFL who want to keep it in the dark (by forcing the players to stay in the locker rooms).
Back to Ta-Nehisi Coates - an successful American author, part of a Black American family that has achieved success in various endeavors. He and Barack & Michele Obama and millions of Black American success stories are example that it is getting better. Trump is a last-gasp effort by the sad, little men (and unfortunately women) who are fearful of giving up the privilege they think should come with their white skin. They voted for him, shame on them but their time is passing fast. I have faith in the next generation.
2
For your perusal Mr. Brooks, for your perusal.
On Another’s Sorrow
CAN I see another’s woe,
And not be in sorrow too?
Can I see another’s grief,
And not seek for kind relief?
Can I see a falling tear,
And not feel my sorrow’s share?
Can a father see his child
Weep, nor be with sorrow fill’d?
Can a mother sit and hear
An infant groan, an infant fear?
No, no! never can it be!
Never, never can it be!
And can He who smiles on all
Hear the wren with sorrows small,
Hear the small bird’s grief and care,
Hear the woes that infants bear,
And not sit beside the nest,
Pouring pity in their breast;
And not sit the cradle near,
Weeping tear on infant’s tear;
And not sit both night and day,
Wiping all our tears away?
O, no! never can it be!
Never, never can it be!
He doth give His joy to all;
He becomes an infant small;
He becomes a man of woe;
He doth feel the sorrow too.
Think not thou canst sigh a sigh,
And thy Maker is not by;
Think not thou canst weep a tear,
And thy Maker is not near.
O! He gives to us His joy
That our grief He may destroy;
Till our grief is fled and gone
He doth sit by us and moan.
Brooks' columns generally are logically tight; you can respect the line of argument, even if you disagree with the premises and/or the conclusions. Not so this particular column.
There is nothing that prevents maximum indignation at injustice from being followed by open-minded, pragmatic efforts to address the sources of that injustice. Brooks' "wokeness" - for which, he claims, there is "no measure or moderation" - is a straw person.
2
Wokeness is not about solving problems. It is about the acquisition of fame, influence, and wealth by its practitioners. Yassar Arafat was an early master of wokeness and he did not die a poor man, nor did he improve the lot of the Palestinians. If the woke leaders actually solve a problem, they deprive themselves of their place in society. They are one with all the lobbyist groups, for whom slippery slopes are required to keep the money flowing and themselves in the headlines, even when their cause is prevailing. Even if they win, they have invented away to scare their supporters that defeat is imminent unless the $ keep flowing. Their livelihoods depend upon this.
7
Culture preservationists cling to whatever words seem familiar. The Bible has been used by the right as a shield and a way of shutting down dissenting voices by warping the actual teachings of Jesus to protect a mentally ill person to own a AR-11 to gold self portraits etc. The Tower of Babel had nothing on Trump Tower. I am not sure how we got to these corners of the boxing ring because we have much more in common as middle-class people but I appreciate that we were formed as a freedom from religious tyranny nation- even though I am a Christian. I have felt as religion has snuck into daily politics on Sundays people might not even care if the coal mine ever opens up. You can't learn much from a KKK member except that they think their DNA is superior. We just have to circle what is bad thinking in our country and evolve.
1
Woke wouldn't be necessary if from the get-go a level playing field could've winked-down uprising wokes. E.g., if a BLM liberal is countered by an "ALL Lives Matter" conservative, the former can invoke genuine woke to poke the fake woes of the latter by duly noting: "Had ALM been a staple in the Antebellum South, there'd've never been any reason for BLM to have been stoked to become a woke in the first place." (Which is why old white guys talkin' woke come across as SO exclusively wonkish.)
In other words, Mr Brooks, if it ain't WOKE, don't fix it.
To be awake is to not be asleep.
If ignoring the political-economy or wallowing in apathy is to be asleep than being awake is being aware of what is going on in the world and trying to do something about it.
Woke is the past tense of wake. It means you used to hide your head in the sand, but now you are seeing the world with fresh eyes and are trying to do something about it.
I've never heard the word wokemess. The word is woke, as in I woke up.
I know lots more people who call themselves woke than two years ago. And they are on the move, organizing a resistance, and getting out the vote.
Some of them see the problem in maximal terms. It probably seems that I do, since I believe that global billionaires are attacking democracy 24/7, and that Trump is obviously one of them. But I am also looking for radical solutions that fix the actual problems, without getting distracted by symptoms. But few of those I know who recently woke are paralyzed and doing nothing. There are those that have been paralyzed for a long time and are still paralyzed, but I don't consider that woke at all.
Brooks is a genius at manipulating limousine liberals into blaming left activists for being "extreme," while being an apologist for the Republican con machine is "reasonable."
If you find yourself nodding in agreement when reading Brooks, you may want to consider looking beneath his reasonable diatribe to find his subtle manipulations.
Maybe then you will wake up too.
2
First let's note that the study cited ends in the 2014-15 school year. In the 2017-18 school year there have been 50 fatalities, for a rate of 0.66 per million students (which exceeds the rate of .55 per million students in the study that Brooks is mentioning).
Second, the main part of the study cited focuses on shootings where 4 or more people are killed. There have been 3 such school shootings this year (as high as any year in the 90's). Regardless this measure distorts the reality. There have been almost as many school shooting incidents in the past 3 years as there were in all of the 1990's.
Third, the focus on body counts and number injured does not capture the full impact of gun violence in the United States. No family in a community impacted by a school shooting escapes impact. Beyond this, children engaged in routine active shooter drills, money and time spent on "hardening targets", redesigning schools so that they are not places of freedom; all of these are costs borne by us all.
1
Happiness is a place between too little and too much. ~Finnish proverb
I've grown tired of reading Mr. Brook's pieces here. I"ll just watch him on the News Hour tonight.
Thought provoking, thank you. Wokeness should be covered in social science in high schools and colleges. Americans not only need to gear up for today's jobs but their thinking skills, as well. The ability to analyze their own, or another's, wokeness to move into positive action is required. We've seen enough gathering likes on instagram to share a woke topic, often divisive.
As it pertains to delineating the failings of another person, group or nation, "wokeness" would seem to be all that suggest, and even worse it is likely to be a vehicle for scapegoating the hated other to bolster in group righteousness. Where a corresponding "wokeness" makes us aware of our own shortcomings and complicity in systems of oppression, it becomes the necessary starting point for dismantling old habits of heart and learning new ones, in the Bible it's called, "repentance."
1
Mr. Brooks,
You are wrong and don't understand the concept of being woke. Perhaps you are reading derivative sources and not evaluating some of the primary sources of the term, such as the leaders from BLM.
But your statement that these two sentences:
"For example, it is certainly true that racism is the great sin of American history, that it is an ongoing sin and the sin from which many of our other sins flow. It is also true that throughout history and today, millions of people have tried to combat that sin and have made progress against it."
are contradictory truths is absolutely wrong. They are both true statements and the 2nd neither negates nor invalidates the 1st. It is a matter that was bad, and is bad but better because many people have worked to make that so. Nevertheless, it is still bad. This is as easily understood as staying 'woke
2
Note to Mr. Brooks:
Wow.
Save your examples of extreme wokeness for incidents that aren’t populated with dead bodies. I doubt the families of slain students and African Americans would agree that moderation, following decades of escalating carnage, is the appropriate response.
Living in a state of perpetual anger and grievance is no way to live. If that's what it means to be "woke," better to stay asleep.
1
So is Mr.Brooks saying that Wokeness is bad, and that there should be no Wokeness?
Without Wokeness, the overwhelming forces of power and influence would quickly trample everything that interfered with their power.
A person's Wokeness counterbalances Unequal Power. Once Woke you are harder to control.
"Wokeness" simply means delusion, but delusion that agrees with MY delusion. But paranoids rarely are aware of their own delusions, nor seek to cure their illness.
1
So all the drivel we read and hear from Republicans is "wokeness". Makes a lot of sense. Their hysteria about the deep state, Obama, and Progressives is just a lot of "woke"?
Yes school killings have declined and it's because the cause were successfully addressed - until GUNZ, that is.
What if administrators had armed guards and teachers with knives to combat stabbings, had provided drugs to counter drug use in school...?
Legislation and enforcement measures to get ALL guns out of schools are needed.
"These professors of the rights of men are so busy in teaching others that they have not leisure to
learn anything themselves..." E. Burke Reflections on the Revolution in France 1790.
A tad out of context, but it struck me when I was reading it how nothing seems to change.
1
As had become so usual for Mr. Brooks, he chooses to address a peripheral matter rather than the main problem in our country right now, D. L. Trump.
1
The only issue I take with Mr. Brooks is that we should aim at zero violence and killing in the school and not compared to any other era. School supposed to be safe and caring place where children learn and develop social kills and not where mass murders happens even rarely.
3
great fan of your work but don't think wanna dance with Mr. Coats. Just cuz a thing ain't named as politely as you'd like, don't render it implacable. The energy of righteousness serves both identification and reparation. Peaking out from behind the skirts of messieurs West/Pinckney aint helpin anything either.
1
I appreciate Mr. Brooks' attempt at even-handedness, but the right's rigidity doesn't come close to anything like the left's regime of "wokeness."
Progressives moved passed mere "political correctness" years ago, and have brought us to the kind of place Orwell warned us about. It has become a secular religion, and wokeness is a peformative, confessional act designed to affirm one's membership among the righteous, like denouncing the devil at a tent revival.
It is also, critically, a way to inoculate oneself from the charge of being less than 100% on board with the catechism, and becomes a kind of insurance should the individual accidentally express an independent or dissenting idea. Even the term "woke" smacks of language used during the evangelical Great Awakenings.
Check out the video of a woke college mob surrounding, tormenting and ultimately expelling Dean Mary Spellman of Claremont McKenna, as if she was a witch to be driven from the village. Her mortal sin? An awkwardly worded attempt to empathize with a young Latina student.
5
"Wokeness" is der Wille zur Macht (Will-to-Power) disguised as social justice. We want stuff that other people have but don;t want to work for it - it must be given to us because injustice. So let us guilt trip the guy who pays the taxes.
4
No, we want the rights accorded us as a citizen. As far as "not working" for those rights, you are very mistaken. More work than is necessary-- an exigent circumstance-- has been expended with abysmal results. As far as paying taxes...taxes, blood, sweat, and tears have all been paid.
It seems you are the very definition of not being 'woke...
1
sure, but the work has been done by others. The "wokies" simply want to ride the coattails of "blood, sweat and tears". By identifying with them you feel entitled to reap the dividends. There is a better way - get an actual education (i suggest engineering, or medical school) then get a job. And then - only then - will you be able to wake up.
Mr. Brooks:
Please, go to Parkland or Santa Fe, TX and meet with the parent of a child murdered recently in a school shooting and put your hand on their shoulder and say "You know, school shootings are in factt statistically down since the '90s ...."
It will be no consolation to them, and one would hope it wouldn't be. You would, in fact expect some parent to slap you. It would be educational, to be sure.
The 10,000-foot level statistical overviews you present are no help to a surviving loved one or a dead person. "Woke"-ness isn't about virtue signalling or shibboleths to get into the cool kid's club; it's about recognizing systemic injustices and failings created by the powerful and the monied and the racist and refusing to stop or cede an inch until something, anything is done.
"Woke" is no more an insult than "elitist," and in both cases, they mean the same thing: They mean that someone in power would much prefer it if you were less loud, less smart and more agreeable to go along with the way things are.
Mr. Brooks, your inability to recognize the regular concerns of regular people is showing.
1
According to Mr. Brooks - "To be woke is first and foremost to put yourself on display."
Baloney. Leave it to a Baby Boomer like Brooks to paint the mere act of being aware that something is wrong, immoral, unethical, and that there is injustice in the world, as being about oneself. Of course, to a Baby Boomer, everything and anything is about oneself.
I've been "woke" since I was in my teens (it started in 1973 with Watergate - that "wokenessed" me up for life).
"Wokeness" used to be called "becoming an adult". And it's never been about myself. It's about being aware of reality and where appropriate, informing others who might not see things the way you do (about the world we live in), of what you see.
What a stupid, made up, and contrived word - "Wokeness".
One the one hand, I'll opine that being "woke" has become a competition. Although I am a liberal, I am a liberal of "a certain age" and have become increasingly bored with the recent liberal obsession with playing "Spot the Hypocrisy", "Spot the Intolerance" "Spot the __ism" and every other game that consists of racking up judgments like you rack up game points. It frequently has nothing to do with others and everything to do with "see-what-a-wonderful-person-I-am."
Having said that, I'll add that *timing* is more important than you give it credit for. When the Pulse nightclub massacre happened, a Facebook friend of mine raced to angrily take issue with how some reporters were identifying the size of the decimation, pointing out that Wounded Knee was bigger. That was his entire focus. As a lesbian, my interpretation of his post was: "Quit whining, LGBTQ! A bunch of people of color had it so much worse than you 125 years ago!"
Too many commentaries treat certain children's deaths as collateral damage. Imagine the person you love most in the world. Imagine that person being shot to death. Then, imagine someone saying to you, "But it's a great thing only four people died before that resource officer took out the shooter with quick, decisive action! And really, we've been seeing fewer deaths than they did in the '90s, you know."
Timing.
2
Teenagers of America: It is not enough that you got up this morning and consider yourself “woke.” What is important is that you wake to the dilemmas, paradoxes and quandaries posed by your new-found consciousness. Don’t you realize how many old vultures are hungry to dine on your naiveté? What passes for “woke” these days is seldom more than sleepwalking. Wake up. Grow up.
1
Racism is one of the two great sins of American history: the other, of course, is Native American genocide.
1
Spot on Mr. Brooks! Our salvation lies in the hand reaching out, not in identity politics. Amen.
2
"Wokeness" is but step one to reform. Many Americans object to professional football players taking a knee during the singing of the National Anthem. Many Americans do not know the racist 3rd verse in the National Anthem. It praises and seeks to preserve the institution of slavery. That is what woke means. Thank-you Charles Blow. Taking a knee during the National Anthem exercises 1st Amendment rights to protest and point out not every American experiences "liberty and justice for all". When African-Americans , unarmed, are shot in the back, by police, and murder chares are not filed, and the assailants are judged innocent, this just extends the legacy of Jim Crow lynching. There is a museum now dedicated to the memory of those innocent who died from racist mob lynching. For those murdered by lynching, there was not one arrest, indictment, trial, and no one served jail time. The same holds true for the police who kill little boys at play or big boys entering the backdoor of his grandmother's house. This is what woke means. Seeing the bigger picture. Again, woke is but the first step.
As in his thoughts about repair of the national marriage, I hear in this piece David's longing for less anger and more emotional moderation. I get it. I have lived life as a person of passionate temperament in a society where more constrained expression is the norm, often the preferred voice in an argument because passion is mistrusted. The pendulum has swung and in this century --most notably since the atomic bomb-- high emotion is not respected and perceived less as a strength and more to interfere with logic and rationality.
But David's disquiet is not about only perennial temperamental differences among people who want to address the nation's problems. It is also about the probability that problems be addressed and at what pace. David wants to trust the process. But Trump (and the GOP he hatched from) has traumatized many in our nation by lying words and selfish deeds. And thereby fanned a substantial ruination of civil discourse in the media and academic and living rooms. By all means, so to speak, let us aim to restore the norms of discourse. But at this time in history, there is a place for crying out in order to do so! Being "woke" may range from simple identification and/or clarification of "other" viewpoints to one of the more extreme languages of protest. Problems need solving -- and moderate speech may not be the only way to get it done!
G-d knows how society's ills will heal...
More kids have died in school than armed service members this year.
Every couple of weeks, we hear about another police beating or shooting involving an unarmed black man. Republicans are too often somewhere between a wink and full common cause with the white nationalist movement.
Even if Trump and Republicans didn't actively conspire with Russia on the election, they were (and are) openly complicit.
We're more concerned about appeasing Russia, China and Saudi Arabia than our long-standing North American, European and Asian allies. Oh...the boss and his family has a lot of personal business at stake with those three.
Administration policies go beyond patronage, to actual vendetta warfare against his opponents and their states.
I should go back to sleep? Perhaps not.
A better idea would be for Brooks to wake up, and smell the bacon. If you start really fixing the leadership problem on your side, we will certainly be less shrill.
Brooks, always looking out for the one percent "and the way things are" under cover of intellectual yakkity-yak.
David Brooks is the Polonius of our time. Polonius is generally regarded as wrong in every judgement he makes in Hamlet. He is the avatar of "on the one hand and on the other hand",.eg., "neither a borrower or a lender be". Brooks serves the role of a pseudo Janus head, always appearing to look backwards and forward while actually grinning rightward.
2
I'm not African American, but I have to say I doubt that Brooks understands what woke means to them. I don't claim to understand woke either, but I hope it means African Americans will be voting in large numbers in the midterms, in which case Brooks' argument about it would carry less weight.
FWIW, I actually counted the deaths from school shootings listed in wikipedia for 1990-1999 and for 2000-2009. The total number of deaths in the 90s was 94 dead and the number for the 2000s was 110. Beyond that, however, there have been an additional 174 deaths from school shootings in the second decade of the 21st century with two and 1/2 years to go.
So Scaremongering? I don't think so. Perhaps the author would share the sources for his statistics. Otherwise, I would say that Brooks vision is blurred from the height of that tower...or something.
David - You statement below is incorrect.
"I’d add that it’s a blunt fact that most great social reforms have happened in moments of optimism, not moments of pessimism, in moments of encouraging progress, not in moments of perceived threat."
Perhaps the greatest social movement of the 20th Century
began with something like wokeness. I am speaking of the Progressive Era of the 1890s to 1920s, which had a group of journalists called Muckrakers. And I'll add that here was no real progress in fixing the problems identified by the Muckrakers until the Great Depression.
Apparently, it takes an event on the order of the Great Depression to affect change.
It should be obvious by now that the organizing power of social media can destroy individuals and businesses. Being "woke" is not a pleasant euphemism for social awareness, it's a threat to 'think like me' or lose your livelihood.
5
The kudos in life go to those who do, not those who say--helping people understand an issue is useful only when it facilitates a solution
3
Putting aside the extremist view (left as well as right) of current affairs, statistics is just one metric.
When bad things that are preventable happen repeatedly, it is not just the occurrences but their prevention failures will increase their weightiness.
From the perspective, it is not just wokeness or recency. Back in the Vietnam War era, the war supporters invented words like 'headcount' and 'goon' to desensitize the shock.
While there are indeed people who choose to match vitriols with vitriols from the opposing spectrum, there is greater tendency to make false equivalencies like the one Trump made about "both sides." Gun violence is asymmetric. People opposing gun violence don't go about shooting perpetrators.
An eloquent, timely, and on-target column. Yes, for example, there is an important difference between recognizing that slavery is America's "original sin" and a "woke" loud declaration that America's wealth was built on the backs of slaves. I think the Industrial Revolution played a more significant role. If slavery was more critical to American wealth then why didn't the South win the Civil War?
5
There was a recent report about Papua New Guinea, which has the highest rates of domestic violence in the world. They note that one of the closest correlated factors to rates of abuse around the world isn't poverty, literacy rates, or even laws on the books. It's the degree to which the violence is silently accepted.
So I'm OK with people being more willing to stand up against gun violence and try to change the status quo of what's acceptable.
I'm betting people understood your comment, but took it much like bringing up that abuse of women and children was much more common in the 1800's and then acting bewildered about why people found that supremely unhelpful.
To say that change happens in moments of optimism prompts me to remind Mr. Brooks that Franklin Roosevelt's extraordinary legislation would not have been possible without the pessimism and despair of the Great Depression. And it was fear -- the fear of Communism which prompted that legislation, ultimately leading to the most prosperous and economically equal era our country has known. But those who have not yet enjoyed that equality have rightly grown impatient. Now is the time for another great change. We are tired of waiting.
2
Proportional response has become unacceptable. The only permissible reaction to micro-aggression is macro-outrage.
4
How far is it from "macro-outrage" to the tumbrel and guillotine?
Or does it just make you feel good to say something like that?
Proportion is everything to actual solutions.
Part of the reason perception doesn't jibe with reality is the difference in the sheer volume of information. Back in the 1990s there was far less information and awareness overall -- no social media, no 24-hour news cycle. Now we are ceaselessly inundated with information that creates constant reminders. People have also become aware of the proliferation of hate groups, adding to their level of alarm. On the other hand, people have learned to use the power of social media to band together and fight for change.
Having said all this, the fact remains: 1 child shot in school is too many.
2
There is wisdom in David Brooks’ column but also a deep flaw. He fails to see that being highly sensitive to an injustice is an essential first step toward any hope of a solution.
At our local March for Our Lives rally, I saw optimism and hope, as people of all races and age groups gathered to recognize the problem of gun violence in our schools and call for sensible action. One sign summed up the feeling of many: “Protect our children, not our guns.” NRA supporters pounced on the march in the next day’s newspaper.
Attending the March for Our Lives, I was reminded of past marches I have attended. In each case, there was recognition of a problem—racism and a disastrous war—coupled with a sense of optimism that we were on the right side of history even if we were marching against the tide.
I imagine David Brooks coming up to us, waving his hands high in the air. “Wait a minute. You are exaggerating the problem. Black Americans are better off today than they were in the past.” Or, “We have made even worse military mistakes than Vietnam and Iraq.” Or, “We had more school shootings in the past.”
Injustice that is locked into our political system will always provoke action by alarmed—woke—citizens. Maybe that action provokes a backlash instead of leading directly to a solution. What I have witnessed, most recently in the March for Our Lives movement, is a sharp perception of a threat that leads to a new effort to encourage progress on an intractable problem.
2
Mr. Brooks seems to live in a world of his own. But I suppose that it is fashionable these days for all of us to have "alternative facts" and "alternative realities". "I’d add that it’s a blunt fact that most great social reforms have happened in moments of optimism, not moments of pessimism, in moments of encouraging progress, not in moments of perceived threat." Really? So the 60's were a time of optimism and encouraging progress -- I see.
2
David's column would carry some moral weight if he hadn't blindly supported Ronald Reagan as Reagan made his pilgrimage to Neshoba County and spoke in "coded messages" throughout his political life. David's column would would carry some moral weight if he hadn't looked the other way as his party pursued the Southern Strategy on its path to Trumpian power. Conservatives have long been the enemy of civil rights. Conservative Democrats. Conservative Republicans: the common thread is conservative. So, yes, wokeness and coolness have their drawbacks, but David's lifelong ideology of conservatism has been a force for brutality and unhappiness in American racial history.
5
You can say, there are much fewer automobile fatalities over all today than in the 1990s.
Deaths by automobile accidents or deaths by school shootings, whether more then than now, are still deaths and are still horrible. Comparing the amount of these kinds of deaths during then vs now means nothing until the latter one reaches zero.
1
If I understand wokeness, it is indignation without action or a plan to address the problem. But the nature of indignation and the plan you choose is all important. If your plan is to elect a charlatan who caters to your enemies to somehow save your irrelevant job in a coal mine or support your life style by bankrupting the country it seems you do not have much of a plan. You may be indignant enough to destroy the whole system without putting anything in its place, but that is not very productive. Yes say what you must, but listening and working with others is most important.
3
People are getting to woke. Nothing can be said anymore without someone taking offense to even the most benign comment.
4
Once you get pushed over the edge by abuse, injustice, lies, exclusion, then you might wake up to the game. Reaching the point of woke simple means you won't go back to being abused. That is all. It's a good thing. It's not extreme or crazy. It has to do with confidence, intelligence, wit, courage, grace, style, and staying true to what is morally right in the face of what is morally wrong, despite extreme pressure to give up. A Jesus was woke. Socrates. MLK. Gandhi. Anyone who finds one's center in the face of injustice and stays true, strong, proud, courageous. It's not extreme as outlined. In many ways, it's the purpose of our existence, the goal. Find your own woke, and don't give it up.
2
Woke means one sees abuse of power and will never fall for gaslight shaming from power. And power does not like it when their shaming fails to control. Power wants people to stay child-like, stupid, asleep, naive, easy to shame, not in the know. A woke person won't be scolded by power. A woke person fights back, relentlessly. Power likes to shame that relentless fight back, make it look crazy, out of control, stupid. But it won't work. Sorry. The Woke are woke to the game, and will keep coming, relentlessly. No shame. Essays may be written, shaking one's head, but it won't put the woke back to sleep, easy to shame again. "The Problem with Woke" is a gentle gaslight by Brooks. It won't work. Nice try. Stay Woke. Crazy Woke.
3
Truth is you fear the action Mr. Brooks so you must diminish it. The world of your generation is done, sir, your generation has had its day and what they have left is horrible and morally unjustifiable. So you continue trying to justify your worldview, which is clearly -- and the data prove this -- not the way that the younger generations perceive things. Time to get off the stage.
2
I think America is undergoing a "woke" moment under Trump. Was there ever such an epiphany as the last presidential election to spur folks to "wokefullness"? To begin to perceive just how systemic and destructive racism and poverty really are?
2
We don't need gun control only for school shootings, David, although that is a compelling reason to someone like me, a parent of a kindergarten child who does lock-down drills 8 miles away from Parkland, Florida. But, I digress. Gun violence in the US claims far to many lives, and far too many children's lives, for there to be any legitimate countervailing arguments against reform. It is unnecessary carnage. And unique to the United States. But, it is a problem for which practical solutions abound, such as federal laws like:
- Guns can only be sold licensed and registered vendors
- Mandatory background checks
- Mandatory waiting periods
- Mandatory contemporary mental health screening
- No private sales and no gun show sales
- No private transfers
- Limit ammunition sales per person, no "bump stocks"
- Limit arms sales per person, no "stockpiling"
- Ban assault and military-style weapons (label them what you will, 13 bullets per second is wholly unnecessary in civilian hands)
- Mandatory destruction of weapons seized by police (instead of being resold)
- Federal gun registry
- Mandatory insurance for gun ownership
- Mandatory training in handling and storage prior to purchase
- Increase the minimum age to purchase
- Confiscate firearms from domestic abusers
- Make 3D printing of firearms illegal
- Increased penalties for gun trafficking
Congress can do all that (Interstate Commerce Act) in compliance with the Second Amendment and SCOTUS decisions on the same.
For me, woke reprecents the struggle between meaningful and superfichal. In mondern America one needs constant awareness of both.
In what world has this country solved a problem objectively? When was even the last time we solved a problem? I'll wait.
3
We don't solve problems in this country. We either ignore them or put Band-Aids on them.
1
Exactly. Wokeness is really more tribal, being on side, than it is real solutions to real problems.
It pretends to be real solutions to real problems. It expresses that virtue as a badge, but honest exam shows it fails in its very fabric to face those very problems.
It is a step in the right direction to care at all. Republicans don't. Trump doesn't.
However, just caring won't get it done. That requires the scientific virtues of objective understanding and testing of outcomes.
Our more difficult problems most need that, and least get it, because they invite tribal reactions shutting off objective investigation.
There are many options. We too much see only a few, and those very unlikely. We could actually do some other things that would in fact really help. We don't. We don't because we "care" without actually thinking in objective, scientific truth.
7
Five years ago, the most recommended comment on Coates' column about Forest Whitaker being stopped in a Manhattan deli expressed misgivings with Coates' approach: ("so often these discussions are about purity of mind ... is it better to deny such thoughts exist -- or instead work purposefully toward making sure I do not treat people unfairly?").
The reaction to Brooks' parsing of "woke" in the context of Coates' moralizing strikes me as a variation on that theme. We want to pretend that identity-charged concepts like say, "feminism," have universally understood meanings, but in practice they are loaded with generations worth of different experiences to different people. There are some who use such concepts to start overdue conversations, and others who use such concepts to shut down dialogue. There are some who are demanding previously un-extended willingness to listen and hear concerns, and others who are demanding such a wide-ranging deference it amounts to surrender of all disagreement.
As Michael Che once quipped, "Oh, there are levels to this."
I get the exhaustion with Brooks himself. The man has made a career of a faux-centrist act that pretends both that liberals need only extend an olive branch and that they've never tried to do so.
But at least on the subject of this column, I'm not so sure he's too far out on a limb in suggesting a measured tone may inspire more productive action than a militant one.
5
“Wokefulness” is a manifestation of identity politics in its most extreme form, sort of a secret handshake demoting membership in one’s particular tribe. On both the extreme left and right the use of language and expression of attitude expresses membership - or desire to be a member - of a particular group. So, when someone speaks of another being “woke” they are essentially saying they are a part of the group and not a threat. Being woke, in addition to accepting the assumptions of a group, also means one is no threat to the hierarchy and structure of the group. Independent and critical thought and analysis has no place in alleged “wokefulness. “
2
“All politics are local.” So said Tip O’Neil. Politics nowadays seems all social. I certainly shy away from the guy in the bar going on about how great Trump is. He most likely has no use for me. And I feel both sides are pretty smug about it.
3
Well, you have a simplistic way of measuring problems Brooks. The number of school-age people killed is of course relevant to measuring the problem, but here's the thing... we are having mass killings in the US, including a sniper in a hotel room shooting people below as if they were fish in a barrel, and we've got a Congress that won't lift a finger to address these issues. In addition, school shootings are traumatizing not just to the families, friends, acquaintances of the victims, as well as to the community in which they occurred, they cast a shadow on the lives of many kids going to school every day.
2
A month or so ago, I read a WaPo piece that opened my eyes - More kids have been killed in schools this year than have members of our armed services.
And it seems like a couple of times a month, we are hearing about a black man, often innocent, or perhaps misdemeanor guilty at best, being killed or beaten unmercifully by the police.
Putting aside Russia, bimbo and twitter eruptions for a second...We have an executive branch that is so openly corrupt it staggers the mind.
The Education Department is getting out of the public education business, looking to give that money to religious and corporate entities instead.
The EPA head apparently needs a 46K phone booth so he can proceed to make all America's waterways table in Flint's image under cover of darkness.
The Justice Dept. is refusing to enforce settled law re Obamacare.
Our foreign policy seems to be screwing our closest friends, and getting in bed with every dictator we can find. And too often, there is an obvious connection between traded Trump and Kushner family favors and support for enemy states.
Maybe DB could use some Wokeness. The fire is in the firehouse.
5
Mr. Brooks should not try to define a word he is incapable of understanding and then write a column based on his personal definition of that word. It is quite objectionable.
Being woke means realizing we have been living in a dream our whole lives - a dream not of our making. Another word for dream is construct. That we work a 40 hour, 9-5 Monday through Friday, two day weekend existence is a fabrication that we have somehow agreed to without knowing. We just accept that Job A is more valuable than Job B and Person X deserves to live in luxury while Person Y lives in squalor without reserve or question. And yet it all should be questioned. Being woke is understanding that history is written by the victors that may bear little resemblance to truth.
To include right wing absurd conspiracy with "wokeness" is meaningless because right and left are nothing more than constructs and if you were "woke" you would understand that.
The frustrating thing about being woke is how do you inspire change when you and so many other people have so much invested in the construct? It is realizing that the construct is ever changing and that many positive things in this construct can give meaning and structure and direction but often maintains an order that limits one's own abilities or desires. A woke person can fall prey to pessimism because little is worse than screwing with someone's sense of reality.
3
The people invested in the ‘construct’ are not unhappy. They are not fooled or co-opted. They simply don’t see it your way.
2
Mr. Brooks should not try to define a word he fails to understand and then write a column based on his own personal definition of that word. It is quite objectionable.
Being woke means realizing we have been living in a dream our whole lives - a dream not of our making. You can substitute the word construct for dream and before you think it is all sci-fi, the construct is the structure of our society as it exists today. That we work a 40 hour, 9-5 Monday through Friday, two day weekend existence is a fabrication. That we accept that Job A is more valuable than Job B and Person A deserves to live in luxury while Person B lives in squalor without reserve or question is made up. Being woke is understanding that history and our present is formed by the victors who seek compelling narrative and control over any semblance to truth.
To equate right wing absurd conspiracy with "wokeness" is meaningless because right and left are nothing more than constructs which if you were "woke" you would understand.
A frustrating things about being woke is as how do you inspire change when you and so many other people have so much invested in the construct? Though the construct is ever evolving and includes many positive things that give meaning and structure and direction, it is often maintaining an order that is limiting to one's own abilities or desires. A woke person can fall prey to pessimism because little is worse than screwing with someone's sense of reality.
2
I’ve hoped the term “white supremacy” would often supplant the term “racism” in discussions. “White supremacy” is a much stronger term. But it’s almost always appropriate when discussing slavery or Jim Crow and sometimes appropriate when discussing current events. The main thing for me is that using the term can often be justified based on explicit speech or actions, or clear context, and direct consequences. The term “racism” has been applied too often to describe the inner life of another based on insufficient evidence; its usefulness as a tool to provoke thought and inner work has accordingly diminished.
So I’m unhappy to hear Ta-Nehisi Coates has said gentrification is tantamount to white supremacy.
Gentrification has an ugly side and racism (perhaps even white supremacy) is involved with that. A few years ago I walked with one of my kids from the National Arboretum in D.C. through a not yet gentrified area to a gentrifying area where we could find dinner. No one seemed to think we were trespassing. There was a loathsome infuriating sign in an apartment or condo building where the two areas blended: “Be an urban pioneer.” Racist? I think so. But I’ll bet addressing heedlessness, in this context, would probably provoke more and deeper change.
We need robust terms that provoke thought and inner work to address problems like white supremacy and its consequences. Weakening those terms, paradoxically, by aiming to be provocative is a high price to pay.
Gentrification is white supremacy, though. Look at where it happens, and you will quickly see a pattern. First, there are communities that are mostly people-of-color communities, low-income (because of job discrimination) and not properly invested in by the government (because the government doesn't care as much about people of color as it does about white people), and white people don't want to live there. So then the black and brown people living there work hard to improve upon their communities. They create large-scale, breathtaking works of art. They create community gardens to help feed themselves and each other (but which also happen to look beautiful, and gardening as a hobby-- when your life does not depend on it-- also happens to be fun). So these things that black and brown people do raise the property values of these areas and make them more desirable to white people. Then white people who earn more than black and brown people (not saying ALL white people do; just saying those are the ones who can afford to move!) start moving to these areas, driving up rents, and the black and brown people who made the communities so desirable in the first place can no longer afford to live in them. How is that not white supremacy at work?
1
Thanks for disagreeing agreeably, Humanesque. I agree with much of what you say, particularly the idea that many areas are gentrified not just because they are desirable locations that were once vacated due to urban sprawl and white flight but because the current residents made them desirable areas. (Hope you agree I fairly expanded on your explicit words here.)
Taken all together that’s enough reason for me to explore policies that minimize the extent to which current residents are priced out of a gentrifying area.
It’s pretty clear to me that “white supremacy” means things like slavery, Jim Crow, colonialism, apartheid, and supporting structures for those things. We can point out direct and indirect consequences of all that. I think it weakens the term to apply it in this context (we’re essentially talking about being outbid); it’s important to not weaken the term; and it’s not necessary to do so in order to acknowledge history or work to minimize disruptions.
1
Hello, a lot of the people gentrifying these neighborhoods are not white! Many are black, many are Hispanic, many are Asian. It's about income, not race.
in reading these comments, there sure is a lot of Wokeness.
The problem with Brooks is that he's usually way behind the times. "Wokeness?"
brooks misdefines ideas used by progressives. and, not surprisingly, wrongly described cornell west's (and others) criticism of coates.
as is typical of his usual dishonest screeds
You are on your back foot Mr. Brooks, give it up. This is a “I was spanked as a boy and look at me, I’m fine” piece...or a “you think you had it bad...” piece. Decidedly retro. Tin ear city. Dig deeper or pick something that is worth fighting against. Come to Jesus Mr Brooks. Wokeness awaits you too!
1
Brooks, don’t you realize it’s far past time for you to retire? Get a life!
Jeez, Davie, you read all these comments? What an amazing array of thought. Puts those Starbuck cups to shame in terms of having a conversation about race. You sure bring out the "dominatrix in a thousand disguises" (Philip Roth, The Human Stain), most transparent in the Wokes and Me Toos. I just found out that a dear old friend, dedicated professor at a prestigious university, has to have a third person present when he talks to an undergrad woman. Evidently he is a 'repeat offender" for staring at breasts and putting his arm around students "suggestively". Spooky, as the Wokes might hate hearing.
2
Fewer school children are being shot today than in the 1990's, David Brooks tell us. He adds that we should take optimism in our progress. He would have us put out the fires lit by our racism and our guns with the mayonnaise of his equanimity.
2
Is it just me or is fusty Brooks even more boring and out of touch than ever?
He's certainly out of touch with the people he attempts to shove into his little file folders only to describe and dismiss.
And his party [excuse the laughable term] is so out of touch with the American public that they might as well be on Mars.
Maybe it's time for Brooks to take another navel-gazing sabbatical, except that might produce even more pie in the sky nonsense from him.
3
I subscribe to the NYT despite the paper's insistence on giving David Brooks a forum for inane remarks. His ignorant, smug self-regard continues to astound. The constitution is burning, the fascists are in the house, and Brooks is far above it all, often wrong but never in doubt. Wake up.
4
This is an example of you being too cute by half David.
Let's just call "wokeness" mindfulness when it comes to injustice. There is no such thing as too much mindfulness, presuming that it has been arrived at honestly.
White Supremacy is real and ubiquitous in America and our current administration is populated entirely with them - even Dr. Ben Carson in case you want to quibble.
Always be mindful, never go to sleep about the truth of our nation's struggles and flaws. It is the only way we can effect healing and progress.
1
Mr. Brooks -- I have to ask, in light of your first paragraph, do you believe that there is an acceptable number of students who can be killed in their schools per year? How many students must die before it is acceptable to get really worried? How much gun violence would be ok?
1
"our times as many students were killed per year back then than in recent years.
This comment elicited a lot of hatred on social media"
David, you do not understand the Left. They are NOT interested in facts; they are interested in taking ANY opportunity, be it bloody, to take power. The school shootings are opportunity to gut the 2Amend and turn citizens into serfs whom they can manipulate into 'wokeness' by reeducation camps aka schools and colleges.
Hilarious!
Like a good Scythian, you enjoy the blood as much as you can and then move on to blaming the dead people for...dying.
Somehow dead kids are a talking point to you, whatever their number and whenever they died.
Like David, students shot at school are no biggie as long as there are fewer of them than last year.
Which, by the way, is doubtful given the very poor methodology of his supporting "study". Concepts are badly or conveniently defined, measures are chosen for the support they lend the thesis, and data are way over-interpreted.
Still the point remains: you guys are perfectly fine with killing students, its the way "the Left" talks about it that is a mortal, and a moral, sin in your book.
The Left-- like, presumably, the Right-- when we remove the "far" from each term, is diverse. It is a common mistake to assume that everyone on the Left hates gun ownership. While there are certainly Leftists who want to see the Second Amendment repealed, there are far more Leftists who simply want to ensure that mentally ill people can't get guns; that underage people can't get guns; and/or that the average citizen who wants a gun for protection or for hunting can't get military-style guns that they can't possibly need for those purposes, anyway.
Saying that everyone on the Left hates guns is just as misguided as saying everyone on the Right who wants to restrict illegal immigration is racist.
Um, pardon me Mr. Brooks, your privilege is showing.
We white males, on matters of gender and race, are no longer entitled to assume the we are able to unilaterally define the parameters of the debate.
Privilege is assuming your perspective is valued by the victims of injustice. Privilege is having the arrogance to casually minimize the victims of injustice by inserting the word 'perceived' in front of the word 'injustice'. We'd all do better to study our privilege before offering to help with issues for which we white males are principally responsible.
Kudos to the headline writer. 'Wokeness' atop a column by a conservative thinker got my attention.
5
The morality of the issue to one side, "wokeness" is not a word, and, in this context, "woke" is misused every time. It is unfortunate that the advocates for righteous change chose to bastardize the language to promote their cause. Valid and expressive alternatives already exist in the English language.
1
If you enjoyed "David Brooks: The Problem with Wokeness" then please try other classics in our wonderful series, such as: "Donald Trump: The Problem with Modesty" and
"Joseph Stalin: The Problem with Compassion." More titles to come.
5
This column is about the importance of reasonableness and calm, instead of hysteria. Then just look at the amount of hysteria in the comments. He's defending racism, he's whitesplaining, he has no empathy... It would be funny if it wasn't so sad, so many well-intentioned people missing his point while simultaneously proving it.
3
Tell me again the reasonable part of the argument that we ought not get over-excited about children massacred at school.
Again, many of the Most Recommended comments about a Brooks article respond to either something Brooks has said in the past or a Rorschach blot picture of what he is saying in the present.
What I might reduce his essay to is:
1/ Talk and indignation are cheap.
2/ Actual change requires more than moral indignation.
3/ The perfect can be the greatest enemy of the good.
4/ Manichean politics tends to accomplish very little.
What Brooks says is:
"In an older frame of mind, you try to perceive the size of a problem objectively, and then you propose a solution, which might either be radical or moderate, conservative or liberal. You were judged primarily by the nature of your proposal."
"But wokeness jams together the perceiving and the proposing. In fact, wokeness puts more emphasis on how you perceive a situation — how woke you are to what is wrong — than what exactly you plan to do about it. To be woke is to understand the full injustice."
"There is no measure or moderation to wokeness. It’s always good to be more woke. It’s always good to see injustice in maximalist terms. To point to any mitigating factors in the environment is to be naïve, childish, a co-opted part of the status quo."
"Indignation is often deserved and always makes for a great media strategy. But in its extreme form, whether on left or right, wokeness leads to a one-sided depiction of the present and an unsophisticated strategy for a future offensive."
What Townes Van Zandt says:
"It's snowin' on Raton."
1
Reading the "Times Picks" comments I realize how right David is here with this article. Not one of your progressive woke readers (or commentors) ever mentions the fact that the Nazi government and all murderous communist governments actually conducted gun grabs, aka so-called gun control, before wiping out massive amounts of their own population, while simultaneously holding the "best interest" of their citizens at heart. So most of us who support the freedom of the second amendment truly believe more lives will ultimately be saved by not imposing "gun control." This is what he means by saying if you are to be effective in public discourse you must master the art of holding two contradictory truths at once. It seems these progressive woke types prefer to just elevate their truths to the state of ultimate truth, and just dispense with the contradictions either by ignoring undisputed historical facts, or just trampling on other's ideas because the emotion of the person looking out for others' "best interest" trumps being correct these days. I could not agree more with Brooks here, and I think that most of the comments disagreeing with him are proving his point. Much better to knowingly hold two contradictory truths at once, than to be unwittingly in contradiction, as so many progressives are. I genuinely do not understand the reality of the angry progressive, who tramples on their own ideals as a means to attain them. I mean I get it, but I don't know why they don't.
GOP SOP
1. Invent problem
2. Misidentify, mislabel and otherwise wrongly define the thing in society you intend to focus on.
3. Say what you had intended to say 6 years prior to ever even knowing about the thing you just falsely defined and are using as an excuse to put forth a dogma you have no valid basis for believing in. That means you adopted the dogma (which was created for that purpose) you did not arrive at it as a conclusion of a process of thinking about and deducing your way theough the facts.
4. Rinse and repeat.
Greetings David! Big fan of yours. The problem with your comment on MTP is that no one wants to hear a comparison indicating a reduction of the problem. Today kids and norms don't know and/or don't remember the 1990s. We have come to be intolerant of any death or murder occurring in a school.
1
How things have changed for David Brooks. Here he is in the Times in 2017 " "To be woke is to be radically aware and justifiably paranoid." What happened, please tell us.
Very much agree with Brooks' point here. While I'm quite liberal our politically correct culture has gone too far--and it's easy to understand why this hurts Democrats, especially with independent voters or Republicans who've become disillusioned with Trump.
Because if the choice is perceived as between two extremes, conservative (nationalistic nihilism and meanness) or liberal (militant political correctness), many will simply choose not to vote or will vote Republican.
We've become at the same time, too sensitive and unforgiving--a culture where the slightest misstep can mean you're excommunicated from society and condemned as terrible.
8
Let's see. Brooks makes dopey comment on national TV that draws deserved firestorm of criticism then devotes entire column to doubling down on same. In my book, Parkland kids are heroes and heroines and Brooks an NRA enabler.
3
Brooks gets it, we live in an age of unreason.
3
I would suggest that the coining of the term “woke” or “wokeness” provides this conservative editorialist a convenient foil.
Devoid of any actual conservative policy positions to argue for ( America’s global leadership role, fiscal responsibility, free trade all having been abandoned by the denizens of the former GOP in favor of blind devotion to the cult of Trump) we are now subjected to “constructive criticism” about the way we name our indignation, articulate our priorities and speak out. Obviously, Mr. Brooks couldn’t be questioning our right to free speech, so it must be lesson in etiquette.
I must have missed his editorials where he cautioned the Tea Party against their
highly animated and generally misinformed outcries (and costumed protests) at the proposals of ACA or other proposals of the Obama administration.
What is most shocking in this era is not the behavior of the president or other extremists within his administration, but rather the tacit response of traditional republicans. The fact of the matter is that in these divisive times Mr Brooks has zero chance of affecting the behavior of liberals (just as liberal commentators would get no hearing from Trumpists). If he wants to work to heal the divide he would do well to speak to his own.
If not “wokeness” , anger, frustration, what is the proper response to the murder of children in their school.
3
Are you calling for revolution? Is it not enough to try to win elections in 2018? People are trying to seek change within the parameters of our founding documents and our laws and traditions, at least some people are. Obviously "woke" people who love their freedoms and their democratic republic have a duty to try every way to make sure we don't get to that oft-threatened "constitutional crisis" by using every means at our disposal within the law. There is no problem with "wokeness". You are trying to fight against chaos and disorder with nostalgia for the old days.
I see Brook's points but am left feeling empty; saying to myself, so what. Is self-segregation by a small group of orthodox Jews or overreacting to the threat of communism even remotely the same thing as picking up the bloody bodies of hundreds of dead children every year? Perhaps as some have suggested, we broadcast video of the carnage before the coroner's grim task begins, Mr. Brooks' wokeness will rise to a higher level. Is he suggesting we should put our indignation away and go home because the body count is down by a factor of four? Tell that to the parents who have to bury their children. I am confident their wokeness is reasonably high. When we are talking about the catastrophic impact of military weapons and more mundane firearms, all of which are too easily acquired by criminals and the deranged, what level of wokeness is appropriate? If we stopped tolerating the NRA's cynically impossible solution of "doing a better job identifying crazy people" and passed common sense gun law reform, our level of wokeness could come down of its own accord and not because Mr. Brooks says its too high.
1
All I want to do is discern the truth of an event or situation. The Left tries to camouflage it via wokefulness, political correctness run amok (embracing the ludicrous, such as it verging in sinful for a person of European extraction to wear a sombrero), and censorship of potential university speakers, the Right--the most egregious in disinformation--veils the truth via misrepresentations, outright lies and anything else at hand.
Both sides are making it ever harder to discern reality, and neither will, of course, acknowledge complicity.
I have no general problem with "wokeness" to the extent it represents a call to not blind yourself to injustices that would otherwise occur unnoticed. Of course, just being "woke" doesn't change anything. You need an actual plan, to consider the scale of the potential wrong, and a reasonable plan for dealing with whatever the underlying problem is, to the greatest extent possible.
To the extent that being woke prevents you from reliably performing the sort of analysis you need to actually attempt to address or mitigate a particular issue - because the goal of being woke is to find the most injustices, scream the loudest about how bad they are, and call it a day - then being woke is highly unlikely to be helpful to anyone in the long run.
At an individual level, if being woke means you're going to go through life looking for all instances where someone is aggrieving you or by proxy someone of your race or ethnicity and not focusing on what you can control and do differently to get a better result, then, for the vast majority of the woke population, being woke will undoubtedly make you less likely to succeed personally and professionally.
2
"A few weeks ago, I mentioned on “Meet the Press” that for all the horror of the recent school shootings, we shouldn’t be scaremongering. There’s much less gun violence over all in schools today than in the early 1990s. Four times as many students were killed per year back then than in recent years." Just like Brooks to find a justification for NOT dealing with rampant gun violence. Brooks likes to think he's not a Trump supporter. But Brooks and Trump are more alike than they are different where it counts...their core values and beliefs.
Thank you, David Brooks, for expressing lucidly a practice that is not easy: "the necessary skill of public life, the ability to see two contradictory truths at the same time."
1
This is a fine, important essay, but I disagree with Brooks that "wokeness" leads inevitably to political paralysis. On the contrary, surveying American history, it seems like the fanatics are the people with the drive and perseverance to fight to the end, while moderates often lack the energy and commitment for the long haul. As Jon Stewart said, the moderate is usually not the person who's ready to storm the barricades. Unfortunate, but true.
1
My neighborhood is being gentrified.
The gentrification has nothing to do with race but with the fact that we live close to public transport in the ever-pricier DC suburbs.
1
I usually like what David Brooks has to say, and assume that his research is well founded. But, I just did a google search on "school shooting in America" and found a number of graphs that show it is substantially up in this decade from any prior decade going back many decades. I wonder where David got his facts, or if his interpretation of the the history is based on something other than shootings, since he refers to "gun violence" not shootings.
1
School shootings, as a subset of gun violence, may very be higher in recent years but gun violence is down. The question is how well school shootings have been documented and tracked prior to very recent times and to what extent school shootings have been distinguished from other forms of gun violence.
There are two separate arguments here. The first is that being woke does not lead to action; the second is that being woke always leads to “maximalist” assumptions. I agree with the first assertion, but not the second. I think that being woke at least on the left should lead to more action than it does, but I also think that inaction is largely the result of wokeness not being maximalist enough in its assertions. Brooks is peddling in rhetorical fallacies on this point: I mean what if Coates is right? Just because he makes “maximalist” assertions does not mean he’s wrong.
Brilliant column: "The greatest danger of extreme wokeness is that it makes it harder to practice the necessary skill of public life, the ability to see two contradictory truths at the same time."
This is one of the great challenges of current American political life. Frequently, the two contradictory truths are both "absolute" truths, such as the sanctity of life and the right of a woman to control her own body.
4
So what, if anything, did you propose, Mr. Brooks, when you down-peddled the rash of gun violence that has taken so many lives in schools?
Being "woke" is indeed the first step, but a necessary step to trying to solve social problems. Like the "click" that took place in many women's minds at the beginning of the second-wave women's movement in the late 60's, early 70's. These "aha" moments are necessary but not sufficient and to that extent you are right. But I think you have yet again posed a straw-man argument because I don't think many believe being woke is sufficient.
3
Moderates, be they conservative or liberal, need a platform and microphone. It almost seems a third way by now; although clearly the Democrats are far more open to ideas than the Republicans.
At any rate, thank you for advancing the cause of moderation.
1
Thank you. I hope people are actually listening and, then, after deliberation, take appropriate action. Good luck.
Whatever wokeness is David never was.
3
Do we really need David Brooks whitemansplaining this? Of course he is uncomfortable with a social movement that casts aspersions on white hegemony.
7
Wokeness explains why Republicans sit complicit in the swamp and hide.
2
A typical Brooks column that criticizes without considering for one second why whatever he is criticizing has formed.
Instead of writing a column analyzing the roots of this “woke” moment, Brooks takes the entire space of his column to flesh out a criticism of it. “Other people are so wrong. And I am so insightful.” David Brooks has always been “conservative woke” lite. We always need to read elsewhere for real understanding. Brooks only ever pretends to offer it.
7
Thank you for these comments. Right on with how I feel about David Brooks - a vapid analyst.
1
Sorry, I can no longer read Brooks with any regularity. I’m going to listen to his pedantical straw man casuistry on “wokeness”? I don’t think so.
4
I think it’s time for you to wake up!
3
Original.
I appreciate the definition of wokeness. But the Democrats have not been using wokeness for a long time -- and now it's people are woked. So? How do you fight wokeness? Without wokeness, it doesn't work. With it? Not so much either.
I'm really sorry you got your feelings hurt, but you didn't have to make up a whole column just to make yourself feel better. Don't you have any gin? On the specific issue of school shooting, we are making progress precisely because the Parkland kids woke us up. In general, you display your typical warped lens on history. The civil rights movement came at a time of optimism and progress? Really? Tell it to the Chaney, Schwerman, Goodman, the victims of Bull Connor, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, etc., etc., etc. The Left is a piker next to Barry Goldwater's "Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice" and the moral absolutism of the anti-abortion crowd. Wake up and smell the coffee.
6
.Empathy is all about putting yourself in another person's place.
.You didn't do that with the Parkland teens and other school kids demanding solutions to school violence.
.Your comments minimized their plight.
. I am surprised you can't see this, Mr. Brooks.
. Or understand that sense of urgency.
.Your comments were tone deaf.
.And there is a downside to that, which includes criticism.
3
Your emotional comment is a perfect example of his point. The mere fact that he wishes to be honest, and not exagerate when it comes to shooting statistics, you interpret as a lack of empathy. Wow. Then you double down on that interpretation by saying you're surprised he can't see your point (because you don't have one) and calling him tone deaf for that. No, it's not tone deaf to demand honest discussion of an issue without exageration.
1
There is a problem with this article. There is a problem with a Jewish man using a key African-American cultural term without referencing it as such. There is a problem with taking the term “woke” and using “wokefulness” like it’s a thing, which it’s not. Young blacks, who brought the word to life, would barely recognize this version of their everyday language. The phrase most commonly used is “stay woke.”
There is a problem with thin slicing the complex thinking of today's top black intellectual, Ta-Nehisi Coates. Then using a former king of the mountain, Cornel West, as an example of criticism of that great writer. Those paying close attention realize that West yammered primarily due to jealousy. His book sales and screen time have been supplanted by Coates.
“Woke” is the term most associated with the Black Lives Matter movement. There is a problem when Brooks’ article fails to mention that. I would expect a tremendous reaction from the NYT’s considerable Jewish readership if an African-American columnist had appropriated and failed to properly attribute a key term from that culture.
Brooks is a tremendous writer and thinker. I choose to see this mistaken effort as a one-off.
6
So, Maureen Dowd writes about, "Shade," David Brooks misinterprets, "being woke." Can't wait for Thomas Friedman's Op-Ed on "The Nae Nae," and Ross Douthat's think piece regarding "The Trap House." These intellectuals/lightweights/nitwits shoplift and critique black culture without having anything meaningful at stake. Racism continues to be a pervasive and violent threat to every black man/woman/non-gender specific individual who might dare encounter Brooks or his readers.
4
Everything about this op-ed is wrong. You cherry pick data by noting that school shootings in the US have been static since 1996. Why 1996? Why not compare incidences of shootings in US schools to other industrialized countries? Why not note that school shootings on the whole are rising? And then you drape your argument in pop culture lingo that you define. Find you straw man and settle back into your comfortable place —
“Nothing to see here, people!” It’s infuriating and I believe you are better than this, though I’m not sure why. No opinion writer comes with more thoughtfulness, seemingly ready for more nuance, and winds up trafficking in windbaggery more often than you. You could use getting woke.
8
You know what other mental habit is decades, actually millennia old? Straight, Christian, white males in positions of extreme privilege declaring that anyone trying to change the status quo is hysterical.
13
Wow. Did you just dismiss racism as a sort of small problem in America and unrelated to the rampant neighborhood displacement of African-Americans? Moreover, in dismissing racism as a dominant narrative in the history of this country, did you further marginalize it by making your column more about the Jewish experience than the Black one? So, (a) please don't use the term "woke." You clearly don't get it. And, (b) maybe think twice about phoning in your column from the Hamptons. George Will just called, he wants to reclaim the title of most out of touch, elitist snob.
4
Problem is Mr. Brooks still hasn’t woken up.
5
Honestly, I don’t think Brooks deserves a column here. His ideas aren’t fresh, his writing is limp. He manages to work his way into 50/50 balance on any issue, no matter what the quality of the opposing arguments are, or whether there are two sides at all. Find someone who truly has unconventional, well-argued views.
2
David, sometimes you should just go for a walk and not say anything.
5
David Brooks reminds me of the photo of Ivanka Trump kissing her toddler ,she has no clue her dad's policies are pulling children from their Moms. How not aware or in the vernacular ,woke could he be? Woke is so yesterday, the word is aware and doing something about it, not just writing a column that you know nothing about. Hey, David brooks, why do not you get out of your NYT bubble? We would probably frighten you with our common sense.
1
It's so like a privileged person to focus on words rather than ideas and problems. If the folks Mr. Brooks calls out throw up their hands in despair, the author is guilty of the same non-action by talking--endlessly talking--rather than identifying solutions. Can anyone blame Mr. Coates for his despair? I certainly can't. And Mr. Brooks just twiddles his thumbs about semantics.
It's hard to believe the NYT approved of and ran this piece. Why not let Mr. Coates write this column for a while and give Brooks a vacation?
4
Nice strawman dave! Guess that's one way to write a column.
5
Of course, one of the first things in the article is to bash Israel, and then try to pin "wokeness" on the right instead of where it belongs: the left. And what is "wokeness?" Just a term for those who believe in "intersectionality" theory.
You might want to look at the studies conducted by Kimberle Crenshaw that resulted in her coining the term "intersectionality" before you disparage it. The term is commonly misused nowadays. But her original definition is supported by the research she did.
research in disciplines like hers are fluff. They're barely quantitative, and the parts that use numbers are so simple a 10th grader with no trigonometry could do them. These people make a living thinking things. I cannot take serious the idea that one has to hate Israel to be for female advancement, or that bad environmental policies are a manifestation of racism.
You have to wake up before you can rise. Are you awake, Mr Brooks? Are you still a Republican? Have you not noticed that your political party has been taken over by a fascist cult? The vision you probably hold of a GOP that John McCain or Ronald Reagan or my father would be proud of is a dream. Wake up to the nightmare of reality, stop fustering and mumbling, and at least muster the courage that a former Fox commentator with nothing to gain displays. It's easy, repeat after me: "Donald Trump is a morally vacant, malignant plutocrat and an existential menace to the human race. He has to be removed from power, and his gang of miscreants banned collectively and individually from public life as soon as possible. Those that are criminals need to go to jail. The Republican Party either has to wake up to this or loose me as a member." The truth is supposed to be your business. Wake up.
9
It is clear that David Brooks has not “woken” up from his ivory tower, conservative dreamland.
Because, if he did he might realize his moral depravity when he views dead children as mere academic statistics rather than flesh and blood human beings.
2
David is concerned about his readers' ignoring his numbers. However, he forgot to mention that the number of school shootings have increased since the 1990s. We can thank first responders and the new reality of battle ready schools for the decline in deaths.
Though it is important to note that less children have died, supporting your argument based on numbers is misleading at best. Our children face a violent school culture. They go to school each day wondering if they are the next location of an active school shooting. My kids were in high school during the 1990s. We clung to the numbers, active shootings were still pretty rare and hopeful would not continue. But we now know that isn't true. No parent or student can find comfort in the numbers. That is all that matters!!
"The greatest danger of extreme wokeness is that it makes it harder to practice the necessary skill of public life, the ability to see two contradictory truths at the same time." In other words, don't bother to try discussing anything logically because it won't work. Currently, it's the stuff of fisticuffs. This is beyond discouraging.
2
All I know is this much. Whether or not the chances of our getting shot by a mass shooter is slim to none, or has decreased over the last decade, does not change the fact that, imho, our own government has aided and abetted mass shootings, by way of our lax gun laws. That is the crux of my beef, even IF I and no one I know is likely to be a mass shooting victim. The fact that my own government puts votes ahead of common sense laws that will save lives, is stupefying. There is no good reason for any private citizen to have the unfettered ability to by endless amounts of weaponry, ammo, ballistic vests and other related accessories, with no questions asked, and no national database that records and analyzes purchasing history by individual.
1
Is this not the point, that the best end game would be no game...no offensive. Being woke is seeing the beast in the human and choosing not to feed it. It may be unsophisticated. Some say a child will lead them, and perhaps living a childlike simplicity is part of the journey of awakening. That does not imply the embracing of ignorance, rather learn as much as you can while you can still make a difference. Just when you think you've woken, something else awakens you further, then further. It's a path of awakening, lasting a lifetime. Let's make it attractive, magnetic. Rather than plan for an offensive, plan for peace, and plan for virtue to spring forth. Let's create the environment that fosters a better future, and not just more of the same offensive/defensive war positions.
I have heard French people say that Americans are totally binary. I agree with Brooks that it might be good to switch that off.
2
Again, thank you for your commentary Mr. Brooks.
1
David,
People with critical thinking skills are concerned with gun violence. I don't mean you, I mean people with critical thinking skills.
Please don't minimize their concerns with a word salad article in defense of an outdated position that more guns would keep us safer and the people concerned are over reacting.
Beginning in the 1970's every single police department in the nation agreed that there were too many guns on the street.
Perhaps you should talk to people who have lost loved ones to senseless gun violence and tell them that school shooting are down since the 1990's and Democrats are over reacting . I'm sure that will make them all feel a lot better.
You my friend, are a NRA shill and should be ashamed of yourself.
Mr. Brooks is the last person I would like to be with in a critical situation. Woke? Give me a break.
4
David, Coates is not "woke" - he is honest. You missed the mark on both wokeness and Coates.
1
Yet another piece of drivel from Brooks, in which he tries to be hip and parse new parlance. But instead, he merely comes across as a narrow-minded and stodgy pundit who misunderstands nuances but loves preaching broad over-generaliuzations (in a condescending manner).
Your definition of "wokeness" is absurd! Yes, "to be woke is to understand the full injustice." But your assertion that "wokeness puts more emphasis on how you perceive a situation — how woke you are to what is wrong — than what exactly you plan to do about it...There is no measure or moderation to wokeness" makes a huge overstep beyond how/why the word was coined, or what it means to people who actually use itwho abide by it, and who embrace it.
(This is typical for Brooks, i.e. overstating and misconstruing a point about Liberalism, just to majke some (incorrect) sweeping generalization about us.)
And once again, Brooks creates false equivalences between what's going on in the Left versus the Right. Wokeness means something very different to the Left (e.g. contextual awareness of racial and other social inequalities/injustices) than to the Right (e.g. simplistic use memes and flashpoint words to arouse anger towards Liberals). In reality, Rightist wokeness is a perversion of the term itself.
Brooks' failed attempt to twist the parsing of wokeness in order to deflect criticism of his absurd statement about gun violence precisely demonstrates just how unwoke he is!
3
Classic Brooks - subtly turning is away from critical thinking.
Wokefulness. What a horrible word.
3
How any serious mind can consider this argument as anything but the anguish of a paid member of an elite racist culture in defense of the "white privilege", a demonic social problem, that has energized the humanizing waking of slumbering minds who have been convinced by American "whig" historians (similarly paid members of the elite racist culture) to think that the founding document of Amerika, the Constitution was anything other than a verification on paper of "white privilege". The worst part, though, is that he makes an analogy between racist woke-ness and enlightened woke-ness, not even understanding that racism is not comparable (analogical) to anti-racism. Hey folks, if you think this man is an intellectual then you are, of course, still asleep and caught in an Amerikan dream of your privileged white-ness.
1
I can’t stand these supposed new words. Just trendy made up rubbish.
2
Please don’t use that ridiculous word. “Informed” covers it. Act like a writer.
1
the problem may be more in your ( our) age. young people see things in more absolute terms, us oldings see things greyer, both the benefit and curse of being older. both groups are necessary. can you be too woke? i guess, but the bigger problem surely seems to be those not woke enough.
2
" the modern right has its own wokeness ". I believe you mean jokeness, and it resides in the White House. You ALL built THAT.
4
For once I agree with Brooks!
1
The real problem with wokeness is its arrogance. Like its cousin--"speaking truth to power"--it assumes that one side has the inside line on the Truth. Yuck.
5
Wokeness is certainly not without its own irony and arch... But it beats the living heck out of the absolute somnambulism of the Right.
1
Thanks -- good analysis of "woke". I've been reading your columns for about 20 years. You are a principled conservative, and write great columns. Lately you've been flirting with liberal ideals. they will burn you and aren't good. Keep being conservative and principled. The liberal NYT readers will always hate you. The 10 or 15 conservative readers look for articles like this.
1
While Brooks is trying to describe the problem "objectively," our school children are dying.
Here he plays the Sarah Palin victim card because he's being attacked as insensitive. Poor baby!
Brooks has been an apologist for too long for right wing policies.
3
Wokeness is a term for black Americans to express their more evolved knowledge of what’s happening in America, to the black community, or to themselves- all have to do with race. It’s not some generalized term to be used for everyone with an opinion. His incorrect use of the terms from the neginning signaled his off kilter perception and led to a badly thought out article. Does no one edit anymore?
3
America has a long history of white people co-opting terms coined by the black community for their own purposes. (See: Black Lives Matter almost immediately becoming All Lives Matter, then later becoming Blue Lives Matter.)
Wokefulness is disturbingly replacing objectivity, with the usual suspects behind the wheel.
Course claims ‘objectivity’ is a ‘white mythology’
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10993
2
“A few decades ago, there was a small strain of Jewish radicals who believed that rabid anti-Semitism was at the core of Christian culture.”
Now, these radicals are genuinely trying to bring forth their scriptural messiah because God took too long. It’s amazing what can happen over the course of a few decades.
Thank you David Brooks!
1
Fascinating how these same individuals who attacked Brooks would, undoubtedly, not hesitate to call out Trump in a most vicious way on his use-misuse of “facts”.
Although he couldn’t be more on the mark when he writes: “Modern liberals are hate-filled nihilists who will destroy the nation if given power. Anybody who doesn’t understand this reality is not conservatively woke.”
Point of fact Obama’s “nihilists” didn’t destroy the nation-- though not sure what Hillary’s would have done--his crew just manipulated the bureaucracy to serve his agenda, e.g., Holder, Comey, McCabe, Lynch, Clapper, Brennan, Rice et al. Nothing new, just look at the Johnson years for showcase of same.
But the issue is, for left or right, the sudden induced anxiety that the grand myth--in this particular case every day’s a Columbine day--will lose its energy in the collective mind, bloody shirt everyone has agreed to wave, which must be protected even at the cost of truth.
Why the NYT, for example, is not keen on trashing Comey after all the trashing of Trump, and, of course, it was a co-conspirator in helping Comey achieve his ends.
The deeper problem is “wokeness” is more about religion than thoughtful and measured thesis-antithesis and more mob in execution, which begs the question: Why is the NYT Opinion Kingdom always putting on a hate-Trump piñata party? Pandering “wokeness” to its reader-base to maintain its revenue-stream? Or just filling space with familiar reader-friendly dogma-ink?
2
Another book report of thin gruel.
2
Long-time reader / commenter here, and I think I'm getting the hang of Brooks-speak.
Suggested alternate headline: "Woke?" The Virtue of Sleep
Precis: Ongoing horrors to the contrary, there is nothing to see here. Move along.
1
Before Brown v Bd of Ed, African American children were still getting educated, albeit separately. Can’t “you people” ever see the glass is more than half-full?
The “let’s put school massacres into perspective” line of argument is saddening while also being exasperating and outrageous. I suppose that makes me an emotional weakling and a bad social scientist?
"This attitude led to Meir Kahane and a very ugly strain of militancy."
But not as ugly as what ultimately happened to him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Meir_Kahane
2
Once again brooks tries to put himself at the forefront of white supremacist thinking— this time by abusing black consciousness vocabulary to advance a white racist polemic. How on earth can wokeness be twisted into something negative? Watch davey apply the alchemy of white privilege, and hey presto! He attempts with his white wand to convert what means alertness to racism and discrimination into something sinister. I suppose perhaps because he is ignorant of the aspirations and feelings of black Americans. So David let me do you a favor and translate wokeness into a jargon you profess to be more familiar with (although frankly I doubt that too): the price of Liberty is eternal vigilance (t. Jefferson, attributed).
1
Yeah, he's "advancing a white supremacist polemic" all right! Did you miss the part about how people wildly exagerate to appear virtuous and demonize anyone who disagrees?
I missed nothing. Apparently you missed the other 97% of the article, his history of racist articles and his admission of admiration for the racist wf Buckley. I recommend evidence based comment to you.
From another angle this is a good example of cultural misappropriation. The use with respect and affection of another tribe’s totem is for me an acceptable cultural sharing. The harm and damage brooks attempts with wokeness is abuse and misrepresentation. That is cultural misappropriation.
Being woke give those who are hateful and who have totalitarian tendencies an outlet for their self-righteous anger.
1
You can make a statement or a difference. Pick.
1
While the critique of a term, fashionable and trendy, has merit - especially in bemoaning the eye on quantity of injustice, to the detriment of nuance, subtlety, differentiation and complexity.
However the central distinction I have observed, in the use of ‘wokeness’, is different than described here: it is a willingness or insistence upon not forgetting the gross injustices and constitutive wrong, while, and somewhat in contradiction, pursuing a mortal life and avoiding cynicism.
That aspect goes unmentioned, it is the aspect that recognizes the real struggle we must rise to, will require gathering more strength, more abilities and maintaining Jefferson’s ‘vigilance’: wokeness!
Thank you
The basic premise is I think true. Overreaction to moral wrongs that cannot be righted quickly tends to have a negative effect on change. Racism is a reasonable example- it is, it seems to me, innate in the psychology of humans. Only through actions over time, evolving social norms to acceptance of otherness, greater exposure to people considered "different", will there be change. Demanding immediate compliance with some arbitrary standard of behavior risks backlash and hardening of attitudes. (This s pretty obviously demonstrated in the present political climate.)
I'm not sure gun violence qualifies as an analogy however and it seems that Mr. Brooks might have been a little tone deaf in his comments on "Meet the Press". "Gun rights" is a single issue passion for a significant minority and they have controlled not only the debate but the practical legal consequences of that debate for decades. It seems to me it is time for others to wake up and realize what is really at stake.
Reasonable gun laws don't threaten to instantiate some paranoid delusion of making it impossible to fight back against a tyrannical government. Their absence does however mean that innocent people are killed because guns are the means by which some people act out a solipsistic fantasy playing in their own heads. I would say it is time to be "woke" on this issue.
2
This is one of your finest pieces. Thank you.
The biggest current example of “wokeness” is ironically starting to emerge from “Trump Country” crybabies in Pennsylvania and Kentucky who are starting o realize that his tariffs are going to cost them their jobs.
2
Work on scientific models involving climate change is verboten absolutely nowhere, except at Pruitts' EPA.
Your guns will not protect you against the US Army.
Planned Parenthood does not "block out" other entities who do do better with family planning. That is just crazy talk.
Medicaid reimbursements are perhaps too low. Let's increase them.
Affirmative action has been a necessary step towards equality for all.
1
It appears that Mr. Brooks is trying to say "race card" in a more polite, but equally dismissive way.
4
"A few weeks ago, I mentioned on “Meet the Press” that for all the horror of the recent school shootings, we shouldn’t be scaremongering."
Forget about "wokeness"
What you did was simply try to present the facts in a historical perspective at a time when gun violence -as is - is a national disgrace and ongoing threat to our children unique to america among ALL modern countries.
So you SHOULD INDEED be defensive about putting the historical facts in perspective OVER taking on the continuing gun dystopia unique to our culture.
Given that you have limited time and space to comment on this issue most thinking americans would have to question your priorities here AND in a political and cultural context.
"Wokeness" won't give you cover here -sorry (did you honestly believe we were getting some solace from your "facts"?
Thats pretty lame!
David,
There you go again David. First, you are using a word, wokeness, that is apparently not listed in the dictionary, at least not the one I have. And, second, indirectly blaming the African American community for your own comments. Quite nutty this article. Goodness. Awaken my friend. When you go on TV, at this moment in history, and minimize the problem using numbers, like numbers matter to those sitting next to students who get their heads blown off, YOUR OWN activity is perceived as minimizing the activity of the young adults at Parkland and other places. YOUR OWN ACTIONS, and, not some word born from the African American community that you are labeling as "evil" in your article is the problem. Your inability to properly perceive the state of today's historical evolution is the problem. Also, in the early 90's Congress DID pass a law outlawing Military weapons in civilian hands. For 10 years. So, times are different but you are living in the past. Again. And, blaming a word from the African American community. Honestly, quite despicable.
1
You’ve just described conservativism beautifully, but missed wholeness emtitely. Wokeness is describing problems that the white heterosexual establisent has swept under the carpet for a very long time. Wokeness is about recognizing that yes, blacks are objectively discriminated against in nearly every conceivable way, charming (but utterly false stories about “post-racial America” aside. Wokeness is about no longer ignoring the pervasiveness of sexual assault. Wokeness is seeing objectively that the violence of the police is not a few bad apples, a fact the mainstream has long ignored. Wokeness is about waking up to America as it actually is, and not indulging in some Norman Rockwell fantasy of midwestern goodness (when the Midwest seems to be a haven of white supremacy)
No, if you want fantasy and delusion, you have to go to conservatives for that.
2
Straw, meet man. Another 600 words delivered.
2
It is as simple as wanting justice and equality for all people instead of only for all white Americans.
As an example of deeply embedded racism, why is it OK to buy cheap overseas products made by people who aren't white? When you hear that is what is being done to give you cheap prices and big lumbering stores, is your reaction, "this is wrong, I'm not going to buy this as the least I can do in protest to such obvious racism."
The very definition of east coast elitism.
There is a huge difference though in the philosophy of Meir kahane to that of Mr Coates.
Kahane puts the onus of the work on his own people. Jews will not get justice from Christians (or Muslims) so they are better off forming their own society which is not dependent on outsiders.
Mr Coates’s answer is for Blacks to take political and economic power from whites while within the same society. He demands whites to cede their own treasure
As a Jew, I thought kahane was crazy 50 years ago. Now, watching the world condemn Israel in the UN for all sorts of injustices, while never doing the same against any other country, I am coming to believe he was right after all.
Certainly the attitudes of the new darlings of the left, like Linda Sarsour, and the concept of intersectionality, make one wonder if Jews will be welcome in America in another 50 years.
I tell my kids on a regular basis to keep their assets liquid and their passports handy, because I do not trust the left to provide justice to non-woke acolytes
2
Trump is who should make you wonder if we will be welcome in this country in 50 years. Linda Sarsour is trying to make sure you, me, immigrants, and other minorities will be too.
To me, being woke is being aware of facts.
So for example, the fact that I know that we lose 30K annually to gun violence (needlessly) renders me "woke". Most of those are to suicide. The number is disproportionate to other countries. IT is totally preventable and the good guy with a gun theory has been more than disproven.
Being woke means I am aware that black people are disproportionately targeted by the police--but also that they suffer disproportionately as victims of violent crimes.
Being woke means I understand the pain that my LGBTQ friends felt this week when they read that some dude in Tennessee used the recent Supreme Court ruling in favor of the bigoted bakers to hang a "no gays allowed" sign. Being woke also means that I know that this Tennessee guy is the bird in the coal mine and that we are seeing an increase in discrimination against LGBTQ.
Being woke also means I find it abhorrent what is happening at the border. The forced separation of children from their parents and our overall abject indifference to the plight of these migrant families is incentive, arrogant and immoral.
Being woke means you are not in a cocoon of whiteness. Being woke means you don't think that the accident of your birth and skin color is all the information you need to live in this world.
2
'This attitude led to Meir Kahane and a very ugly strain of militancy.'
Sure, but as a result of his fanaticism, Kahane was assassinated at the age of fifty-eight.
Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Hence, if we want to live peacefully in harmony with our neighbours and community, then it's in our own interests not to be extreme or to promote violence.
I understand violence having been intimately connected to it for many years. Those armchair warriors like Brooks who have never experienced nor practised violence, but like to pontificate, and get paid for it, ought not to write about that about which they know nothing.
1
I'm surprised in his examples to show the lack of measure or moderation to wokeness Brooks used to religious examples from decades ago.
We can go back to this past Tuesday when Bill Clinton was interviewed by an MSNBC reporter and was asked if "in hindsight" and in light of what Harvey Weinstein is alleged to have done, if Clinton did not sufficiently apologize for his actions 20 years ago.
Clinton correctly referred to this questioning as "imaginary" because that is what it was. The reporter displayed no moderation or measure applying present day wokeness and sough to project it back to something that happened two decades ago.
Of course Clinton over reacted, who wouldn't, and then THAT became further proof of Clinton's lack of wokeness.
Speaking of wokeness, how come no one is reporting in print on the vicious, disgusting things Rudy Guliani said about Stormy Daniels and how she earned her living as it pertains to her credibility as a defendant in court and as a human being?
Odd silence here from the woke MeToo crowd regarding what the president's personal lawyer said.
I guess the MeToo movement is checking its measure and moderation meter before it comes to Stormy's defense and calls out Rudy for his vile and hostile words towards her.
1
Playing with school gun statistics to make what GOP point? 17 school shootings this year alone highest since 1999. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/local/school-shootings-data...
1
Wokeness, to me, doesn’t just mean the arealization of injustice. It means waking up to love, and madness, beauty and pain, sex and violence and all the paradoxical realities we exist in...and learning how to listen and reside inside of these realities with others on a namaste level in each moment, at all times. It’s about compassion, not anger David.
1
i find in many liberals today -- here in NYC -- there is zero tolerance for ANY nuance on Trump or Trump supporters. I see it daily in the NY Times columnists, and CNN, but really, it is everywhere in our "blue" city.
It makes for some bizarre conversations. If I go on AT ALL about Trump doing anything - anything - that was good for the US or for US citizens - I get this puzzled look. Then, my logic is attacked as entirely out of touch with the reality of things. Then, they go straight to Trump is a racist, anti-semite, misogynist. Then the conversation is over.
Like I tell anyone who will listen: Trump can race into a burning building, and save twenty people. But if a dog dies in the fire, the next day, Liberals will say "Trump hates dogs."
2
It is because Trump has no business being President of the United States. Anyone who believes he does has a serious moral issue.
People get mad about saying Trump has done anything good because he has done so much that is obviously bad that it sounds like a deflection. It's like if someone were to say, "Wow, Hitler sure was a talented painter!" That may or may not be true, but that's hardly worth talking about in light of everything else he did.
The word "woke" is used by young people to mean adhering to the following beliefs:
(1) That Nature does not make humans dimporphic, XY males and XX females, but that one can choose one's sex (wrongly called gender) by simply saying what they think they are;
(2) That one can erase one's sex by calling itself non-binary, oblivious to the term's nonsense, as non-binary assumes a binary;
(3) That one's sex can be changed by hormonal loading, dress, makeup and mutilating surgery, even though a person's real sex is marked in every cell of the body and cannot be changed;
(4) The more tattoos and bodily piercings one displays, the more woke one is;
(5) Young First World white people get to define and describe oppression of people of color, immigrants, Third World peoples, trafficked women and children, and this while sipping $5 lattes;
(6) Polyamory, prostitution, violent pornography, hookup culture with its loveless meaningless ruts are liberating and superior visions for how to organize society;
(7) That living one's life on social media and with a face buried in one screen or another is preferable to experiencing the world, life and reality;
(7) Anyone who offers the slightest disagreement or data that does not support their positions is an unwoke enemy.
those who use the incorrect tense of hte word awake
With apologies to Goethe: "None are more hopelessly asleep than those falsely think they are awake and who use the incorrect tense of the word awake.
1
Non-binary does not assume that there is actually a binary. It acknowledges that there isn't one. It is a rejection of the misconception that all humans fit neatly into one of two categories. You might want to talk to some people who identify as non-binary before you make claims about what the term means.
With “conservative” elites, there's always a reason to not demand change NOW: ‘...it's not as bad as it used to be’... or ‘it could be worse’... or ‘it’s not that simple’... or ‘it IS that simple’...
Whenever OTHER people are getting the short end of the stick, there’s always a good (pat on the head) reason to not really do anything about it.
And when THEY are getting something short of... EVERYTHING? ... “crushing” taxes (a.k.a. their fair share)? ... “burdensome” regulations? ... basically, anything that might limit their ability to control/steal the lives and wealth of others? Well, that‘s when ‘something needs to change NOW!’
2
The Brooks Bramble:
1) Identify moral failing of the modern Left
2) Contrast with the Glorious Past
3) The Right does it too! on rare occasions
4) Bash the Left again, while tepidly championing
5) A Return To Civility
See you again next week for another saunter through the exact same patch of bramble
1
Corbin from Minneapolis wrote:
"The difference between the left and right is a simple one that cannot be understated. The left wants justice for all. The right wants justice for some. That’s really all there is to it. "
It's just the opposite! The left wants justice for some. The right wants justice for all.
The left wants justice for blacks - but not for police. The left wants justice for women - but not for men. The left wants justice for gays - but not for religious people.
The left wants justice for people who want to come into a opposite sex restroom - but not for people who don't want men in women's restrooms.
The left wants justice for children with bad grades - but not justice for students with good grades.
The left just wants to have victims, or invent them, to have a reason to present themselves as fighters for the justice.
1
In each case you are saying that those with the power are now the victims. What you advocate is keeping their the power.
Those religious people who like the club they are in more than the Golden Rule, want to stamp out anyone who disagrees with them.
For men or police, you are talking about protecting the bad apples.
As for Grades, it is an antiquated system that needs to be changes to help everyone, not just those who fit a certain mold.
As as for restrooms, most places are switching to single-occupancy which is a good thing for everyone.
1
@Jay Sonoma,
Your response is exactly what I was saying!
You don't care about all people - you decide YOURSELF who is worthy of justice.
"is a good thing for everyone." - here it is. YOU know what's good for everyone.
Of course, why you have to worry what other people think when YOU have already decided for them?
“...not just a protest but a struggle.” Is Mr Brooks aware that Ta Nehisi Coates’ first book bears the title “The Beautiful Struggle”? And that to many, Coates’ “pessimism” (which Brooks decries) reads merely as being “dispassionate” (Brooks’ preferred attitude) while reflecting insightful commitment to the very struggle Brooks seems to endorse? I’m white, and I don’t consider myself particularly “woke,” but I do suspect some shallow reading here on Mr. Brooks’ part, and also some jumping on an ideological bandwagon if this is his criticism of an author he calls out by name. Coates’ work has always struck me as pretty rigorous and fair, and he owns that others’ more hopeful perspectives are sometimes honestly arrived at.
2
Woke me up when it's over!
4
Shorter Brooks: While Rome burns, let's all sit back and calmly analyze the big picture.
1
Now look up the meaning of “straw man”.
2
This treatise on wokeness is exactly the kind of vile deflection I've come to expect from Mr. Brooks.
My issue with his stand on guns is his repeated and repugnant apologies for a culture that has led to a health care crisis far more lethal than any forn of cancer. Yet Mr Brooks insists that its victims should, in effect, shut up, grin and bear it, and be more considerate towards the feelings of to gun owners.
2
I think when a conservative columnist for the NYT is parsing "wokeness", then that word has been officially played out. And to say that conservatives have their own wokeness, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the word. It is not wokeness to believe that liberals are nihilist who will destroy the nation. That is the opposite of wokeness. It's paranoia inspired by propaganda, that enables the believer to remain asleep in their thinking.
3
"There is no measure or moderation to wokeness". Really? The urban dictionary I checked said wokeness "was an awareness of social justice". There is no measure of moderation (or accuracy) in Brooks' definition and diatribe of the word "wokeness".
1
Perhaps we're woking up to the fact that - while we've been so woke - other people on the other side of the world have been so awake and working overtime to catch us asleep at the switch or throttle...
And catch us they have...
We're so woke, we can't even keep trains on tracks with our sleep apnea...
To be woke is a cultist thing. At the core of every cult is a prophet or messiah. Trump is David Koresh, Jim Jones, Billy Graham and Rush Limbaugh all rolled into one. I can't think of ANYONE on the left with that power. You won't ever get into the cult's rational mind. Just look at Germany mid-century. Do you think we are different humans? It's just a matter of mental conditioning and the conditioning is moving apace. Scary!
When I woke up this morning
You were on my mind
And you were on my mind
I got troubles, whoa-oh
I got worries, whoa-oh
I got wounds to bind
We Five
The real fear of conservatives is that justice will be served. That those whom Republicans despise will finally gain power, turn around and treat the white supremacist, homophobic, sexist, Republicans as viciously as they treat blacks, women, gays, atheists.
Even nasty old Thomas Jefferson pondered that he and his fellow slave owners were riding a tiger they did not know how to dismount without being eaten by the same tiger. Yes, well, that is a problem, isn't it? But do not look to the tiger for pity, Mr. Brooks.
1
Best article I’ve ever seen you write.
3
Another in Brooks's elaborate collection of fiddles to play while Rome burns.
1
Brooks' best essay in a long time. Can we now, please, retire "woke" from our vocabulary?
2
This whole "woke" discussion strikes me as another new slang term to be bandied about by those choosing to demonstrate how "hip" they are.
As I read the definition, woke means to be fully aware of social and racial justice issues. Whichever way one views the concepts. To be woke to social and racial injustice would be the liberal form of wokeness. I'm not sure how one would describe the conservative form of wokeness except perhaps to refer to the speakings of Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck.
Why can't we all be woke to those trying to appear hip and just go back to being aware of issues? Or is that too covefefe to expect? It's a new hip word to be defined by whomever uses it the most.
3
Coates looks at a photo id requirement to vote and demands that we see the morally equivalent to fire hoses and police dogs keeping African-Americans from the polls. Yep, all those actions and policies were and are all driven by racism - but the progress since 1950 has been amazing. And for God's sake, get out and vote in November, and make sure your neighbor votes too!
Rather than reading Coates, people might read John McWhorter's Losing the Race. Looking for solutions to the abysmal academic performance of Black boys in particular. Maybe it feels empowering to blame Whitey, but that ain't gonna solve the problem.
Racism is common in the world and it's not going away. Just look at the Hutu and the Tutsi - oh wait, I forgot, we're supposed to blame that on Clinton, cuz he didn't stop it.
2
Our big ideas have turned into allergic reactions. It is exhausting.
There is being woke, which is being aware of something that you did not see before and that you cannot unsee. This tunes your attention to symptoms, no matter how inconsequential they may seem to others, of this something. In turn, these symptoms all confirm the existence of this something.
The failure of discussion often turns on these two assessments: the existence of the thing and the significance of the symptom. For example, how can you support gun reform when it is just part of the government's effort to take away all guns and institute martial law, etc. If I do not agree with the conspiracy theory, I do not agree with the significance of the symptom.
Now I have wasted a perfectly good half hour writing a stupid comment.
This is a bit silly. If people didn't get fed up ("wokeness") there would be no civil rights movements at all. I guess now we'll criticize MLK and RFK for being "woke." As for modern movements, while #metoo probably did accuse some innocent people, it also exposed and charged a lot of genuine abusers. And I hope the Parkland students succeed with #neveragain. Kids should not have to worry about being shot at school. I remember a lot of African-American children getting killed in NY in the 90s and I made a lot of noise about it then, saying "a lot of white kids will have to get killed before anybody does anything". I wish people had woken up then. And I wish people would wake up to the horrific abuse of animals in agriculture, fashion, medical labs, and animal shelters. The animals could use a "woke" movement. Wake up, people. Don't soak up the pablum you read in the NY Times.
3
The New York Times is "woke". It exaggerates the stories impact in the placement of stories to show where it stands every day. Instead of real news on today's front page is the pathetic drawing of a child brought illegally to this country. The bias toward open borders, DACA, sanctuary cities, et al is implicit. This is "woke" news. Not the news of the tradition journalistic spirit.
What should fit there if the Times were NOT "woke" would be the story on p. A 13 that the remains of Obamacare are being dismantled by the DOJ. Or how about p. 7 lower fold, where we see that North Korea is further dismantling its rocket testing facilities. That Doesn't trump the little lad's letter though.
Sniffles about the new scourge of biased perceptions made legit, won't suffice. How about returning to a newsroom that is not "woke" and deliver what you paper has promised all these decades: news.
2
Suppose that after the Civil War the Southern States, rather than abolishing slavery, agreed instead to inflict it upon a smaller number of slaves. According to David Brooks, it would have been inappropriate to hold the same moral disgust toward slavery.
Suppose that during the Holocaust the Germans, rather than continuing to murder untold numbers of Jews, decided instead merely to imprison the rest. According to David Brooks, it would have been inappropriate to hold the same moral disgust toward persecution.
Suppose that the United States Congress, instead of permitting the unrestricted sale of bump stocks, decides to pass S. 2475. According to David Brooks, it would be inappropriate to hold the same moral disgust toward gun violence.
Wake me up when David Brooks publishes an article called: "The problem with Republicans".
1
Being "woke" is not something that "we" coined. Being woke is something that black African Americans have adopted as a greeting of black identity and intimacy reflecting our living reality.
White American supremacy denied black African humanity in enslavement and made black folks separate and unequal during their Jim Crow "freedom".
Being a physically identifiable minority with a unique history requires that black folks know what white people really think and feel. Because our lives and livelihoods depend up it. By that measure a majority of white people are white supremacist. And a significant majority are outright prejudiced bigots.
The black freedom and liberation struggle has always followed a dual strategy. Building our own black institutions and demanding that white institutions practice what they preach.
In the 2008-2016 Presidential elections 55%, 59% and 58 % of white voters went white Republican. Woke blacks were and are not surprised by Donald Trump. Nor are woke blacks fooled by blacks who excuse and explain the past and present in comforting moderate terms. Neither the condescending paternalism of white liberals nor the condescending contempt of white conservatives accept the diverse accountable accomplished individual humanity of black Americans.
A new generation of leading thoughtful black intellectual challengers have arisen. Michelle Alexander, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Patrice Cullors, Eddie Glaude, Donald Glover, Kendrick Lamar and Khalil Muhammad are woke.
2
You can’t perform wokeness anymore than you can perform empathy. Both are cringeworthy and recognizably false. Point taken that action on racial equality is needed but Mr Brooks, for a minute, set aside the obviously saccharine performed wokeness. You are left with white people self reflecting about their own inherent biases. I think that is reason for optimism.
A problem being bad for a long time doesn't make it go away. I get it. In America kids get killed in school. Nothing to get worked up about. Go back to sleep.
After reading the first eleven comments I think I am beginning to understand what this column is about: preconception, misperception, reflexive response, all that. (Perhaps Brooks will one day repent of these things, on behalf of his co-believers who have employed them for so long.) As it stands, the column by itself makes hardly a lick of sense.
1
Thank you.
Love,
Ye olde Centrist
Wow. This opinion piece exposes a huge disconnect in David Brooks’ experience of the world.
5
Old man uses young slang as a straw man for young activists perceived failings.
Don’t lecture everyone about building consensus around modest proposals during the era of the alt-right Mr. Brooks. You might look tone deaf and stupid if you do that.
4
The problem with being woke is that woke is a verb and you can't be a verb. Now get off my lawn, kids.
3
The beautiful thing about language is that it is open sourced. We all are allowed to create new words, and use existing words in new ways. The only requirement in that someone else can grok what you are saying.
1
"The Problem With Wokeness: by David Brooks" is a series of words that appears solely designed to inspire mocking memes on twitter. Has Brooks fully given himself over to trolldom, or are the editors taking advantage of a very out-of-touch man to get clicks?
Anyway, to the very small extent this column deserves to be taken seriously, it is notable how little awareness Brooks seems to show about his biases. Brooks sets an arbitrary standard (the number of gun deaths 20 years ago) solely to tell an optimistic story about the modern day, even though the actual standard (no gun deaths in school at all) still shows how bad things are. This is galvanizing? This is useful?
Especially interesting, racism is "the great sin of American history," and yet tossing such platitudes out in order to justify how great things are now is somehow MORE useful than focusing on racism as a problem. Such tone-deaf nonsense is especially jarring considering something Brooks never even considers: the fact that wokeness is a Black thing (its name comes from black vernacular).
Brooks, the whitest man in the world, wants to tell Black activists not to focus so much on the dark side of racism.
1
You are creating your own definition of wokeness and then arguing against it - a straw man argument.
Most Americans are blind to the black American reality. This is why we need to awaken. Being woke doesn’t mean being irrational.
2
“Woke” is a meaningless characterization of self identity which takes the place of reasoned argument; the term pushes ad hominem in your face and brooks no challenge. It’s like “cool,” or “hip;” a matter of taste, and as we all know - de gustibus non est disputandum.
2
This is the problem with a liberalism that has let us down with its passivity and “civility” in the face of evil leading directly to the triumph of Trumpism. It is easy for a white cisgender heterosexual rich man to say let’s not go too far with this wokeness thing. Let’s be nice to each other. But they beat the living daylights out of the man who asked “why can’t we all just get along,” and he died far too young after far too hard a life. As a lawyer who represents LGBTQ employees, every day brings a new phone call from someone broken in heart, mind and spirit because of prejudice and discrimination from people who could care less about your civility. Stay woke.
1
Which is worse? A bigot or a misanthrope? A misanthrope hates everybody, a bigot just some people. In the Could, the internet, the alt reality and twitterers, the only real thing is the words, not the corporeal body.
Thanks for staying away from the problem of the grifters in charge, which you put there, Brooks.
"Wokeness", I don't understand words anymore.
1
I'm glad that Brooks felt the need to bring up his ineptitude on "Meet the Press", and (as though the real estate of a Sunday cable show was not pricey enough housing) to defend himself in a NYT column.
That exact inability to learn, to apologize, to understand, or change, is emblematic of this writer.
And: He used a NYT column to defend a senseless thing he said.
That is how he values this space. His playground. Next week a poem, or something about robins? We'll see his mood.
Here's a super duper wokeness word: entitlement.
A man who has a massive platform, where he could write anything at all, quibbles about wording weekly. Complains of people who rub him wrong because of the coarseness of their voices, and their "shrill" insistence that they matter. Ouch, his ears!
The Times should find someone, who, instead of tittering into a handkerchief about wokeness, understood what it meant, and why it matters. One who was more concerned about social justice than entertaining a posh audience.
Brooks has blinders on. I find him offensively lazy.
I recommend a sabbatical teaching public school in New Orleans (math, no more philosophy), helping sort out the affairs of immigrants in our concentration camps, illuminating the stories of 3 strikes inmates, doing intake in a homeless youth shelter...
But look! unlike Mr. Brooks, I'm out of space...
I can always talk about it on the Sunday shows this weekend.
1
The word has changed, but the concept hasn't. Used to be "clueless," now it's "unwoke."
1
At all times in history, recent and ancient, a small group of "woke" (read: zealots) individuals caused societal change radically and suddenly: the Bolsheviks, Zionists, and Fascists were all "woke". MLK was woke, so was Hitler. For the most part, those sudden changes have cause enormous pain and death. When I see a woke person nowadays, I switch sides of the street to avoid contact. Thank you Brooks for pointing the problem out so eloquently.
Unfortunately, those "woke", like Ta Nehisi Coates, often use questionable "facts" to support their arguments. Example: In his "Reparations" Atlantic Monthly article, Coates referred to white racist bankers redlining blacks, but "forgot" to note that black owned banks also restricted loans to blacks, as Thomas Sowell noted in his book "Discrimination and Disparities".
The New York Times really needs some diversity in the opinion section. How about hearing from a working mother earning less than 25K? Her views and experiences are much more relatable than 99% of the "opinion" churned out by this staff.
4
I know this is an op-ed piece and not a dissertation, but I would like to see some documentation of things Brooks calls "blunt fact." Show me the data, please.
3
Tell the Parkland parents that school shootings are better now, than 1990s.
David, switch to Democrat or Independent so we at least know you are not aligned with "I see nothing, I know nothing, I do nothing" Republicans.
I don't blame Brooks. Cosseted in his white upper-middle-class bubble, he probably will never grasp this elementary fact:
One lynching is one too many.
David Brooks, you are an intelligent guy, so why - why, why, why, why - haven't you considered the possibility that, as a straight white man, you may not be in the best position to interpret "wokeness"? Why are you attempting to mansplain the awareness that I finally achieved this year about much of my career in a very sexist, racist, homophobic male dominated profession?
Wokeness is about seeing through the culturally accepted storyline. What I do with that insight is separate from my achieving it.
1
In physics, we would call this the Uncertainty Principal......there is a limit to how precisely one can define properties that are inter-related to a larger concept. Energy can be defined by mass and velocity,,,,but in order to measure mass, one has to alter the velocity....and in order to measure the exact velocity, one has to alter the mass!! Ya cant win. This leads certain self-righteous types to assert that they KNOW everything, exactly what is "anti-semitism", how much "energy" a mass contains, how many angels fit on the head of pin, exactly how horrible anyone that doesnt agree 100% with their conclusions are.....so forth and so on.
2
If I understand the point of your column today, it’s that wokeness is not a good attribute—and that you seem to be quite satisfied that you don’t have it. David, I agree with half of that: you are definitely not woke. But you are wrong in attempts to define “woke” as radical or short-sighted. Your thoughts and words on school shootings are the antithesis of woke. They are clueless.
2
To clarify, if I remember correctly from my sociology courses, revolution, social movement, and transformative change does not happen more in times of wishful optimism, it happens in times when things have ever so slightly improved tangibly and there are things to actually be optimistic about, when it is possible to take greater risks to demand change. That is not this moment. (Though we should continue to struggle against what is wrong anyway.) Sure there are general positive trends in some aspects of society, but the structural trend is towards a weakened democracy and wider economic disparity. And the persistence of extreme hate and state sponsored violence in the face of some positive change while those with power dismantle hard won and fundamental protections against fascist oligarchy (including corporate oligarchy) is not sufficient to give me optimism. In this moment we have every reason to fear we may be careening towards fascism and we should speak about that frankly. It is a real risk, just as Trump’s election was a real risk. Moderation in the face of the truly horrifying FACT is not a virtue or even sound strategy.
This column is filled with false equivalencies that are all to convenient for an apologist for the right (which has quite effectively waged a 40 year campaign to dismantle fundamental democratic institutions and protections), albeit an articulate one.
It seems like you are angry that “woke” young people disagreed with you. Perhaps instead of examining what’s wrong with them, perhaps what was wrong with your initial position. Lead by example. Statistics on how many students are killed is not the same issue as how they are dying now, and the murderers carrying weapons that their parents or themselves obtained legally. Not to diminish you point, there has been progress in some ways, but how this is shared with a crowd that is viscerally connected to an issue is important- we need not equate passion and emotion with extremism. This is part of the problem, by suppressing the emotions of others as a problem rather than an indicator of where a society stands breeds extremism. You don’t have to agree with the passionate but don’t call them “woke extremists” if you want them to listen to what you have to say. Dissent is part of the dialogue, so even though it’s unpleasant to get those angry messages, it’s part of progress.
"...wokeness leads to a one-sided depiction of the present and an unsophisticated strategy for a future offensive...." - David Brooks.
Wokeness the reaction to the one-sided application of the power apparatus. Therefore the depiction of the resulting injustice and injury can only be one-sided.
Wokeness can not depend on the powers of the established institutions to help employ a sophisticated strategy, it is dependent on extra institutional power.
2
This is a well written article by a skilled journalist,but disagree with him "a little bit more than somewhat" as late Damon Runyon was wont to say. First, later for the notion that racism is 1 of the great sins of our time, that is to say, the unpardonnable sin. That may be and is a preoccupation of the intellectual left,, but to Africans, who live for the here and now, it is not!. Friend, colleague from Ziguinchor wrote of recent turmoil in the capital, Dakar, where hard line president, Macky Fall has called out the troops to quell riots, resulting in numerous deaths.Was present in Conakry in 2008 when over 150 demonstrators were killed who dared to descend into the streets to call for democratic reforms. What's worse: discrimination based on skin color or an unfair,sclerotic system in which advancement is impossible because those on top are determined to stay there and r not taking any chances?Cornell West, Yancy , Dyson, Korn, have spent too much time on MSNBC and in the salons. Tell the average African, willing to risk life and limb by traveling to AGADEZ and take his chances to get to the West and eventually US, that racism is our greatest sin, and he or she would look at you uncomprehendingly.They seek opportunity, mainly economic, and there is none in their home countries. Re "wokism,"it is a fancy term for intellectual paresse,showing an unwillingness to engage in a debate,a lack of objectivity.
1
To suggest that there are fewer deaths now than in the 90's like somehow that is a good thing worthy of celebration is akin to telling a mother you have good news for her: "Two of your three children survived the latest school massacre because an armed teacher took down the shooter." I think we can all agree that you are definitely not "woke" Mr. Brooks.
I would remind Mr Brooks that "scaremongering", as he calls it, is exemplified in the NRA tactic of telling gun owners that those promoting common sense gun laws are really trying to take their guns away.
1
Why do I keep seeing conservatives writing about how liberals are over reacting. I wish they would find a mirror somewhere and take a good look.
2
typical david. still referencing a world that is past. i am intrigued by your assertion that there were more student deaths in the 1990s then at present but the point is irrelevant. society has moved on in so many ways and regardless of whatever stats you have to back up your statement? we don't care. we have a real and immediate problem that needs a solution and if the solution is reached? how nice. civilization moved forward even a little further. by the way i can't imagine a down side to gun control even if some people are dragged along kicking and screaming about "their rights".
David Brooks has captured the essence of indignation frenzy. The problem is that he published his thoughtful essay in a hornet's nest of liberal outrage, so his message is falling on deaf ears of course.
5
Mr. Brooks in an inveterate conservative writer. That he is at least willing to admit that maybe, just maybe, folks on the right are occasionally on the wrong side of the debate makes him stand out among conservatives.
1
Sorry to burst your bubble, but we conservatives see David Brooks as overwhelmingly liberal.
Once again Mr. Brooks fashions a pseudo intellectual argument to justify what appears to be a constrained view on yet another subject troubling our society. A Brooks-Coates debate on the premise of Brooks’ current foray into pseudo intellectualism would likely reveal truths that Brooks’ words so often miss....or more importantly, obscure.
1
To be woke is to reject the essentialist narrative that America is the nation that protects the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness–freedom–for all its citizens. Wokeness instead acknowledges that we systemically disenfranchise whole subsets of our population based on the circumstances of our birth.
A rallying cry against systemic injustice is a necessary prerequisite for any pragmatic proposal for inclusive justice.
2
Thank you for going where we fear to tread. Sincerely Mike
1
t's ironic that many of the commenters here are themselves exhibiting exactly the "woke" mindset that Mr. Brooks' is (rightly) taking issue with - namely the systematic disinterest in/dismissal of facts surrounding any issue one considers themselves "woke" to if those facts don't fit the preferred narrative.
Why is this mindset so dangerous? Because in order to actually solve any problem, you have to start from a place of understanding the facts surrounding it. How can you possibly even begin to look for a solution if you're uninterested in the data that tells us exactly how bad the problem is vs. how bad it was? Any real (i.e., effective) solution to violence in schools is going to start by taking into account all factors.
It's the same with the "MeToo" movement. There's a fanaticism that has taken hold around the entire issue, with many men who have done nothing that rational people would find deserving of punishment at all being forced out of decades-long careers (often within only days of allegations being made public) by the screeching, outraged "woke" masses. Those same masses are more than willing to turn their outrage on anyone who suggests that there is a difference between say, Al Franken and Harvey Weinstein. And once again, the probability of reaching an effective solution plummets to somewhere south of zero.
Being awake in the true sense means seeing and acknowledging all the facts, even when they don't fit the story we want to believe.
5
Very well said, Ms Kristin. Thank you. And by the way, I'm a "liberal".
I concur, the narrative must not stray from the outrage at hand. And that’s the inherent problem with “wokeness” in it in its current form. It’s shuts-off discussion and thought. It is willfully counter-productive.
@kristin: Good, well written comment and since when have we ceased to be skeptical of accusations related to alleged transgressions going back decades, and why are these "requisitoires"for which there is no proof sufficient to end careers of talented folks in politics and the entertainment industry? 0ften they are brought by actresses , actors not known for their acting talent, and witthout material proof?What happened to the notion of "pris en flag,"caught in the act? We so often have only the word, the say so of the accuser! Why have those whose careers are often on the wane taken so seriously?Rose Mcgowan and Ashley Judd may be good people, may go out and feed stray cats at night, but they are middle aged gals whose careers have seen better days but are now experiencing a "deuxieme souffle," thanks to the Me too movement!Yet there is a double standard!Joy REID, known for her homophobic tweets and words to the effect that Steve Scalise had it coming when he was almost killed on the baseball diamond by an enraged supporter of Bernie Sanders, and also since he was a supporter of the gun lobby, as well as Chris Matthews,accused of sexual improprieties in the 1990, are still on the air.Likewise,Fareed Zakaria's career has not suffered despite allegations of plagiarism, Doris Keans Goodwin likewise, or Brian Williams who made it up as he went along,and after a 6 month hiatus, was back on the air for NBC!
1
Outrage and anger over perceived injustice (wokeness) does mobilize and define a political movement (The Tea Party). Happily, However, in the case of the Republican Party it is not the same as accomplishing anything, let alone offering effective solutions. But over and over it does seem it gets people elected. To get Dems elected will require much the same. That’s politics. Which is why our Federal system of government relies so heavily on the legislative and judiciary branches of government to get things done. But these duties are now being thwarted, undermined, and discredited by the “woke” propaganda machine controlling the Republican Party. It will take much careful thought and strategic thinking to restore the undo the damage. This will require a new movement of thoughtful “wokeness” where real solutions are carefully examined by Solvem Problers. Those who don’t require “artificial stimulants” (outrage and anger) to maintain their level of interest. Those for whom finding solutions to make things better for all is it’s own reward. An engaging process that generally works all the better for silence.
As any psychologist worth his or her salt will tell you
the avoidance of expressed anger can be both an asset and a liability. The functional purpose of anger is part of self preservation and can serve a useful purpose. It is also the source of rage and violence. The asset part comes when we channel the anger very carefully by thinking about it. Woke is often sourced in anger and frustration. All three kinds of Woke include this:
Woke on the Left, Woke on the Right and the Woke of the
Centrist/Independent.
Centrist/Independents (and I see your aspirations this way) usually are passive-aggressive and not aware of their Woke. Slips like an unconscious favoring of one party over the other party usually reveals the unexpressed Woke of the Centrist/Independent.
1
Wokeness is a new word for the veil dropping from previously unquestioned social arrangements. Much like the consciousness-raising of 70s feminism, seeing the truth of what is in front of you is not a bad thing. How an individual reacts, or how she takes action in her own life, is not the same as acknowledging the awareness.
David would prefer that we put our heads back in the sand, then inch them back out very, very slowly.
1
A good illustration of "wokeness" is Edvard Munch's "The Scream." Hands on head in full aghast horror. As Mr. Brooks points out, it is not an end, perhaps, at best, only a means to an end. What must follow wokeness is both mindfulness and loving kindness. Otherwise you end up with millions of shrill voices madly screaming, for no really good reason at all. Lost in the cacophony, they drown themselves in the noise, ending up like so many parodies of "The Scream" instead of saying or doing anything useful. https://www.google.com/search?q=parodies+of+the+scream&tbm=isch&...
1
Quoting the article "The greatest danger of extreme wokeness is that it makes it harder to practice the necessary skill of public life, the ability to see two contradictory truths at the same time." Yes, that the general problem with extreme anything. This isn't a problem with "wokeness." Its a problem with the general inability to see multiple facets of complex issues. Pick a topic, environmentalism, religion, politics, they all suffer from extremists who look for inflexible truths.
A more interesting discussion would have been to look at the fact that being "woke" has become a platitude and a shorthand for being part of a particular clique. It's become, in some hands another tool to divide rather than educate. Used often enough, and "woke" is used way too often, a term loses any actual meaning and becomes a Rorschach test, a tribal banner, or a bumpersticker. Its time we all become "woke" to that.
2
Single-minded intensity of purpose succeeds much more often than David allows. Most great scientific theories and technical innovations are the result of near or fully fanatical absorption, as is great art. The abolitionists who ultimately steered America toward the Civil War were not moderates in any sense. Neither were the suffragettes, or the union leaders. Israel was mostly emptied of its indigenous inhabitants by a determination hardly less intense than that of Meir Kahane, if less plain-faced. Much social change comes after great wars, which are disasters necessitating hopeful times and progress afterward. David's analysis is, unfortunately, somewhat inadequate.
1
We get invested in our causes and we cannot admit progress (sometimes with our livelihoods dependent upon a certain world view). Why must we scrap over whether the poor white is more privileged than the child of working class African Americans. The life of the former may not be made worse because of skin color but being abandoned by drug addicted parents. We do not heal divisions this way; we simply sow more while the problems of inequality grow and fester. This does not mean ignoring racism or police brutality. It means being really awake to complexity and also self awareness and an antidote to smugness, whether it comes from conservative hubris or liberal hubris. I teach mostly white students in a community college. Some are struggling. When I look at them I don't see a lot of privilege.
5
I actually think Mr. Brooks is on to something here—at least in part. There is a tendency now toward hyper-reactivity in our country. It’s like our whole emotional system is out of whack and our response—right or left—is toward what Brooks terms as “maximalist” outrage. It’s not that the injustices we’re talking about (mass incarceration, the demonization of immigrants and people of color, the murdering of black and brown bodies with impunity) don’t merit outrage, it’s that if outrage is our only response we lose an opportunity for measured reflection and collective action. I want these injustices confronted, but I also want the solutions to be long-term, steady, thoughtful and not something make-shift brought about in the spur of the moment. It may also be worth considering how our constant outrage affects our capacity to win others to our side, but I confess my pessimism about the possibility of persuasion in this political climate.
5
We can all debate the relative merits of being woke to the racial history of the United States. On another point, there is no debate. Yesterday, June 7, 2018, I traveled from my home in North Carolina to the coast of South Carolina. I passed multiple Confederate monuments. I passed countless Confederate flags. I drove my car on Robert E. Lee Memorial Highway and Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway. Pretty much a continuous celebration of an attempt to overthrow the United States government to preserve slavery. A celebration. In 2018. A celebration. Really. And if I point this out, I am the problem. Thanks, David, for clearing things up.
7
Being “woke” means elevating emotion over reason, feeling over knowledge, empty indignation over strategic planning. It is the left-wing equivalent of Trumpistas’ disdain for the “elites”. One of the defining features of fascism was precisely contempt for intellectuals and boundless belief in the power of the will. Well, we know how it ended. You can be “woke” all you want but history is not going to succumb to your temper tantrums. If you want change, you first have to understand what the problems is and find rational ways of dealing with it. Bloviating on the social media is not a political strategy, and Twitter-shaming is not going to effect a revolution.
12
David, though it hurts me to differ with you, I will bear it --- or rather 'bare it'.
I differ when you say that:
"The problem with wokeness is that it doesn’t inspire action; it freezes it. To be woke is first and foremost to put yourself on display. To make a problem seem massively intractable is to inspire separation — building a wall between you and the problem — not a solution."
Actually, being woke to Emperor Trump, and his continuing schemes to 'make our country act like an Empire', both "inspires action" (non-violent of course), and doesn't "make the problem seem massively intractable", but instead, actually leads us to an easy "solution".
Simply, by recognizing that Emperor Trump is acting exactly like the 'Empire-builder' and insane "Empire-thinker" that he, provably is, provides the following simple, safe, peaceful, and patriotic solution of merely firing a; loud, public, sustained, 'in-the-streets', but totally non-violent "Shout (not shot) heard round the world" to ignite a peaceful people's Second American "Political/economic Revolution Against Empire" --- which Bernie did a good job in trying to do with his two-word sound-bite of a campaign slogan in '16, before the establishment/entrenched Democratic Party and Hillary torpedoed his populist progressive message to the younger, and younger minded, American vast majority of 'forward looking' (not backward-looking) citizens.
2
No matter the nuances of the definition of "woke", one can only wish that those in Mr. Brooks' tribe would themselves awaken from their selfish slumber.
2
Today the Trump Administration signaled its support of a suit that will deprive all persons with pre-existing conditions of their health insurance. I am 57 with congestive heart failure and have been told I could buy private insurance for 3 million a year, maybe. Mr. Brooks as you give us column after column of how people should reach across political boundaries your party is supporting my imminent death, I have been told that without consistent treatment I will die in a year. Over the last week I have read columns on this page by Dowd who doesn't like Obama's style and Bruni who has problems with Clinton's adultery, sorry if I don't appreciate your fine writing. My guess is that none of you at the Times will die preventable deaths because hospitals would turn you away. You are lucky. I wondered if we would get out of Trump alive maybe you and your GOP friends will, but not I.
4
wokeness. A state of awareness where you point out the speck of dust in the eye of another while blind to the log in your own.
True justice can only be achieved by first dealing with the injustice in our own hearts.
2
It seems like an uncharitable view to compare young people (who are certain of everything, after all) who are discovering empathy and social justice to hate-filled Fox viewers.
Your article has many good points, but the false equivalence isn't one of them.
3
"Woke" these days can mean seeing festering issues that have been under the rug forever with a new depth. I agree that people should not just check a box and be closed to debate. Before the white house victory and white-hot spotlight that followed for all that is worst in the US soul, I considered myself aware of sexism and racism in this country. I have been blown away by the exposure of how extreme the problems are. I have been impressed with the effective actions of #metoo, and loved the film Get Out, which by the time it was released had a punch exponentially stronger than when it was conceived (in the Obama era.) I don't see children marching against gun violence as one-sided. They make sense, and are taking action (and are willing to debate detractors.) Many want to take action about the use of the Confederate flag now. Only recently did I learn it had been flown "in opposition" to civil rights in the 1960s by some government offices, and that it's used interchangeably with the Nazi flag by European white supremacists today. There are facts (actual historical facts) coming to the light for a broader populace, and some of these facts can help guide us away from our country's worst tendencies. The main problem I see is people blindly believing things that are not true at all, pushing lies as facts, and trying to "debate" actual facts.
1
Perhaps wokeness can remain quietly outside our daily usage, being the useless word that it is. Mr Brooks should remain there with it.
1
David Brooks is the only voice that consistently makes sense to me these days.
2
"Coates is very honest about his pessimism and his hopeless view of the situation."
Maybe finish his most recent book.
1
David Brooks: a big picture cultural/political theoretician, making sense of it all.
But in truth, his columns read the way an old musty grandparents’ closet smells. Or some long forgotten 19th century political philosopher reads. Stale. Incomplete. Simplistic. Not data driven.
So we watch, week after week, as Mr. Brooks struggles to find That One Big Idea to help his reading public forget his support for the Republican Party’s that aides and abetted Trump’s rise. Oh, and maybe get a book deal, do some “serious” television.
Boring.
3
I am tired of the need many have for moral purity. Those who are 'woke' do not listen or think- they have a set of words they need to see. If they do not see those words they get angry.
If a person does not genuflect to their nonsense, completely, than that person is a 'racist' or a 'bigot.' There is no nuance in their world. All minorities are selfless victims who are not responsible for any of their actions- perfect victims without agency. All white people are terrible oppressors who have worked for nothing and have derived infinite benefit from the oppression of minorities.
It is utter nonsense and it is dangerous.
5
Mr. Brooks I applaud and thank you for your courageous efforts to scale back the extremism commonly reflected in our speech today. Freedom of speech via social media will need time to mature.
2
A bestirring piece by Mr. Brooks.
All comments to the NY Times regarding Trump, for example, come from our "wokeness" to the dangers of the man. We are roused over him but we are stuck("frozen") with him(for now); we write our comments about him, express our opinions of him to others, though, in our efforts toward civility, as with Mr. Coates, we roll out no extreme actions.
If Mr. Brooks believes that with his new word, he has discovered how we all live with ambiguity, paradox, and uncertainty, Leonardo da Vinci beat him to it centuries ago, with his word "Sfumato".
The bigger problem with "wokeness" is its insufferable smugness about being, at heart, anti-thought and anti-intellectual. It requires unquestioning acceptance of certain narratives to the exclusion of all else.
The problem also isn't that it results in political paralysis; the problem is that it prevents analytical thought about a subject. Any policy which might arise from a woke mentality would almost be certain to fail for precisely that reason. In order to fix a problem you need to first truly understand what the problem is, but wokeness prevents that
2
Thank you Mr. Brooks. Over the last few decades, it has certainly become increasingly difficult to be the sort of person who attempts to look at a problem from many points of view, and by looking at available facts, before forming an opinion, and then proposing a reasonable solution to that problem. This piece will help keep me from second guessing myself, or flying off the handle when my otherwise intelligent, sober minded friends and family say things like "Obama is divisive and racist and destroyed our country" or "Bernie Sanders would be president if the election wasn't rigged by the democratic party". The challenge is then to be able to persuade these people to question their dogmatic opinions that can be so dangerous and destructive.
1
This article from Brooks has given me an epiphany of sorts.
Some conservatives are people who are unable to empathize with people not like them because they can't step out of their own skin long enough to see things from other points of view. They're fine on a micro scale, they can be nice and care about people they know (who are often like them) but it breaks down in their minds when these other people have struggles and are disassociated in some way from the world in which they personally live. They don't understand why people get angry at them for (sometimes inadvertently) diminishing the struggles these "others" are going through.
These are the people who are voting for Trump even though they're not the rabid racists we see at the rallies, they're the ones who keep quiet about politics around people they don't know. People like Brooks are not filled with hate, they're just unable to relate or empathize with people that aren't like them or are living under different circumstances.
There is a place in a civil society for open minds that approach the issues with facts and moderation. Mr Brooks did well with this piece.
1
While I enjoyed this piece, it grates to have "sin" stand in for "wrong".
My problem with "woke" and the reason why I never use it to describe myself or anyone else is it's arrogant connotation of finality: I now have attained full enlightenment on Topic X; there is nothing more to learn about it; future realities and/or understandings could not question the woken claim. Enlightenment finality is a religious claim and has no place in issues about human relations.
2
I'm tired of being told I'm wrong no matter what I do to understand, or to help. I'm giving up. From here on out I'm slept.
1
Please cite the evidence for gun deaths in the 1990s in schools and elsewhere.
If we were to view it through a contemporary cultural lens, we would recognise Kach as a hate group.
The basic question is how human conscious and unconscious mind is trained by forces of "fear" and forces of "hope". The biologically, forces of fear are centered at amygdala, a reptilian brain construct, where as forces of hope centered at neocortex a much later development and have most profound role to separate homo Sapienes from other mammals. If we look to the history of mankind, most of the changes in the homo Sapienes occurred at neocortex. If we like to eliminate racism, it is much better bate to depend on neocortex. A positive approach to eliminate racism is playing out every day in the schools, workplace and in the Congress - if Black Life Matters can energize these efforts, it will help the cause. Anything they do to effect the amygdala will be futile.
"The general diagnosis was that I was doing something wrong by not maximizing the size of the problem."
No, the diagnosis was that you were doing something sleazy by minimizing the size of the problem of mass shootings, using statistics in a deceptive way to push Republican, NRA propaganda.
As many pointed out, the period you were referencing in the 1990s had much more violence overall than the country has now. Crime and homicide has dropped dramatically since then, with cities like NYC for example going from more than 2000 homicides a year at the end of the 1990s, to a few hundred a year in recent years. This was a massive, unprecedented drop, and it was nationwide.
The statistics you cite include any "school-related" shooting, so the large amount of gang violence in the 1990s means that the school homicide rate was higher then, because the homicide rate was much higher then.
It does not, I repeat not, mean that there were more mass, single-shooter assaults on populations of random students like we're seeing now. These mass school shootings have increased, not decreased. These horrific incidents, in which any student can go to school and find themselves a victim, are the ones that people are talking about finding some way to curtail.
But you knew this, of course. You just decided to use stats dishonestly, then whine about being called out on it.
2
I'm not woke, I'm awake. (When I'm not asleep, that is.)
As a grandfather, I avoid wearing age inappropriate clothing and using words that are way out of my generational lingo. David Brooks might think his piece was groovy but I don’t. As for what he could have said in a less silly way, it is true that no amount of Chardonnay and Brie can make up for convincing the disaffected to vote … it might make their lives less difficult.
1
Dangerous thinking, Mr. Brooks. What you believe is being woke needs some serious scrutiny.
Here's a thought: retire rather than be perpetually ponderous.
1
Someone was mean to David Brooks on the internet because they thought--mistakenly, it goes without saying--that he wasn't "woke" enough.
And therein, dear readers, lies a lesson for our time.
It is always, always, about how David knows best.
As you define it "wokeness" is just urban slang for extremism or fanaticism, which not only leads "to a one-sided depiction of the present and an unsophisticated strategy for a future offensive" - it turns people off.
2
A way-too gentle critique of the left, leaving out the violence. And the right does it too? This must be a sop to NYT readers, for it is certainly not true. In fact, I'll buy that when I see a left-wing speaker violently attacked on campuses. I do appreciate Mr. Brooks's attempts to foster solutions and cultivate optimism.
2
Not unlike Jihad - the internal struggle to be virtuous through faith, and the outer against those perceived not to be virtuous enough within the faith or party, and annihilation for those who do not belong.
1
As with the term "political correctness" years ago, "woke" is often used by progressives with real or implied scare quotes, showing awareness of -- and skepticism toward -- the way that increasing one's awareness and mindfulness can easily tend toward self-righteousness. (I seldom hear it used without that self-scrutiny.) As has been the case with "political correctness" being used by conservatives, Brooks leaches the richness and complexity of "wokeness," projecting into progressives a habit of awarding oneself a prize of superiority and wearing it, complacently, like a badge. This mirrors the issues that give rise to the conservative mindset itself: Brooks makes a false binary between attitude and action; invents straw men (sic) to belittle those who are trying to improve matters; and claims "objectivity" for himself and his cronies only. It's unsurprising that this sort of limited, black-and-white thinking--"supported" by dubious actuarial arguments--goes hand in hand with a hobbled sensitivity to language and reasoning.
Brooks criticizes Coates, but it's Brooks's own identity and status that leads to his lack of understanding and subtlety being accepted by a major newspaper and its readers. He doesn't appreciate intricacies and complexities, because he does not have to. More, he claims--as rich white men have done for eons--that he is "objective" and others too "emotional"--and it's actually taken seriously.
Nice work if you can get it. Maybe.
It's ironic that you bring up the topic of "wokeness". No one other than former House Leader John Boehner brought up the very same topic several days ago. He opined, "There is no Republican Party. There’s a Trump party...... The Republican Party is kind of taking a nap somewhere.”
I second that observation. Somebody is asleep at the switch on American democracy. The Republicans have been acting as if they are sleep-walking through the last 500 days. Trump is busy shaking down whatever he finds to be self-aggrandizing and politically expedient: the mainstream press, the Justice Department, the U.S. Constitution, undocumented immigrants, documented immigrants, Muslims, minorities in general, the African-American athletes in the NFL, Obama's legacy, NATO, NAFTA, TPP, Mexico, Canada(???), women who stand up for themselves, the environment, poor people who need a health care plan that works, etc. The list includes anyone who refuses to kiss the presidential ring.
Doesn't anyone in the Republican Party stand up for the powerless and semi-powerless people in America anymore? "It can't happen here," people believe. It already is happening. Wake up!
I don't think anyone, except Mr. Brooks himself, is claiming that wokeness is an end in itself. To pretend that anyone is--how disingenuous or oblivious can a columnist be? When we are daily gaslighted in the most insulting way possible, by members of the party Mr. Brooks used to identify with (and may still--I've lost track), to seemingly criticize citizens for their wokeness feels akin to complaining that fire is hot and ice is cold. Given the farce-edy we are forced to watch, enacted by this stupefyingly corrupt, inept administration, wokeness isn't liberal virtue-signaling or self-righteous moral superiority. It's basic survival. If Mr. Brooks turned his piercing gaze on the right more often, he'd really find something to write about, instead of churning out these vapid words from the front lines of history. But I suspect that, like most conservatives, he's afraid of Mr. Trump and his so-called wrath.
"I’d add that it’s a blunt fact that most great social reforms have happened in moments of optimism": of course, if you include such reforms as the Social Security Act, the original Glass-Steagall, the WPA, etc., which arose out of the depths of what is still called the Great Depression -- and against which (in the case of Social Security and Glass-Steagall) the party you support is more virulent than ever in terms of its desire to rid this country of them as part of the nanny-state apparatus. Wokeness? What would you know about it, since you have never been anything but quasi-comatose? I'd call this column one of your most cheap exercises at earning your disgraceful sums in royalties. You are really racing to the bottom with even more than your usual opportunism as your government crashes and burns. My intellectual contempt for you has never been greater. Why anyone pays you for this has always been beyond my comprehension. As a former president of your party said as a campaign slogan: "now more than ever." In the ancient world, you would have fallen on your sword long ago. In this world, you could, at the very least, develop writer's block.
All ok with the woke discussion, being similar to “reality check”., or other various ways we are trying to figure all of this out. But the part of this piece I don’t like, do not agree with, and wonder at how simplistic mr. Brooke’s can be , is when he talks about racism being an “American sin.” Always sophisticated in his opinions, usually clear thinking, I am surprised that all he has to offer is Christian theology to explain our racial hatred. Sin, sure. Definitely a sin if that’s all you care to mention. But so much more, so much more.
Brooks always seems to be writing on two levels: the surface level is for public consumption, whereas the deeper level is for news cognoscenti familiar with people like Kahane.
It makes sense when he writes that "the necessary skill of public life, (is) the ability to see two contradictory truths at the same time."
Now, whereas "woke" extremists might label this "hypocrisy," sophisticates in exegetical matters can clearly see that this is merely a necessary "duality."
I will certainly follow Mr. Brooks' advice in my own thinking, avoiding extremism in favor of two distinct messages...one for those in the know, and another one for the masses. Surely Mr. Brooks will have nothing but admiration for my elegant binary thinking.
“The necessary skill of public life is surely to be able to see two contradictory truths at the same time”. Amen to that
Wow David, what a completely racist apology for the status quo! With a dash of anti-semitism for added flavor. "In an older frame of mind, you try to perceive the size of a problem objectively, and then you propose a solution. . .
wokeness puts more emphasis on how you perceive a situation . . . than what exactly you plan to do about it. "
In other words: wealthy old white people sitting in their armchairs reading the NYT can solve the problems of the world through rational thought, there is no need to get our hands dirty.
To truly "perceive the problem objectively" requires you to leave your comfortable "older frame of mind" in order to fully comprehend the limitations of your point of view. Otherwise the solution that you propose will always be tainted by your inability to see the problem clearly. You say "To be woke is to understand the full injustice" as if that were a bad thing.
For me a small measure of wokeness didn't come until I forced myself to watch video after video of police brutality against black men simply going about their lives. Having lived as a white woman I could not "perceive the size of the problem objectively" because I did not experience it at all.
I do not have a solution to the problem of institutional racism, but at least I am now aware of the pain its existence causes and a greater sense of urgency about addressing it.
This essay on "wokeness" is a driveling attempt at distraction from Brooks's feeble attempt at rationalization. His "argument" was that gun violence is not so bad, so no action need be taken. Brooks is the one who is tyring to obstruct action, not the individuals who objected to his minimization of murder.
David, while I normally value your columns I think it’s important for you to realize that all you did was say something stupid at the wrong moment. The entire walk movement is not wrong here, you were. And, may I add, one act of school violence or a shooting in the 90s is not more or less horrifying then one today. No matter when, one is too many.
For David Brooks the past 30 years of life in America is never as perilous as it appears. If I were a card-carrying flunky for the GOP I would adopt the same strategy.
Don't worry folks: GOP fealty to the NRA may be killing your children and tens of thousands of others. It may mean you have bottom-of-the-heap health care, terrible wage growth, vanishing union protections, lousy public schools, tax dollars funneled to the DOD and not to your community, but it's all good!
Since you seem to have appropriated the term (and also denigrated its meaning among the black community to 'afro-pessimism'), you really need to define it as you understand it.
Because given my experience and understanding of the term, I really don't understand what you're saying here, Mr. Brooks.
Help me out.
yes, it was not abolitionists who ended slavery it was a president who took a long time to deliberate and act-Lincoln was our greatest president but his deliberation was not woke.
It was not Malcolm X and a strategy of conlfict that ended the Jim crow era it was MLK and his policy of nonviolence-precisely because he thought that would reach people and change minds.
It was not some dissedent who brought down the USSR it was a member of the Communist Party, Gorbachev. It was also not some radical bombthrower who ended apartheid, it was Mandela and Declerk, a man practicing nonviolence and a member of the apartheid regime.
It is fun for some to argue the whole system should be torn down and often to argue for violence, but real change does not come from such radicals it comes from centrists and from those who see to change minds and hearts rather than battering people with thier absolutist ideas.
As MLK said he did not want to change the US he merely wanted to make us live up to the words in the founding documents, those brave words about all men being created equal.
6
The problem with wokeness is that many people consider it a state when it is a lifelong journey. If you think you are woke, then you neither understand wokeness nor are you in fact woke.
2
"Iron law of politics"? No, controlling the media is the iron law. People are then forced to follow. Just ask Fox...
Or, we could all just re-read Hannah Arendt on the roots of authoritarianism.
1
I've got a new concept for you kids; it's called an "adjective." It's used to describe people, places, and things, and it is actually not the same as a verb. For example, "awakened."
1
Only someone with no empathetic connection to people and the serious problems they face could waste time writing op-eds focusing on how those people cry out instead of their actual problems. And anyone who determines whether or not a problem deserves solving based on whether they like the format of the request is not really interested in helping solve the problem, but rather looking for excuses to wash their hands. It is consequently disingenuous and wholly dishonest to cite “wokeness” as some sort of irreconcilable problem. Mr. Brooks issue isn’t with “wokeness” at all. He resents the way wokeness makes him feel empathetically and morally insufficient. He was never only going to use his voice or platform to actually help anyone who’s not like him; only demand that the oppressed play nice about not making him and others feel too bad about it. Do better, sir. You’re a smart individual but smarts are not and can never be a morality or logic car wash.
1
Wokeness is an extension of virtue-signaling. It's all about getting people moving frantically, rather than discerning where they have a sustainable policy to move toward (in a real world, not a straw one based on emotion rather than transparent data).
In that, you see why wokeness tends to get hijacked by malicious players who see the opportunity to gain power amidst naive ungrounded idealism (ungrounded in real world implication).
Gun control - sure it sounds nice until the state falls apart (Mexico/ El Salvador/ Columbia) or cops check out of your 'hood (Chicago).
Affirmative Action - sounds great until you realize it mostly benefits suburban professional African-Americans (and maybe hard-driving African immigrants) and is racist against poor Asians and Whites (and is all over the place with Hispanics).
Planned Parenthood - could be family planning, but actually crowds out entities that focus on doing that well in favor of procedures and condoms
Medicaid - who doesn't want health care for the poor? Except when it bankrupts the primary care docs who want to take time to care for the poor via lower than subsistence reimbursement, thus leaving the poor with urgent care and "mills" rushing people in and out.
Global Warming: probably happening but work on actually predictive scientific models (used simultaneously in municipal bond markets as well as climate research) is verboten. And of course we can't discuss China's energy implications or things like nuclear.
2
As usual, Mr. Brooks misses a larger point.
"The general diagnosis was that I was doing something wrong by not maximizing the size of the problem. I was draining moral urgency and providing comfort to the status quo.
This mental habit is closely related to what we now call “wokeness.”
With a near maniacal tweeter spewing lie after lie, how exactly would you want the people who can think on their own, without the propaganda of right media, to react?
Dunce Donald I has declared himself judge and jury, which was predictable as anything imaginable.
So for those of us who have been woke for a while now, I say stay that way.
All the way.
The tell is in the last paragraph, in which Mr. Brooks equates being woke with extremism in a not very subtle way. There's also the blatant false equivalence Mr. Brooks peddles in this paragraph:
"The modern right has its own trigger words (diversity, dialogue, social justice, community organizer), its own safe spaces (Fox News) and its own wokeness. Michael Anton’s essay “The Flight 93 Election” is only one example of the common apocalyptic view: Modern liberals are hate-filled nihilists who will destroy the nation if given power. Anybody who doesn’t understand this reality is not conservatively woke."
There is no such thing as conservative wokeness. It's an oxymoron. To pretend it is equivalent to what is happening on the left is to perpetrate a falsehood. But there is this; what is happening on the right actually is a form of extremism.
The entire point of conservatism these days is to construct an alternate universe where inconvenient truths can be denied and facts don't matter. It's the only kind of universe conservatism can survive in, because time after time Reality proves to be the challenge conservatism can't meet.
Not now, not in the past, and not in the future.
In other words, 'wokeness' (not to be confused with proper English 'wokenness') sums up the two great idiocies of our time: virtue signalling and the scramble for the status of victim.
3
I've been saying this for years now to my super woke white friends who think that America is somehow worse than North Korea.
I'm a transgender marijuana consultant who went to MIT. Only in America could I exist. Yes, there is discrimination, but look around the world or into the near past and you can see that America is progressing. Yes we have hurdles to surmount but if we only focus on the injustice we can never get to justice.
Another issue I have with being woke is that you also cant be proud to be an American or even at times believe in the concept of America. I am so proud to be an American. We may have our horrible moments (Bush, Trump) but we also have our larger steps towards a better future (Obama, Clinton) In some countries people like me are tossed off buildings. I am grateful to be an American and I wish that wasnt mutually exclusive with being woke.
1
And yet, with all the wokeness, there is no empathy for the desperate people who elected Trump because the globalism train was leaving them behind.
2
Of course the antonym of "wokeness" is sleepiness. Which is apparently the state in which Mr. Brooks composes his endless string of false equivalences.
Brooks claims that social change comes from optimism, not pessimism. No sir. Social change comes from the vivid, often angry, depiction of a truth that comfortable moderates don't see.
2
It's very hard to agrue against 'wokeness' in the age of Donald Trump, especially where each day brings a new round of threats and insults that's dividing the nation more than it already is.
It's also hard to take comfort in the fact that there's less gun violence in schools today than in the early 1990s, when there shouldn't be any at all.
As for wokeness, it doesn't necessarily have to be the negative force that leads to extremism and militancy, it can also lead to enlightenment and activism -- something we are in dire need of these days.
Mr. Brooks may prefer to focus on the former, as is his right.
But we as a nation can't afford that luxury, we need to be woke. Now.
3
Every vote for a Republican brings your loved one closer to being shot. Since the 1960's, Republican politicians have been relentlessly thwarting responsible gun control legislation, nationwide.
Clinton managed to get a ban on assault weapons passed,
but not before Republicans inserted a sundown clause of
five years (which meant the law would cease to have effect after a specific date),
1
I have one question for columnist Brooks. In what way - on the myriad of challenges facing our country and the world - is today's Trump-idolizing GOP "woke"?
1
"I was draining moral urgency and providing comfort to the status quo."
Well, actually you WERE doing this.
Whether the kids are actually safer now than in the 90's is irrelevant. The issue is what is happening now. The ready access to guns and their proliferation have created a more violent and fearful society. The latest manifestation of this is a gift to graduating middle-schoolers of a sheet of armor to put in their backpacks when they start high school(!).
Talk to the Parkland survivors if you don't think some outrage and action is in order. They make very cogent and reasoned arguments.
3
"I’d add that it’s a blunt fact that most great social reforms have happened in moments of optimism, not moments of pessimism, in moments of encouraging progress, not in moments of perceived threat." How did we, as a country, lurch so violently from a president who personified optimism to one who champions pessimism? Trump encourages us to perceive threat in every corner of our lives, to exhaust us with his brand of negativity. I would agree with Mr. Brooks that adopting any slogan can lead to complacency instead of action. But to me the real danger of the Trump presidency is that we will go to sleep. Let's not talk about being woke. Let's make sure we stay awake.
4
You really shouldn't start a conversation questioning the validity of a term's meaning when you begin the conversation by defining what you'd like that term to mean. That's like having to explain the many uses of the word "wowdie" before discussing which uses are appropriate in polite society. Not a great jumping off point when you've already decided the point you'd like to make. "Woke" was just an excuse to present a particular narrative. The point exists independent from vocabulary.
If I'm reading this right, Brooks would like us to separate politics from emotion. Emotion leads to maximalist interpretations of our reality thus preventing objective problem solving. Here's the thing: there is no agency for change without an emotive call to action. Calmly observing the sin of slavery and recognizing the progress made to rectify this sin does not inspire any further action. Ta-Nehisi Coates may not provide a specific road map to racial justice. However, he does highlight the continued existence of an injustice some people may not see.
To be "woke," doesn't imply unified agreement with the subject of controversy. The idea is to see the subject from an entirely new perspective that you never realized existed. Getting "conservatively woke" doesn't mean you suddenly become some maximalist conservative crusader. You've simply seen the issue from another set of eyes. Sometimes you need to turn on the high beams in order to achieve this recognition.
5
Congratulations, Mr. Brooks, on getting through an entire column without mentioning Donald Trump. Though I remain confused about how explaining that fewer school children are dying by shootings now than in the 1990's leads to positive action. Is it possible to think your way out the bottom of a well? You understand, of course, how people find such explanations all but a sideways defense of the NRA stance on guns now, guns always, guns forever. Better to criticize Ta Nahesi Coates for being all talk and no action. That will fix things pronto.
5
Wokenes is a word we needed to describe the fact that our society is safer than it has ever been, yet Republicans made us afraid. When we finally got health care for many of the uninsured, republicans made it seem worse than being uninsured. When we talk about raising the minimum wage, Republicans say that will hurt more people and some will lose their jobs. I could go on but you can see that wokeness is a useful word.
7
"Insecurity breeds dogmatism." While I cannot recall when or where I first read this phrase, it embraces this moment and others like it in history.
2
There is so much wrong here. Where to even start.
Wokeness does not equal zealotry, as in the examples of rabid anti-communism and extreme Zionism. Wokeness is awareness.
Cornell West did criticize Ta-Nehisi Coates for inaction, but, even assuming that the critique stands, it does not mean that Coates's wokeness, or other types of wokeness (see Black Lives Matter) do not lead to action.
David Brooks was not criticized because he was against scaremongering, but because he was for finding middle ground with zealots who will accept nothing less than unrestricted access to AR15. He accused gun control advocates of zealotry at the time when NRA regularly issues thinly veiled threats against their opposition.
And now again, he accuses people who fight against injustice of zealotry at the time when such fight is so desperately needed.
10
Historical zealots fought against what they perceived as a terrible injustice: the Roman occupation of their land. They succeeded in causing the destruction of their own holy Temple, the ruination of Jerusalem, and the exile of their people. Their fate is a perfect example of a genuine grievance giving rise to boundless hatred and senseless violence. But even if these historical parallels teach you nothing, how about the simple fact that the more you fight for ideological purity, the more you alienate people like me? I am sympathetic to the anti-gun cause but if quoting an actual fact unleashes a storm of Twitter-hatred, forget about my contributing to, or voting for, anti-NRA candidates. I am less afraid of guns than I am of ideological purists.
1
Oh great only about 11,000 people a year being killed in gun homicides, a mass shooting nearly every day, and a not insignificant number taking place in schools. Happens everywhere in the world. Nothing to get upset about then. Everything is dandy. Brooks can pontificate about important stuff like wokeness.
6
The problem with “wokeness” is that the metaphor casts anyone who disagrees with its thesis—that white supremacy is built into nearly every aspect of American life—as sleeperwalkers. It’s the same old religion, no? The world is neatly divided between the saved and the damned.You’re either for or against. It’s a basic either/or fallacy.
On top of that, the term is intellectually dishonest and insulting; it substitutes moral indignation for argument so that disagreement casts one as ethically compromised. It’s a kind of ad hominem attack. Don”t tell you’re woke, and I’m not. It’s not a way to open conversation. Tell me what needs changing, and why you think so.
19
Step one: Bury forever this stupid, unnecessary, ridiculous, supercilious, lowest-common-denominator concept of “woke”; a useless memetic crutch, even to those of one mental leg.
12
As an average comfortable middle aged white guy talking to an older comfortable white guy, I say “Dude, you definitely should have stayed out of this one. You have no clue what you’re saying.”
15
Nothing racist or ageist about that....
2
Perhaps Mr Brooks might like to go back and read some of his op eds over the last 6 months i the light of his new found wokeness.
Perhaps a new awokening is finally dawning on him.
4
Woke made its way into the dictionary as a byword for social awareness. According to Wikipedia, it is a political term of African American origin which refers to issues of social and racial justice, popularized by Badu's song, "Master Teacher," which proclaims, "I stay woke." The term gained further popularity when it was used by the Black Lives Matter Movement.
Amanda Hess wrote in a column that we use staying woke as a badge to prove how politically and socially aware we are. She writes, "it means wanting to be considered correct, and wanting everyone to know just how correct you are." It is another form of branding in the same way people post the best version of themselves on social media.
The term's meaning, now appropriated by white people, has lost its vitality and substantive meaning. I do not see a problem with the linguistical use of the term. The problem is when people brand themselves as "woke" when they are all talk and no action. It doesn't matter what term we use for social awareness with the goal of eradicating injustice and inequality. It only matters that we all live in accordance with our highest values and work towards justice for all in every way we can, whenever and wherever we can. I can call myself "woke" all I want, but if I do not actively promote issues of social justice, it is an empty gesture. Talk is cheap.
8
The biggest problem from my perspective is the terms “woke” and ”wokeness.” Isn’t our language and grammar bastardized enough without these ungrammatical terms. I don’t anyone is any more “woke” now than was the case before.
1
"The confrontation with this sin or any sin is not just a protest but a struggle. Generalship in that or any struggle is seeing where the forces of progress are swelling and where the forces of reaction are marching. It is seeing opportunities as well as threats. It is being dispassionate in one’s perception of the situation and then passionate in one’s assault on it."
There comes then a willingness to live within the tension between the conflicting stances. It is this willingness to live with the tension that makes all the difference because, by the very nature of evolving life, adherents of neither pole are absolutely correct. There must always be accommodations, acceptance, compromise for life to move forward. Some things will die; new species will be born. The tensions of today are numbing, but some ideas, plans and creativity will emerge from both our conflicting extremes and eventually, over time, enter into our heritage. In time we may atone for our collective sin of racism and and at the same become more empathetic toward those who feel the sting of being shut out by our efforts to move toward equity. Time. Time. So much time has elapsed already.
David -- I think your column dodges the fact, in your opening paragraphs, that your comment about a lower number of gun deaths today compared to the early 1990's DOES drain moral urgency and provide comfort to the status quo. Yes, we all need balance, and sometimes the balanced comment keeps us from doing what most needs to be done.
1
David Brooks, if you even use the outdated term," woke " or any derivation thereof, you have no clue. You are hopelessly left behind. No one uses woke anymore
No one ever should have used the word in the first place. Any trendy word that's intended to be outdated in two years should be avoided like the plague.
3
"...most great social reforms have happened in moments of optimism, not moments of pessimism". Actually, history shows that many social reforms happen when those in control are so terrified of a brewing rebellion from the masses that they toss out a few table scraps to quiet things down.
1
Yeah Jim, those "scraps" and "reforms" are usually still another gov. feedbag program, which led to the mess we have now. Want more?
1
The problem with wokeness? The same as the problem with the term "white privilege." They both separate people into the morally just (the victims) and the rest of us. There is almost no chance for a white, cis, hetero., middle or upper middle class person, to participate in certain conversations because we are told we are automatically racist (white), ignorant of reality (privileged), not persecuted for our sexual identities (hetero, cis), etc. Somehow this lack of victim statuses renders us morally unconscious, not "woke" and not worth listening to or even interacting with in any meaningful way. Replace it all with the words "mutual responsibility," and invite everyone back to the table.
13
A white, cis, and or middle class person inherently has or will have an easier time getting a seat at the table because of white privilege. That metaphorical seat could be public office, voting, demonstrating, writing an article, etc. Just because you were told you’re wrong doesn’t mean you weren’t given the opportunity to participate.
2
Meanwhile, because of black privilege, a person of color who doesn't get that seat can blame it all on racism instead of their own failings. Sweet.
1
Clearly, the term "woke" will now take the place of "political correctness" as the favored cudgel to trivialize a vast swath of legitimate concerns about the choices our overwhelming white straight male leaders (and pundits) make on the behalf of the rest of us.
5
Would David Brooks have argued against "woke" abolitionists? Would he have told us that slavery was not as awful as abolitionists made it out to be?
1
Abolitionists were busy spiriting slaves to freedom and agitating for political reformation, doing the hard work of persuasion and coalition building- not flinging ad hominem attacks at would be allies on the internet to impress their friends.
1
Seriously? We need David Brooks to mansplain being "woke" to women, people of color, and others who have been marginalized in some way?
The arrogance is stunning. Brooks is like the fish who can't see the water they swim in so they don't know it is what keeps them alive and dominant in their environment. Yet the very essence of being woke is being able to see beyond one's own privilege and power and realize the imperative for action to make change.
7
So going by your comment this whole column is invalid due to David’s gender. Got it. That sounds like a good way to actually engage with people. As a lefty myself, lefty outrage over every.single.thing looks to be the death of this all. We all hate each other because our differences are on such blast and we can’t get over it, and while we bicker about someone’s viewpoint being invalid, or unrelatable or “don’t speak for me!” because of where grew up or what sex they are or whatever, we’ll be losing any chance to do anything good for this country as an actual block of voters. As a white male here I usually get the sense that I’m “not allowed” to comment or even have opinions on social issues. And yea, I get it - that’s the point - how can I talk about x or y - because I wouldn’t know. I’m not x or y I’m just an evil cishetero that stands for oppression. Well, I would like to try to be part of a force for good regardless - even if my ancestors were evil and I go through the world with privilege I don’t understand - I want to do the right thing. Does that require my silencing? Is silencing someone’s voice ever the solution? If it is then progressives are not nearly as much that as I’d hoped.
3
David says, "....we shouldn’t be scaremongering. There’s much less gun violence over all in schools today than in the early 1990s. Four times as many students were killed per year back then than in recent years."
Huh?
That's like saying, "You think x is bad? Why, when I was your age...."
1
The problem with this article is that it's argument is based off of an incorrect definition of what "wokeness" entails. The idea of being woke transcends right vs. left-wing politics, because it's purely about working towards having an awareness of issues and an ability to contextualize and understand our modern day injustices. What to do after you're aware or "woke" is another issue altogether, there's no inherent problem with "wokeness". Again, the problem lies in Brooks' inability to correctly understand the idea of "wokeness" he has decided to challenge, thus failing to provide a proper basis for the points that follow in his article.
1
Madison, as I've mentioned, the problem is those most "woke" (hair on fire) seem almost never to rely on accurate facts. I doubt any have read a SINGLE book by Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele or heard Larry Elder or Milton Friedman speak. Most seem to rely on "feelings", which are often goofy and unfounded in reality.
4
“Feelings.” This is such a tired critique of the left. In our current political climate, there are plenty of “feelings” to go around. Witness the fear-mongering that inspires so many Americans to amass personal arsenals of assault weapons. The thrust of Trump’s campaign was an angry longing for a perceived country lost. Point is, examples abound all across the spectrum. Please don’t pretend any one side has the monopoly on cold hard reason.
In order to remedy a societal wide problem it is not sufficient to simply recognize that the problem exists.Rather one must fully acknowledge its devastating consequences.So if we be fully woke about the extent and depth of racism any given strategy to eliminate racism is both trivial and futile
Bobby, if I understand your comment correctly, may I suggest that you study racism as I've done and read books by Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele and/or youtube.com Larry Elder or Milton Friedman. Most who use the race card seem to rely on "feelings", which are often unfounded in reality. No one denies that there are idiot racists among 320 million Americans, but racism is not as widespread as you seem to feel.
1
I think David Brooks is exactly on track.
In my opinion, "wokeness," as it is currently practiced on the left, specifies not only awareness, but a fairly detailed set conclusions as well, mostly in terms of who can be attacked ad hominem to the roar of the crowd. The most popular comment in response to this column is snarky, self-righteous, and condescending.
My difficulty with "wokeness" is that I too have observed the facts, thought about them a great deal, analyzed them carefully, and come to DIFFERENT conclusions about what will lead to a more just society for all.
Scolding me simply because how I was born (white and upper-middle class) is pointless. Shaming me by calling me a racist and a "dog-whistler" when I say that all lives matter and that trusting and supporting a police force that is NOT corrupt could be of more value to poor African Americans in the city than to any other single group of people in improving their actual, daily lives does nothing but silence me, with little motivation to work to help set things right.
I am nothing but glad when someone from a disadvantaged background realizes their own talent through discipline and hard work. I smile whenever I see a black face in a formerly white church, school, or office. I know my own heart, so insult me and call me what you will. Allowing for the moral flaws that afflict me, and all of us it we are honest with ourselves, I am right with myself and my God, whilst striving always to be better.
11
I think the problem with you imply that the factors preventing that black face from entering a white space had been largely a lack of discipline and hard work on the part of the individual. That may be true to a certain extent but it doesn't paying the whole picture, and for most of this country's history the individual merits of people of color had very little to do with whether they succeeded in mainstream America. So you sound very patronizing to people who have worked hard all their lives and gotten nowhere (both white and non white people).
It is helpful not to put words in my mouth, or in this case, my comment. I did and do not imply that there are not factors beyond personal effort discouraging black faces in white spaces. Unearned, irrelevant bias is real and pervasive. Further, I have nothing but compassion (but not pity) for people who have knocked themselves out and gotten nowhere in the face of social structures and policies that defeat them.
However, as any good psychologist would agree, feelings are not facts, and each of us is responsible for our own behavior full stop, barring brain damage or mental illness.
My point was and is that, as a practical matter, nothing good comes from shouting people down, scolding them, shaming them, and attributing evil motives to them just because they see an issue differently.
My opinion is that identity politics and those of "diversity" as an end in itself are divisive, and lead only to ever greater conflict. I say this having, on the one hand, had a privileged upbringing, but on the other, lived as a gay man whose life was greatly limited by far more virulent prejudices than those facing most ethic groups AND who still faces those prejudices TODAY in the LAWS of as many as 38 of these United States. Born when I was, I had a choice between a career and a love life. I chose the career, and it sure was lonely!
So, shall we have a competition as to who is the greatest victim based on how we feel? I think not. Let us work just toward the common good, for ALL of us.
1
Perceptive and well-written.
4
At the risk of sounding like Saturday Night Live's ever-confused news reporter during the Gilda Radner years, Emily Litella, what is all this stuff about "wokeness?" It seems like just a new term for awareness, or being well informed. Does't every cultural movement start with a rumble of observation by a few folks paying attention to murmurs gathering steam?
J., Brooks is writing about goofy, misguided, hair-on-fire folks who use little/no facts on which to base their claims.
1
I think Brooks is painting with too broad a brush. The 2016 election woke a whole lot of people which led to the Women's March and Indivisible which led to hundreds of people involving themselves in public life and running for office. Perhaps it's a spectrum where some people are just waking and others have become woke with a purpose.
2
Some nobody comes up with the new word and the media who really needs to be covering real news instead focus only on Trump and trivia. This thing where a word causes all of these effects is a product of endless propaganda. And THAT should be the story: how Americans are propagandized into idiocy and hatred but none our media can be bothered.
1
At our house, we play a drinking game. We take a shot every time Lester Holt says "outraged." People tell me the program is 30 minutes long. I wouldn't know...
6
David: As you define it, "wokeness" is just urban slang for extremism or fanaticism, which not only leads "to a one-sided depiction of the present and an unsophisticated strategy for a future offensive" - it turns people off.
2
Statistics can always be manipulated to make a point. Were the shootings individual ones or mass shootings? Were they for the most part people of color? Where did they occur?
2
According to 2016 stats, there were 7,881 black-on-black murders that year.
1
Mr. Brooks is and always has been a Republican incrementalist so this is not surprising. Reform is fueled by the fire of passion as Martin Luther King so nobly demonstrated. Gun control advocates are not pessimistic; far from it they are optimistic that the recent mass shootings will incite greater awareness in all Americans of gun violence that occurs daily. It is true that violent crime has fallen dramatically in the past 25 years but America still far outstrips Western democracies in violent crimes, incarceration rates and mass shootings. I think the Parkland kids are pretty realistic and don’t believe sweeping gun reform will be a cure all but even saving lives in one school or of one child from gun violence is better than what America has now.
3
"...most great social reforms have happened in moments of optimism, not moments of pessimism" - this assertion desperately needed an example. Without one, this entire piece has no foundation.
1
Thank you so much for this article! You've nailed exactly what's wrong with both sides and why we can't seem to get anything done. If you're woke, you're unwilling to compromise and if you're willing to compromise, you're "part of the problem"—according to those who are "woke". This country needs more compromise, not less. We have to find middle ground to make a stand.
4
Every new term must be considered in its contextual root. Woke became an important tool with Black Lives Matter and the creative activism from black artists and musicians. It was a call to, as the word implies, to be awake, to open your eyes to the realities of the community in order to take action in protests and the search of just policies that would help to diminish police brutality and systemic racism. However, like any term rooted in pop culture, it was co-opted by white liberals outside of the reality of black and brown communities and, although with their heart in the right place, the term was washed off of its original activism and only limited to the awake part. This happened in a few months (2 years maybe) and many black and brown scholars are questioning the impact of the term and if it is useful anymore. This is the woke mr. Brooks is exploring , but is a limited exploration. I would argue that instead of criticizing how woke is just but wishful thinking, it must go back to its activist root and awake every one to its woke reality of resistance.
3
“For example, it is certainly true that racism is the great sin of American history, that it is an ongoing sin and the sin from which many of our other sins flow. It is also true that throughout history and today, millions of people have tried to combat that sin and have made progress against it.” — David Brooks
It’s also true that a significant number of people - including many with inordinate resources - work to minimize the abuses caused by racism and wealth inequality. Racism may be less powerful than 50 years ago, but it is resurgent. Wealth inequality is getting worse. Even without trimp, wealth inequality is causing more and more instability that multiplies upon itself - to our detriment.
By all means offer solutions or ameliorations, but don’t minimize problems that are actively being exploited by obviously bad actors.
1
I have been woke for a long time. I remember the Eisenhower years when the "action" recommended by SANE could have stopped the nuclear menace. Sakharov in Russia proposed it. We declined. Ike nailed it in his departing speech. I believe that was the first mention of the military/industrial complex.
The Vietnam war led to many people becoming woke. We always voted for the anti-war candidate and were defeated each time by the moneyed establishment (MIC.)
Then America began to trade with China and we stopped making things. The unions were becoming too woke.
We woke people always tried to take "action" but we were out-gunned. You see money talks. Corporations have now been deemed persons under the law. Our courts are not woke; they like congress are constantly swayed by the moneyed interests against the common folk.
The American people were not behind the middle east wars. We tried to take "action", but the MIC also influences the media. The media didn't cover our side. Now the media is global with the internet and we are trying again to wake up the people to take "action". But we must wake up the oil & gas interests, the vast arms industry, and purge Silicon Valley and Wall St. of their naked greed. Talk about a heavy lift, but people in Europe and around the globe are waking up and taking "action".
4
What I found shocking about your comments on school violence was your willingness to accept any level of gun violence and death at schools. In no other country on earth would such a statement sound rational.
Being "woke" means that one can see that gun violence in schools is not only crazy, but it is a brand of American crazy that ought to be completely unacceptable on any level.
And "woke" does not mean inaction, it means that now that one is aware, one recognizes that one is either a part of the problem or a part of the solution.
2
I see Wokeness as just a continuation of the western tradition of asking "why" and a dissatisfaction with answers that have had currency but which in the light of new information require better answers.
Our willingness to accept most answers to our questions is very much determined by our experiences and the nature of our self interests and that is easy to agree on. What we have today is a plurality of answers with the result that many people no longer hold to a single acceptable answer and more importantly do not agree on a single approach to any one problem.
A simple example is the issue of climate change. Coal interests have wanted to negate the existence of man made climate influence, They have money and contribute to candidates that represent their interests if and when they are elected. These people talk about jobs but for someone that is "woke" …they are about global irresponsibility. Thus the problem simply put is that coal profitability has put at risk global heath , the only response of someone that is woke…is to vote for the candidate that sees the danger and will do something about it.
3
Perceptive but still bi-polar. The world is not just two side's "object relations." Until the West understands that they will continue to follow "Heroes" on the left and right and end up in tyranny.
So what's to understand?
Simple, everyone only perceives and expresses a piece of reality. No single cultural system sat around for thousands of years doing nothing. Everyone has a piece that is crucial to the whole. The left and right of the West are two large pieces but when reassembling the bowl of reality, that has been shattered, any missing piece will cause the whole thing to leak and fail.
Consciousness requires an aware assemblage of the bowl of reality together. Only when we reassemble it from a place of respect for each other will we have the strength to admit our limitations and arrive at greater truth together without assaulting or tyrannizing the small or the less impressive.
Every shard is essential to the whole, even the tiniest and it isn't all human either. The network of life is far greater than those who simply walk on two legs.
Perhaps you didn't awaken after all and are still dreaming a singular dream.
1
"These days we think of wokeness as a left-wing phenomenon. But it is an iron law of politics that every mental habit conservatives fault in liberals is one they also practice themselves."
Thank you!
By we, I am assuming you mean conservatives. I became aware of conservative "wokeness" in the early 90's with my first exposure to Rush and his demonization of the word "liberal," which became its own trigger word for the right. What I first assumed was just parady, I soon became more alarmed after caller after caller, started each conversation with the word "Ditto, Rush," to signal their wokeness. Soon, I started to meet real-life "Dittoheads," who created "Rush rooms," for interpreting the news for them. It was only a matter of time before the modern right wokeness became representatives on the hill and eventually one became President, and it became okay to publicly express hatred toward anything that could be tied to "liberalism." It will take a lot of work to walk this back, but walk it back America eventually will.
4
This is representative of a kind of centrist wokeness that insists on a balanced approach to covering issues no matter the degree to which the facts fall on one side of an argument. Contradictory truths? Like man-made climate change is a fact as well as a hoax? That evolution is real as well as an idea planted by Satan to undermine God?
I doubt it’s possible to maximize the potential for disaster that we face by having one of our political parties hijacked by a paranoid narcissist who has taken the race-baiting pioneered by Reagan and the Bushes to new levels of performance art.
3
This is a very interesting article and i think there's much truth in it. Not sure that optimism creates opportunities for more change, but I can see how that might work. It's hard not to be passionate on one side or the other these days, but the ability to balance contradictory ideas - that I've seen myself during my study of ancient Greek tragedy - especially the Antigone of Sophocles, where two opposing views are each correct and also each incorrect.
3
Perhaps growing impatience with injustice in not an altogether bad measure of civilization's progress."Wokeness" as the sound of a rubber-band snapping going from some sort of comatose state to full-on rage, as Mr. Brooks seems to describe it, is not useful or even helpful. But, even when the condition observed is factually the same (or even better than it was) our resolve to endure it no longer may quickly move past the somewhat improved reality. I think the glacial rate of progress in race relations over 100 years is a prime example of something that improved noticeably, incrementally, fractionally until it earned and acquired a justifiable rage due to peoples' "wokeness" racing by the sloth-like reality. Wokeness is often the answer to the forces of inertia and stasis.
4
Wokeness isn't about solving problems. It is about the woke person: a way of displaying their intellectual and moral superiority by being outraged. It's no coincidence that the Age of Wokeness is also the Age of Outrage. It is a modern update on the classic intellectual attitude of cynicism. Cynicism and wokeness don't help anyone, in fact just the opposite.
6
First I do not think the focus on school shootings is just about school gun violence but rather the horror of mass school shootings. For students to go to school and know that that there is a possibility that their friends, teachers and themselves could be gunned downed is a wholly different kind of horror that lives in the minds and hearts of today's students. Secondly to say that things are better today does not discount the gravity of a current situation. Should we not be awoken to the fact of the great disparity of blacks imprisoned compared to whites for the same crime because blacks are doing better because they are no longer enslaved. To be awake means to be aware of the things right in front of you but you have been blind to. Hopefully this leads to constructive action to change injustices but that is up to the conscience of every individual. Yes things are complex but we must be vigilant so as not to accept "alternative facts". For example I was taught in school that the Civil War had very little to do with slavery but more about states' rights.
4
It has always felt to be an odd, and unpleasant term, with a little violence to it. Hopefully the term will evaporate in a day or two.
2
This term has been in use for years (even if it’s new to you). I really do want to know, what about this single word insinuates violence to you?
I am always amused when a phrase that originated in black vernacular speech is translated anew by the general market. The most accepted definition of "woke" according to the Urban Dictionary is "a reference to how people should be aware in current affairs." With that definition, the first sentence off Mr. Brooks musing -- "There is no measure or moderation to wokeness" -- needs to be recontextualized and the rest of his opinion would need to be a lot more benign than it is currently.
9
When you wander in the world, you meet people doing things. You say 'Hi', they respond, you might ask what they are doing or just observe. You might notice that the hammer is loose and warn them. Their glass might be ready to fall. Maybe you go to church with them or work with them or volunteer with them. In other words these are people are your community. City or Country that is how we interact.
As a community one must solve problems, how to fund the schools, save the hospital, pave the roads. We run elections on a two party system so the best candidate might be a different party than yours. But the mission is to get jobs done.
A close friend of mine told me recently that if we bombed the whole city of Washington DC, (my hometown where my whole family worked for the Federal Government) we would be much better off. This is a man, I have spent a lot of time with. There is a severe problem with balance of thought. This isn't Woke these are beliefs that must have been implanted. I suppose I have some too. How are we civilized human beings on the street and then in our minds we imagine mayhem, or mass arrests or a Trump administration to vanquish our mirror Woke adversaries. Propaganda has run amok, fine tuned by sophisticated market research. For our part it is relying on beliefs rather than analysis and problem solving. No one is happy now that we have open warfare in our society. What now? Knowing that "Wokeness" is the term doesn't solve the problem.
1
I’m tired of (mostly white) people demanding that every activist, every piece or art, article, etc. intended to raise awareness (wokeness) requires a coherent policy platform. It’s a way to discredit the content of the message.
Coates (to use Brooks’ example) is a writer and intellectual responding the world around him - nothing more. He is the first to admit that. He is not a public administrator, a politician, or a policy wonk. People dedicate their entire careers to public policy and understanding how to make administrative or legislative change in washington - or the local level. Let Coates inspire those people.
7
The Problem with Brooks-ness:
The problem with David Brooks' columns is that he always comes up with or manipulates a term (like 'wokeness') and then misapplies it across the political spectrum, thus "showing" us that the right and left are equally extreme and advocating some space in the middle. The problem is that he is drawing a false equivalency and hiding this under his appropriated/misused term. Usually the end result is him advocating for a position that is clearly leftwing - it always involves the favoring of the community over the individual - and dressing it up as a true form of conservativism. The guy just needs to give up being conservative and drop the false equivalencies and language manipulation. It doesn't fool anyone.
5
If liberals are to be criticized for being "woke" by their focus on injustice at the expense of statistics (according to Brooks), how then should the conservatives be criticized for their continued callous distortion of facts that allow for these injustices to continue unabated? The crowd that bleats that Mexicans are rapists, immigrants are animals, that teachers just need to be armed, etc etc.? Brooks who so often bemoans the death of civility is positioning himself here with the rabid right who want nothing more than to drag us backwards, spurred on by "alternative facts" and irrational hatred. No thanks, Mr Brooks, I'd rather be where the "woke" folks are.
3
This column was tough for me, David. First, for you to say, "I mentioned on...." is a deliberate way to soften your statement. You could have said, "I stated" or "I pointed out". But "mentioned" seems like an off-handed comment not central to your point. The problem is that to frame "gun violence" in terms of a body count is part of the problem. Is that really the metric we should use to determine - as a society - that we have done enough to address the issue?
So, to me, the point of this column is to dissociate yourself from the reality of gun violence in schools and lash out a bit - and perhaps rightly so - at the vitriolic response.
Social change happens because of "campaigns" not because of "wokeness".
2
My 2-year-old grandson has to have active shooter drills at day care because 26 children and teachers were murdered at Sandy Hook and our government will do nothing to make it stop. That it's outrageous, and I'll be"woke" enough on Election Day to vote.
5
"In an older frame of mind, you try to perceive the size of a problem objectively, and then you propose a solution, which might either be radical or moderate, conservative or liberal. You were judged primarily by the nature of your proposal."
In what fantasy world does Mr. Brooks's historical memory live? Does he really think that his youth took place in some sort of Golden Era in which people were more rational than we are now and that we judge people by their proposals independently of our feelings or self interest? Absurd this. Or perhaps he means by "an older frame of mind" that he as an old person is more rational than someone younger. We know that people have been making such claims for millennia.
Either way, Mr. Brooks is expressing a fantasy here. There was no such golden era and he has not become more rational with age. Our madness and stupidity have continued over the millennia, as they do for each of us as we age.
3
I have some sympathy with Mr. Brooks' overall quest to increase civility, but to claim that awareness of problems leads to paralysis and inaction seems especially absurd these days. In the age of BLM, student activism, record numbers of women running for office, the downfall of Paige Patterson, the wave of #metoo and #churchtoo? Really?
2
Noted biologist E O Wilson refers to our "stone age emotions" as a problem humanity needs to overcome. Being "woke" certainly sounds like a stone age emotion or state of mind untouched by the desire for the rationality that is the hallmark of the modern mental processes introduced during the Enlightenment era. In the same vein, being "red-pilled" sounds just like being "brain-washed".
Progress is slow. Silly ideas spread fast. And yet we move forward and many of us consider the past 50 or 60 years the best years ever to be a human being on this planet.
3
Many of us have died or fallen into poverty over the past 5 or 6 decades... especially outside of the United States and at least in part due to policies pursued by the United States (by far the world's most powerful military power, the world's most powerful economic power, and the world's most powerful "cultural" power) which was until recently supported by US allies in Europe, Canada, Japan, some of South Asia and Southeast Asia and some of Africa.
To be unaware of that is to bury one's head in the sand - the opposite of "woke".
1
There will always be people pointing out that things are not as bad as they used to be. "You think this is bad? Why, I remember back in the 90's . . . . ." Those same people think any reaction to their statements is simply ignorant. It's a "you just don't understand" moment on both sides.
Mr. Brooks peers through a historical lens to remind us of cold statistics while family members and friends weep at the fresh graves of school children across the country - again, and again.
Politicians and district leaders review plans to turn our schools into fortified military bunkers and trade in yellow school buses for up-armored Humvees. But Mr. Brooks reminds us we are better off now than in the 90's. Does he really see high school students armed with assault weapons as progress because their numbers are fewer than those from twenty-five years ago when kids only had handguns?
Thanks, David. We appreciate the statistical clarity. Now, what suggestions do you have for our current "not so bad" situation? Any constructive ideas, or are you just here to kibbitz?
2
Just recently, Donald Trump said on camera that "preparation" was not important for the impending talks with North Korea, that "attitude" was the ticket. Did we expect something else from him?
And recently I got a flyer from one of the four Democratic female candidates vying to run against Barbara Comstock (R) in the House. There was a child's letter to Trump drawn by her daughter. This, apparently, inspired her to run, and it was supposed to inspire US to vote for her. I suppose this is in line with the general Democratic policy of running a Children's Crusade against the evil Republicans.
The economic injustice in the United States is now reaching critical mass and is steadily being fed by the power of compound interest, entrenched wealth, and on-going engineering tricks to transfer even more wealth from the working and middle classes. For those left with the crumbs, both parties are playing racist and identity cards to divide and gain votes. No party is clearly speaking the truth to power. No party is taking on Wall Street and the corporations. No party is doing what is necessary for the future of our people.
It makes one angry to constantly be dealing with lies and cognitive dissonance. Being "woken" is to understand basic FACTS that have affected our lives and will continue to do so until the system implodes. Being woken is to start understanding the predatory and cannibalistic nature of American Capitalism as it is now engineered.
4
I agree with David Brooks. As a liberal, rather than radical leftist, I try to mix opinions with evidence in favor or against. I have issues I feel strongly about and want action now (e.g., gun violence is reduced from the early 1990s, but our country is an extreme outlier on gun violence), but having evidence for my cause is important. Otherwise, I become like Trump, lunging this way and that, sporting an angry, ugly scowl, with no firm footing.
2
Too much introspection, Mr. Brooks.
And it seems for naught as you always wind up at the same place: "My views are superior so the problem has to be with liberal views and the outraged Democrats".
If you truly want to be "awakened" to the injustice that is the source of all the outrage and anger, may I suggest that you talk to the family of the 19 year-old Guatemalan women shot dead by our border patrol.
You may also talk to:
- The students at Stoneman Douglas High School
- Parents of poisoned children in Flint, Michigan
- Black men brutalize and shot by our police
- The Mayor of Pittsburgh on the Paris Accords
- Trudeau & Macron on Trump's senseless trade war
- John McCain's daughter
As you engage with them, you may become enlightened generally and realize that even four times less deaths among students is still way too many -- well beyond every other developed society by leaps and bounds. I can assure you that dead, maimed, traumatized survivors, their families, first responders and medical professionals in afflicted communities would all agree.
You might also realize that the left - right lens is not the way to assess the current anger. What's happening now is more about decency vs. vulgarity, mindfulness vs. stupidity and humanity vs. inhumanity.
7
Police protect the rest of us, and if that necessitates "brutality" in dealing with dangerous predators, that's fine with me.
1
Police do protect us. But please define brutality and the measure by which the police can judge who to brutalize and how much, especially those they like to gun down in the back while their arms are held high up in the air?
So brutality on “dangerous predators” is required to keep you safe. Your comment shows how not woke you are. The whole idea that if the police brutalize a person means it was deserved is exactly why such horror continues.
Being woke acknowledges that folks are undeserving of the treatment they receive. Being woke is to look at why folks receive unequal treatment, including death - skin color, in case it’s not obvious to you.
You clearly never worry about being killed by police while on the phone in your grandma’s back yard. Or your young son being killed while playing with a toy gun. Or being pulled out of your car and jailed for no real reason. Or being killed in Walmart while holding a toy. I could list so many more and say their names but it’s an obvious a waste of time as you assume if the police kill a person they must have a good reason and that makes it ok.
I’m white and have no trouble acknowledging my privilege. Woke is something I work at. I understand that as long as people of color receive different treatment we must work to expose the underlying causes. We must work together and find ways to improve our fellow humans’ lot in life starting with their right to exist.
#BlackLivesMatter
1
I’m so confused by David’s argument - there was a time (before these kids were born) when gun violence was even worse than it is now, so they are over-reacting when they try to do something about it?? Just because we didn’t do enough then doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to fix it now.
3
Even if deaths by gun are down relative to the 90s, in this new era of school shootings gun violence is the wrong example of woke as an overreaction.
1
As always with Brooks, at some point, his argument turns on a fallacy. The fallacy in this argument is that wokeness does not lead to action, that it's more about "perception of injustice" than solutions. That is patently absurb (besides being unprovable). As far as I can tell, the woke people I know are out in communities, trying to make changes, looking at faults in the system, pushing new ideas, policies, and candidates, and taking on the status quo. I'd say the incredible influx of so many new female candidates in elections across the country suggest that wokeness is more than being perceptive to the problems—it suggests that people are moving and doing something about them.
5
It's a term of desperation. It's not necessarily to recognize your own desperation (and frustration with those who will not look). We just turned in the hottest May on record.
Demeaning terms like "wokeness" aside, what is needed is stronger limitations on firearm access. We also need less media emphasis on vengeance and violence as entertainment and conflict resolution but reducing arms and available ammunition are needed first.
As is the known influence of lobbying, Americans are increasingly awakened to the need to control the money influence on elections and legislation as well.
4
The fact that we have school shootings at all is what we should be discussing, not comparing how many there were. I was in high school in the 1960’s and we simply did not have school shootings or lockdown drills. Mr. Brooks, list most conservative Republicans misses the point completely. Stop trying to be an intellectual and use some common sense.
9
I was in high school in the early 90s, and we did not have school shooting drills either. Just extreme weather and fire drills. Rather, the administration used metal detectors on US, and we (the students) were the danger, not the perceived victims. School shootings at that point were small affairs, not mass shootings. As disturbing as the drills are, to me at least, they suggest that the school cares about kids’ survival.
4
"The problem with wokeness" includes the emphasis on moral indignation leading to anger and the loss of rational thought and discussion.
Attacking and silencing those who disagree, is then perceived as a worthy goal, while it alienates others.
Repetitive histrionic political rhetoric is essentially propaganda.
Freedom of thought is a cherished American value and thought control is not.
16
Agreed, but what if something is really terrible? The trick is distinguishing the 99 percent of the time moderation works from the 1 percent that it doesn't. That's not so easy.
3
This isn't an essay about wokeness, this is an essay about normalisation. Are we supposed to think multiple mass shootings in schools each year aren't all that bad because there are less school children dying today than in the 1990s? Ignore for a moment most other developed nations go years without tragedies like ours. Also ignore how expert we've become at treating the victims of gun violence simply because there is so much of it. Even if your statement is true, Mr Brooks, why should even one school shooting a year be acceptable? Your comment received criticism because it quite simply deserved it.
"[M]ost great social reforms have happened in moments of optimism, not moments of pessimism, in moments of encouraging progress, not in moments of perceived threat."
Most social reforms happened when enough people got loud, took to the streets, and made their voices heard through protest and civil disobedience. They very much made a public spectacle of themselves. That was the point. To make those opposed uncomfortably aware.
By contrast every opponent of social reform has insisted on reasonable debate and polite discourse instead. It's a delaying tactic to keep the status quo, to regain their sense of comfort so they can safely return to ignoring the issue. That's you right now with this essay, Mr Brooks. You're attempting to turn down the volume and regain some measure of comfort. Good luck with that.
29
Thank you! Great response.
As a parent with children attending public school, I've been troubled by the focus on the killing of students as the metric by which we measure the dangers they face relative to gun violence. While death may be the ultimate punishment for going to school with a child who feels bullied (good luck finding a school without several of those), every student whose school suffers a shooting is a victim. Schools are micro-communities. Violence resonates in the halls long after the echoes of gunshots have died. All of the victims, not just those killed, should be counted when assessing the odds.
Not that the odds really matter. Parents do not comfort themselves at their child's funeral with statistics. That would be true even if public schools offered an education that might actually be worth the risk.
6
Mr. Brooks writes: "...it’s a blunt fact that most great social reforms have happened in moments of optimism, not moments of pessimism, in moments of encouraging progress, not in moments of perceived threat."
The problem with woeness on both sides is that it is based on fear and not love. The blunt fact is that the "moments of pessimism" he describes in his essay are all based on fear-mongering. Until we realize we're all in this together we will continue to drive each other apart with fear.
3
That some people hold more extreme views than you do is not a “problem.” It is a call to learn, to engage and to discuss.
Mr. Brooks often seems to wish to return to a past in which he perceives that everyone was more reasonable. Not surprisingly, those were also times when women, people of color and a panoply of others were sidelined while wise white men talked amongst themselves.
I’m glad that the discussion now includes so many more voices, even if some of them appear to Mr. Brooks to be misguided. Those voices have taught me so very much.
13
It sounds like the motivation of this article is the criticism Brooks received from implying that gun violence in schools is less of a problem that commonly perceived because it was much worse in the 90s.
That may be statistically true but it also beside the point. Healthcare in the US is much better today than it was 100 years ago but we still have problems to solve. We strive to solve the problems that are before us and we try to make things better. This is an important part of being human.
Besides, as a parent I don't really care about all those kids growing up in the 90s. It is my own kids I am worried about.
7
The term wokeness is derived from "woke" or "stay woke" all of which are primarily used by African Americans to indicate a deep awareness of racism and social injustices. Brooks is way off from that definition in this article. The problem with wokeness is not it's simplicity or inadequacy, but that people who don't understand it's meaning are analyzing and criticizing the use of the term.
5
This seems to me to be a 'woke' portrayal of wokeness: a portrayal of it that maximizes the size of the problem. Undoubtedly some people are woke the way Mr Brooks describes it - it depends on another quality: reasonableness. Hysterical people tend to be drawn to hysterical interpretations of events, and whether that happen on the right or the left, it looks dumb from the center. Radical wokeness is an example. Reasonable wokeness isn't.
1
Again, many of the Most Recommended comments about a Brooks article respond to either something Brooks has said in the past or a Rorschach blot picture of what he is saying in the present.
What I might reduce his essay to is:
1/ Talk and indignation are cheap.
2/ Actual change requires more than moral indignation.
3/ The perfect can be the greatest enemy of the good.
4/ Manichean politics tends to accomplish very little.
What Brooks says is:
"In an older frame of mind, you try to perceive the size of a problem objectively, and then you propose a solution, which might either be radical or moderate, conservative or liberal. You were judged primarily by the nature of your proposal."
"But wokeness jams together the perceiving and the proposing. In fact, wokeness puts more emphasis on how you perceive a situation — how woke you are to what is wrong — than what exactly you plan to do about it. To be woke is to understand the full injustice."
"There is no measure or moderation to wokeness. It’s always good to be more woke. It’s always good to see injustice in maximalist terms. To point to any mitigating factors in the environment is to be naïve, childish, a co-opted part of the status quo."
"Indignation is often deserved and always makes for a great media strategy. But in its extreme form, whether on left or right, wokeness leads to a one-sided depiction of the present and an unsophisticated strategy for a future offensive."
What Townes Van Zandt says:
"It's snowin' on Raton."
6
In the morning I’ll be through those hills and gone...
1
When the wind don't blow in Amarillo
And the moon along the Gunnison don't rise
Shall I cast the Trump upon the ash heap
Of history, of wimpy loser guys.
I'm old and white so excuse me if I get this wrong, but didn't "woke" originally arise in terms of a recognition that prejudice still exists, deeply entrenched, in the United States? And isn't that true? (I think it is.)
Now, as with any meme or trope it gets taken too far and applied to stuff it shouldn't.
So of course along comes another old white man, be it a George Will or a David Brooks, and they use this misapplication to attack the entire thing.
So to get back to basics, there is widespread and deeply entrenched racial prejudice in the United States. Get woke.
7
"Indignation is often deserved and always makes for a great media strategy. "
Doesn't that explain it all?
1
Oh Dave. It's the oldest trick in the book, to reduce the object of your critique into something manageable (like, people of color are represented by Mugabe or Pol Pot), and then argue against that manageable thing. Wokeness jams together the perceiving and the proposing? You mean something like taking some blowback you got for some ill-conceived remarks, attributing it to 'wokeness,' and then failing the entire principle based on these specious assumptions? You got stung, Dave - I feel that. Happens to me, too. Using your massive platform as a NY Times columnist to redress this is what we among the great woke masses call white privilege. As is the implicit assumption that you have access to a more reasonable, balanced understanding of, and approach to, problems to which you've never been within a country mile. At this point, school shootings are not a problem to approach "rationally," because they are not recognized in our government as a problem at all. They must be addressed loudly and strongly so they will be addressed. It's strategy driven by desperation. Your "proposing" gives those who don't wish to deal with school shootings a convenient opportunity to look away. Again. That's smart? This isn't about how rational you, or woke folks, are or aren't. This is about the desperation of parents who have school-age children who are struggling with anxiety attacks because of institutional corruption and apathy, and oddly, statistics are not helping them sleep.
5
This is hilarious, you take Mr Brooks to task for grouping people into something manageable and then do the exact same thing
Excessive wokeness about an issue can make you parochial, making it difficult to move away from your vantage point. It fossilizes your views on an issue thereby making it difficult to understand other side's perspective. End result- stalemate with no end in sight to finding a solution which requires bipartisan support especially in Congress.
1
I think being “woke” by definition shouldn’t be extreme. I think of “woke” as being awake/aware of reality without any sugar coating. It means seeing real longstanding social and economic problems that exist, but also seeing those problems with perspective and proportion.
Being “woke” should mean be left or right leaning. It’s just leaning towards the truth.
1
Why do I get the feeling that David's woke about being nicer to each other? If you're talking philosophy and political strategy, okay. But you've got to watch the instinct to tell those being crushed to ask those who are crushing them to please stop more nicely.
2
The problem with wokeness discussed in an 800 word column?
To quote Roy Schneider in Jaws: "you're going to need a bigger boat"?
1
As before the problem remains: too easy for anyone without any sort of background checks to purchase any sort of semi-automatic weapon to walk into any public place and open fire. The number of guns in America is disgraceful. An armed “good guy” is a myth. Open carry is incredibly pandering to the NRA.
Then by your definition, the President, and Congress, are definitely "woke." Brooks, you misuse the term. Woke is normally referred to as a deepening awareness, embrace, and practice of kindness and compassion, and a desire to let go what you can't control. It's not about strict adherence to political narratives, whatever they are. That is called being rigidly dogmatic, just the opposite of woke.
11
"These days we think of wokeness as a left-wing phenomenon. But it is an iron law of politics that every mental habit conservatives fault in liberals is one they also practice themselves."
I find this astute.
1
In the area of political-social commentary I've always thought David Brooks to be perceptive...never more than in this commentary!
The fatal flaw in Mr. Brooks "school shootings were worse before" argument is this:
Claiming that we're improving statistically is bogus. One life lost is one too many.
I challenge Mr. Brooks to sit down with the families who lost children in Parkland or Texas or anywhere else this year (or ever) that we're doing better.
The only acceptable numbers, whether in the 90s or today, is zero school shootings and zero lives lost.
8
Brooks describes a phenomenon common in society today, and sees it as a problem. He associates that problem with a word, a neologism, "wokeness."
........
And comment after comment ignores the point of the piece, and merely attacks his use of the term "wokeness."
........
So you, dear reader, do not associate the term with the phenomenon. Fine. Let's say he misapplied the term.
........
That doesn't in the least change the point, or validity, of his column, the reality of the phenomenon that he describes, which does not depend on what label you give it.
.......
Try addressing the point, not quibbling over the word.
2
Fact check: While there may be fewer students killed per year these days than in the past, the past shooting incidents involved pistols, not assault style rifles.
I believe the problem lies with lack of gun control, not wokeness.
2
So let me get this straight...David was shocked that people responded negatively when he suggested on "Meet the Press" that, even though we have more violent gun deaths, including students, than any "civilised" country, we shouldn't be scared because we killed even more in the 1990's?
Oh.
PS - Secretary of Education DeVos will not talk about guns when addressing school safety.
3
Again many of the Most Recommended comments about a Brooks article respond to either something Brooks has said in the past or a Rorschach blot picture of what he is saying in the present.
What I might reduce his essay to is:
1/ Talk and indignation are cheap.
2/ Actual change requires more than moral indignation.
3/ The perfect can be the greatest enemy of the good.
4/ Manichean politics tends to accomplish very little.
What Brooks says is:
"In an older frame of mind, you try to perceive the size of a problem objectively, and then you propose a solution, which might either be radical or moderate, conservative or liberal. You were judged primarily by the nature of your proposal."
"But wokeness jams together the perceiving and the proposing. In fact, wokeness puts more emphasis on how you perceive a situation — how woke you are to what is wrong — than what exactly you plan to do about it. To be woke is to understand the full injustice."
"There is no measure or moderation to wokeness. It’s always good to be more woke. It’s always good to see injustice in maximalist terms. To point to any mitigating factors in the environment is to be naïve, childish, a co-opted part of the status quo."
"Indignation is often deserved and always makes for a great media strategy. But in its extreme form, whether on left or right, wokeness leads to a one-sided depiction of the present and an unsophisticated strategy for a future offensive."
What Townes Van Zandt says:
"It's snowin' on Raton."
1
Perhaps indignation and “wokeness” are a symptom of being ignored. When those with whom you want to communicate are determined to ignore your concerns and frustrations, it is not surprising that people look for ways to shout louder. My best example of this is the “black lives matter” slogan. When I first heard it, I thought to myself, “Exactly. Who could disagree?” But they did and they do. It is if to concede any point is to lose. When we refuse to recognize any common ground, what else but the construction of two separate realities can we expect?
5
Coates is clearly woke to American anti-black racism. He is very un-woke to the role of African American culture in limiting opportunities and progress for blacks. The problem with wokeness is that it assumes an obvious simplicity to complex issues based on mindless identity politics.
But wokeness aside, Brooks' celebrating the reduction of American gun violence by using our worst epidemic of violence as his comparison point is a little tone deaf and intellectually unfair. It's just another example of Republican "what about-ism" when faced with another Trump atrocity.
1
Concerning gun violence in schools you are not woke and neither am I. I graduated high school in 1985 and you before that. We never had to worry about being massacred at school. Just imagine how it is now. Who is behind every door that opens during a class? What was that loud noise? Is it a fire drill, or? Kids in public schools since Columbine, whether they want to be or not, are woke. Wide awake to the fact that going to a public school in America means you could get shot indiscriminately in any school and at anytime.
The only paralysis for change is in congress and the presidency; yours and my generation of leaders. If you think being, "woke", sets back one's potential for progress it is nothing compared to the, "deer in headlights", syndrome of being an elected official in this generation.
2
I think Colin Kaepernick is a positive role model, am aware that the property I "own" was stolen from Native Americans, don't care who marries whom or who uses whatever bathroom, believe the Palestinians have a raw deal...
Am I woke? I surely hope not. That word is a signal that I must think the same way someone else does. Whenever I see or hear the word woke I know that reasonable discussion is over.
And while I'm on a bit of a rant here, let me address the idea of reparations for slavery. There was this thing called the Civil War and, well, let Lincoln have his say, "Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword..."
Moral equivalency of white blood shed in fighting slavery with the black blood shed by slaves? Yes, enough, enough to say that any discussion of reparations that fails to acknowledge the Civil War is contemptible.
Was Abraham Lincoln woke? David Brooks' column makes this insane question pertinent and it shouldn't be.
2
Everyone can talk about gun violence in school and everyone will have their own opinion about it. I am a parent with 3 kids in school. No one can me tell not to worry. Parents like me and the students whose own lives are at stake knows the real fear of dying. Republican or democrats, atheist or not, white, Mexican or blacks, it doesn't care. Bullets doesn't discriminate once it's out of the chamber.
We went to America believing the great American dream, to give our children an edge of being educated here. But now it's wretched my kids could die in American school which is implausible "in a third world country where we came.
So please Mr. Brooks say no more, hush.
1
Sorry,Mr.Brooks, you lost me when you declared that most great social reforms have happened in moments of optimism.I am reading Chernow's book on Grant- the greatest social reform of all, abolition of slavery, did not take place during any optimism, nor did the opposition to the disastrous Vietnam War nor, for that matter did the war against Hitler and Nazis.There was no optimism-just pessimism and determination and grit.
12
While one can point to "excessive wokeness" examples in both parties, I would suggest, Mr. Brooks, that the Republicans have cornered the market on it in the past few years.
They have been very good at selecting incidents, both real and entirely made up, and then using them to scare and motivate a certain element of their base into wokeness. The "welfare queen", the murdering immigrant of the young white woman, the entirely fictitious "War on Christianity", any number of fake conspiracy theories (eg, Pizzagate), and federal agents supposedly coming to take their guns.
And, of course, Trump's favorite urging of his base to wokeness: his chants of "fake news" to pillory the media and distract from inconvenient facts, and his destructive claims of a "deep state" in law enforcement and the federal government out to get him.
So the Trump base is now very woke. And also living in a largely fantasy world created by very intentional Republican messaging strategies and fueled by their media mouthpieces like Fox News, Sinclair and Breitbart.
1
Right, the media and democrats have never picked an isolated incident, turned into a national epidemic and blamed a large part of the population for it. Your partisan blinders are doing you no favors
One place to start is to acknowledge something good that the Others are focused on, that maybe your team could learn from.
I'll go first. I think focusing on private sector job growth, especially manufacturing, is a good idea. As is paying more attention to "flyover country" and their specific legitimate economic concerns. Dems don't pay enough attention to this. Trump and the gang aren't delivering on this bedrock campaign promise. Ding ding ding.
Your turn, David.
1
It is hard for us all, yes all, to deal with this moment in history.
I respect Mr Brooks and his pursuit of, and campaign for character - but when he says: "For example, it is certainly true that racism is the great sin of American history, that it is an ongoing sin and the sin from which many of our other sins flow. It is also true that throughout history and today, millions of people have tried to combat that sin and have made progress against it."
I believe he is dodging the moment. The President of the United States has blatantly courted the White Nationalist Movement. He is their true King, and they are why he is the current POTUS.
If "woke" is the wrong word, we need another.
Mr Brooks should not stand aside, and quibble - what is your word? what your movement.Sir?
A Nation turned to Character - that would be refreshing, right? Invigorating? This is the moment?
1
The early 1990s were at the epicenter of the crack epidemic and corresponding violence. Direct comparisons of today's school shootings to the far more widespread drug violence of the early 1990s has nothing to do with "wokeness", it's just an academically dishonest false equivalence, that, apparently, some journalists seem content to make in order to push an unsupported ideological agenda.
Is wokeness just the self-aware pessimism of a self-selecting discourse community?
It is more than that, I submit.
Because in Washington, DC (and I mean the city, not the federal government located in it), one will never be woke enough, no matter what you look like.
Wokeness begins in positivity, a recognition that things are wrong but can be different. But too often it is used as a limiting positionality: someone will see your wokeness and raise you another inherited unawareness. It’s a way that the left chases its own tail.
But, really, what’s the point of wokeness unless you act on it?
In the darkest of hours often comes the greatest inspiration. Think of Lincoln's Gettysburg address. Conflict and strife are sometimes necessary to force change. Goodtimes often allow us to overlook suffering and despair. The band must be playing loudly in your Manhattan office for you to overlook the racial tension. Despite your rosy perspective, gun violence in America is on the rise. When a single gunman can slaughter 58 innocent people and injure nearly 500 in 10 minutes there is a problem. Congress has done nothing to improve public safety or welfare. Since Vegas we have had countless other shootings, including Parkland. You and your pen cannot sweep away the NRA stain on our country, only the voters can. Thoughts and prayers are not enough.
This article underscores an important principle:
Opinion not grounded in facts is hysteria.
First, educate yourself as much as you can about a problem.
Then, use the evidence gathered to form your opinions -- not vice-versa.
This is good advice for all of us.
4
Probably trying too hard with this woke stuff David. "Woke is a political term of African American origin that refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice." It means that there are millions of Americans who do not believe white privilege is a thing. They ain't woke. It has been expanded to include men who do not recognize their own misogyny, they ain't woke either. You get woke, then you get busy, It's step one.
3
Wokeness is all about the show and very little about bringing about meaningful change. You can be woke if you can chant the correct mantra, believing is not required nor is any work required. Wokeness is also one sided. You are not woke if you cannot see exactly what is in the belief of the moment. It's all or nothing. Being Woke also requires willful blindness to one's own prejudices, bigotry, and hate.
Acknowledgment of inequalities and injustices is important. It is as important to act to remedy inequality and injustice. Mr. Coates places people in white or black boxes based upon his perception of their skin color and without knowledge of their family genetics. He dismisses people who refuse to fit in one and only one of his boxes. Imagine the outrage if Mr. Brooks did this. Racism, stereotyping, sexual violence, and discrimination did not go away in 1965 and are not likely to go away any time soon because the job is done as soon as you chant the Woke mantra, nothing more is requires. Many woke people do not feel real empathy for victims, to feel empathy you need to place yourself in the other person's shoes. They are just using them to drum up more outrage.
4
Point taken: Passion and action have been antithetical since before the Roman Empire.
The presence of unstoppable rage appears to be a necessary adjunct for building the impending blue wave.
However, that rage is producing fatigue in a certain audience. In the journalism arena, it is turning the competition to analyze Trump's tweets into an Olympic sport.
I am worried that rage against Trump is heavily fuelled by the same myopia that brought Trump to power, and is producing the same errors of judgment.
1
Brooks is right. I actually believed schools were more dangerous now than when I was a kid, but it turns out I was falling for a social myth.
And that highlights the insidious irony and danger of wokefullness. In "awakening" you to a one-sided, invective-based model of reality, it shuts off your perceptiveness, intellectual curiosity, and inventive problem-solving capacity.
In biology, prolonged wakefulness is known to cause psychosis, and sleep is necessary for proper mental function. In a moral analogy, stark, impractical, incessant vigilance on a small subset of topics is likely to lead to an impairment of overall reasoning.
Only zombies never sleep.
1
If I use Mr.Brooks definition of woke, it gave us Donald Trump because Fox News and other right wing fear mongers scared people into voting for him. But, I do not think the movement on the left is devoid of evidence like the movement on the right.
Even if we had only one child killed at school every year, wouldn't that be totally unacceptable? Each person is infinitely valuable. Or do you know some people who are only relatively valuable? (Granted, Trump knows whole countries with little value, but he has an excuse: mental illness.)
Shouldn't we have our national moral compass recalibrated if we're comfortable with a few hundred kids being murdered every year as opposed to thousands? Because the rate is lower? Is that some kind of progress that allows us, as a result, to accept an annual blood sacrifice?
The human mind can supposedly justify anything and adjust to almost any condition. Those abilities may have survival benefits as psychological defense mechanisms, but we as a mature society must become "woke" to these Neanderthal shortcomings and raise the ethical bar -- because our evolved sages told us to do so.
Kant taught us that people are not means to an end, but are ends-in-themselves. Aristotle said that we are political, that is, social animals. And John Donne phrased that truth beautifully: "never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
Our reach must exceed our grasp.
2
Brilliant reflection on something I had vaguely felt, but not been able to articulate. Identity politics has become just another divisive scourge.
Woke. Woke is seeing The Great Wizard of Oz, feared throughout the Land, as a shell of a man trembling behind the curtain. Look at Trump. Same thing. Fact is stranger than fiction.
No, I'm going to comment on guns. What Mr Brooks failed to cite was thirty ago, gun deaths in school were an intercity problem with drug dealing gangs. Over the years, the school systems have been successful at keeping the guns out of these schools and changing a lot of the culture
Now it's different. We had Columbine - the template for a new type of school shooter. This wasn't a one-on-one exchange between opposing drug dealing gang members, sometimes with collateral damage . No, these shooters are suburban white kids set on committing mass murder purely out of spite, with no financial gain.
The template of high armament of military grade weapons and ammo, attack schematics, online research and fandom of other killers, and multiple level preparation and planning are all out of the white separatist movement of the 80's, Rambo, and the NRA.
The gun problem is about suburban white kids having to worry about going to school, not unlike the black kids here in Oakland years ago, except the stakes are much higher.
Everyone is a target. That's woke.
1
So, Americans should not be "scaremongering" because there are slightly fewer school shootings than there were in the 90's? What a great comfort to know that somewhat fewer children will be shot in American schools this year than they were in the past.
I would be outraged if there were even one school shooting in Switzerland this year, and I think most citizens in the developed world would share this sentiment in their own countries. The US is truly exceptional, in ways that it should not be.
4
I encourage Mr. Brooks to keep trying to hit that nail square on the head. He keeps getting glancing blows. "Wokeness" is not the best avenue, the best word, to approach the topic of extremist views and the consequent dysfunction.
Wokeness is ill-defined. In addition to Mr. Brooks' notion of wokeness as narrow but more deeply 'felt' awareness of an issue, it can also mean understanding an issue in a broader and deeper context and thus understanding its import more accurately.
He does get right the observation that conservatives are everything negative they accuse liberals of being. (but worse) The religious right were the original snowflakes. Remember when they were trying to present as so pathetic and 'hurt' that their religious freedoms were being so trampled on? Mitch McConnell accusing Obama of oral rape in shoving 'obamacare' down their throats while shoving Gorsuch down our throats. Liberals are out of touch, while Republicans work to thwart policies even their own constituency support, like Universal healthcare and strengthened Social Security.
I do actually agree with what Brooks seems to be saying in his implication that identity politics is not effective for change. But for opposite reasons. There is an ultimate Wokeness that recognizes all injustices are significant and ultimately from the same cause. Injustice has to solved at the root. It can't be resolved piecemeal. It can't be wallpapered over by sensibility and convention.
1
Never heard of the word "Wokeness" before and the concept seems too messy and complicated, so I will return to my days in kindergarten when I learned "Two wrongs don't make a right!"
I really don't care that there were more school shootings in 1990 than today. As far as I'm concerned One School Shooting in 2018 is too many. Justifying less school shooting is just beans, particularly to any parent of a child killed in a school shooting.
David, keep it simple. This article is too erudite, thus not helpful.
3
American conservatism is inherently bigoted as it seeks to preserve ways of understanding the world that devalue women, gays, atheists, ethnic minorities, etc. Being woke to such a framework changes your valuation of the importance of prejudice in our society. Brooks doesn't see this because he uses the bigoted framework of conservatism to weigh the value of challenges in our society.
2
The overwhelming difference between liberals and conservatives is how they perceive human nature. While liberals see the potential to do good, conservatives see basic human nature as essentially evil and the need to be always on guard against our neighbors wrongful intent. To equate this brand of pessimism with the desire use a realistic world view as a basis to promote change is yet another example of false equivalency coming from the pen David Brooks.
1
David Brooks is well on the way to pointing out a problem which is commonplace in the press I read as well as in public discourse. It is extremely commonplace to clearly describe a problem and how repugnant and revolting a contemporary feature is. Assessment of the precise size of the problem and remedies are much rarer. Perhaps if all the major newspapers were carefully documenting remedies to misdeeds of the current administration and documenting progress or lack thereof, they would be a much greater catalyst for social change.
It may have been a more useful idea to explain a "solution with wokeness." We are in a state of being reactive. With good reason. Yes there is the disproportionate reactivity but it still shows us where to recalibrate.
The sense of proportionate, productive response must be cultivated. My Mom sustains a type of "shell shock" after my Dad's two heart attacks. If she doesn't know where he is or why she can't find him she starts to panic, without a sense of proportion. But this is because she could not prepare for the trauma they went through before.
This nation is in a state of shell shock, as is most of our wounded planet. Yes that means over-reactive, yet still on our way to healing. Better than denial, neglect, and willfully ignorant.
2
The Problem With Whigness. As a self-identified Whig, Mr. Brooks, you may want to revisit the disastrous demise of the Whig party in America, when their reflexive tendency to compromise led them to a fatal (and arguably, amoral) foundering against the most important moral question of American history, slavery. Their unwillingness to identify right and wrong meant that all their “objective” analysis only extended human suffering. It feels good to stand in the middle, supposedly above the passionate fray, but that’s not always where the high ground lies.
1
You’re wrong about gun violence because you are discounting “terror.” Random violence is the most frightening kind, and when in the face of repeated school shootings our elected leaders minimize the issue, responding with statistics or not at all, the public has every right to believe that our children are being sacrificed on the altar of conservative politics. My child may be a stat to you, but to me she is everything. The reckoning for Republicans may not be swift in coming, but it is going to be severe.
1
What the author describes is more accurately described as "groupthink" wherein individual discernment of issues is subjugated to the mob mentality. It is described also in Orwells 1984 and is ultimately a tool used to control the thinking of the populace. Individual critical,thought has often been discouraged in this country to great effect by the propagates of the group accepted "truth".
In an "older frame of mind, you try to perceive the size of a problem objectively, and then you propose a solution, which might either be radical or moderate, conservative or liberal. You were judged primarily by the nature of your proposal."
So true, because emotionalism in my mind marks an attempt to remove rational thought and objective thinking from the analysis. It is about propaganda and playing on feelings.
When I first heard "woke" used as some new kind of magic word for an ineffable state that I am destined never to reach, it sounded like fingers on a chalkboard.
It still does. "Woke"? Really?
14
I very much appreciate Mr. Brooks’ underlying principal that solving complex problems requires people to bring something more to the table than their emotions. But if you’re choosing to reference objective information, it’s important to be thorough.
When performing any type of risk assessment, the level of hazard is determined by a combination of the likelihood that the hazard will occur, and the severity of the risk should it occur. Which means that the risk of CHILDREN being shot and killed en masse while they are at SCHOOL requires a far more significant response than them tripping down the stairs.
Imagine how any private enterprise would be scrutinized if they stated that “only 40-50 people had died in their workplace over the past 20 years.” (Although I’m aware that assuming a level of oversight that may actually not actually exist in the USA.)
Every effort possible should be made to the number of these incidents should be exactly zero.
Also glaringly absent from this article is any mention of how the fear of islamic terrorism compares with reality.
13
Great point on Islamic Terrorism. Some Op-ed writers listen with their fingers in their ears.
2
Sometimes there is no reasonable framework, no reasonable way to step back and look at the big picture. Sometimes there is only the absolute. That is not misplaced "wokeness." That IS the big picture.
One innocent man executed because he was convicted unjustly by the prosecution's corruption, the judge's intransigence, or the community's failure to provide adequate protection, is one person too many. There is no good number or statistical reduction that makes the big picture better. (Good News! This year we only killed 2 innocent men, not our usual 4!!!)
So it is with school shootings. Only zero is acceptable.
So the backlash against Brooks' statement might be the reasonable, big picture reaction. (Having looked at the CDC data, I am not sure I agree with him. I see a flat trend with peaks and valleys - better years and worse years.)
Brooks is right that we have taken to using demonization, trigger words (east coast elitist, conservative christian) to reduce people to a single dimension, and absolutism in place of compromise and thoughtfulness. Most issues have room for ideological give and take.
But the idea that it is good news that in this year or that year only 20 children went off to school and come home in coffins is progress? Nope. The right number is absolute: zero.
14
I equate today's ''wokeness'' of people being mad and they are not going to take it anymore.
They are demanding their human rights. (especially women)
They are demanding that they have clean air,water and earth
They are demanding accountability in their leaders
They are demanding that laws actually be upheld
They are demanding respect
It is not militancy, nor extremism (as the right would have you believe) nor 'something that can be calculated or compared to anything else in history.
It is just trying to make life bearable.
18
What Mr. Brooks misses, particularly in regards to school shootings, is that the qualitative can sometimes outweigh the quantitative. School shootings may be a small portion of an overall diminishing trend of violent crime in the US, but they as a phenomenon are increasing, they are more publicized, and they rightly strike a highly resonant emotional chord, just by their inherent nature. From a specifically conservative perspective, do "pro-life" advocates take solace in the fact that the number of abortions are decreasing? Do they seek increased use of contraceptives to continue the trend? No, the act, to them, is qualitatively so horrific that they engage the perceived problem with a laser focus and all their vigor. Fortunately or unfortunately, humans aren't always moved by numbers. Ask Al Gore about than one.
14
Overall crime May be going down but there are places where crime, especially violent crimes like murder are going up. Crime always has been a local issue. It does not help to chant the mantra that crime is decreasing when you know murders are increasing in cities like Baltimore and Chicago. There is also about a 3 year lag in the official numbers.
People need to learn to localize things like crime, environmental pollution, and human caused changes to the climate if they ever expect things to change. Woke people may say how horrible it is that the Maldives are being covered by the rising ocean but stop short of restoring their historic environment. If reality and truth do not fit your mantra, ignore them so you can be more woke.
Mr. Brooks is not woke in the sense that he can feel what others feel. Perhaps we should try to wake him to the revelations commonly understood on the other side of the tracks. We don’t even have to refer him to modern experience, especially as he seems not to appreciate the understandable fury of Ta-Nehisi Coates. Reading, or hopefully re-reading, The Souls of Black Folk by W. E. B. Du Bois should offer a truly time-tested account of the woke view of our one nation under God.
All people struggle to find their truth, but the path should include neighborhoods strange to us. It’s a journey with a destination but never an arrival. If you think you have reached the end, something will come up to disturb your certainty. That’s what woke is. That’s what animates its emotions. To be woke is to see the reality and its injustice to you and—more importantly—to others. To be fully woke is to try to understand everyone’s story from the beginning.
Mr. Brooks tries a bit to be woke, but usually ends up finding the faults in other’s experience rather than fully embracing their perspectives and pain. It’s the pain we should appreciate and honor first.
13
Ta-Nehisi Coates lives in one of the wealthiest ZIP Codes in New Jersey. His rage is entirely put on.
1
I think Mr. Brooks is not sufficiently woke to the problem. The Institutions of Western Neo-Liberal society are very rigid. They prescribe a value system that rewards a wholly new exploitative society. Wholly new because all our environments are impacted by unsustainable behaviour. If I claim billions in reward for running a business those billions are a claim on the resources of the earth. If I buy part of the Serengeti in Africa, my actions may result in displacing people who flee to Europe. If I destroy the livelihood of countless African fishermen by sailing a supertrawler along their coastline my actions may result in displacing people who flee to Europe. If, pursuing a so-called War on Drugs, I destroy the livelihood of countless people in South America, my actions may result in displacing people who flee to the USA in a ‘Caravan’
Our Societies can no longer sustain the depredations of the super-rich nor their Imperial behaviour.
Unfortunately, non-wokeness leads to a one-sided depiction of the present and an unsophisticated strategy for a future offensive.
20
Amen. If you want to see a whole community of unsustainable liberals, visit Montclair. Endless school buses, multiple kids, droves of SUVs. It shrieks WASTE in capital letters.
1
Mr. Brooks seems to conflate "wokeness" (a.k.a. being aware of an injustice) with defeatism, pessimism, hopelessness, and cynicism erroneously.
These are quite clearly separate concepts. Awareness, at least on some level, is a necessary element of any movement for change but it is not sufficient by itself. It is true that people lacking in imagination or courage or both tend to stop at the point of being "woke" to a problem and throw up their hands in defeat to its inevitable continuance and progression into ever more chaotic and dysfunctional states. Those people are what we call "quitters".
Me, I don't quit until I either get what I'm going for or I'm dead. And we are all already as good as dead, so that's not much of a deterrent.
Now that said, it is important to be realistic in what solutions are likely to work once you are woke, and this can seem like pessimism to the uninitiated because we are shooting down a lot of proposed solutions that are unlikely to be most effective.
Here's the deal folks: I'll just give you the answer right now. It's the billionaires. All of the problems. They all start there. Maybe not Buffett or Gates, but pretty much the rest of them. They are few, you are many. Lose your fear of them, and this ends quickly.
14
The global one percent own half the world's wealth, and that one-half turns out to be $140 TRILLION dollars. That money should be expropriated (seized).
Wokeness seems to be understanding the ways in which structural or capricious injustice ruins, shortens, or diminishes lives. Clearly that has always been a part of human life, as the powerful prey upon the weak and perpetuate cultural privilege. To understand and lament this is to wish things were different, and believe that they should be.
T.S. Eliot, in his poem "Preludes" said: "I am moved by fancies that are curled
Around these images, and cling:
The notion of some infinitely gentle
Infinitely suffering thing."
Wokeness is the capacity to feel empathy for the victims of any particular society, and there will always be victims...to feel the horrible difference between the joy of life lived as fully human within a community of others who allow that sort of life to be lived, and those who are shut out of that possibility.
Eliot ends the poem with the thing that wokeness will always struggle against:
"Wipe your hand across your mouth, and laugh;
The worlds revolve like ancient women
Gathering fuel in vacant lots."
I.E., take your optimism and look around.
Wokeness gets something right: on some level we are all of equal value, but life generally doesn't work out so that we get equal opportunity to actualize individual potential. If you are lucky, you can find a community where people respect and nurture each other, and have the means to keep that going. If you are not...well
hmmmm...
What can we expect of ourselves and our country? That is the daily question..
7
I fully agree with David Brooks's sentiments here. I see the shortcomings of woke-ness every day shutting down open debate about how to best address complicated problems. The phrase that came to mind when I read this was "the perfect is the enemy of the good"-- so long as the there is an ideal solution we could theoretically achieve, we should not engage in concrete, albeit imperfect, steps in that direction. Even worse, those that suggest such pragmatic, concrete steps "just don't get it" and are "one of those" people who maybe cannot be trusted. The net result can be a double-whammy of simultaneously shutting down debate around complicated issues and sowing the seeds of mistrust at a time we need it dearly. As urgent and critical as any problem today may seem, in the long term our problems are only going to get more complicated, and our need to work together will only grow, so its important to avoid getting seduced with righteous indignation at the cost of the social capital we will require to actually put in place workable solutions.
31
David is certainly on to something in outlining the discouraging rise of "wokeness."
In the context of a general decline in citizens' knowledge of US history and government, a long term erosion of civic responsibility, and the pervasive spread of the preposterous delusion that to be non-partisan is to be a "spoiler," the numbing straitjacket of "wokeness" is not a good fit for contemporary America nor does it bode well for the future.
12