The term “woke” is certainly not novel. For the past decade or more, it has been a constant presence in public discourse and social vernacular. In fact, at this point, it has become a significantly over-commodified and pejorative label, almost exclusively deployed against the contemporary Left and progressives. It now often serves as a lazy shorthand to dismiss any attempt by historically marginalized groups to identify points of systemic, structural, or institutional discrimination that shape their lived experiences.Although accusations of being woke have traditionally moved politically or ideologically from Right to Left, our current sociopolitical climate invites a few intriguing questions. Is it possible for conservatives and those on the right to employ the same analytical tools and frameworks of social, political, and cultural critique — thus rendering them, technically, just as woke as their counterparts on the Left? Moreover, could the Left, in turn, begin using the same epithet against the Right?What Does “Woke” Actually Mean?To establish a necessary foundation of understanding, it is useful to begin with a basic definition of “woke.” Traditionally, the term refers to the application of a critical-theoretical lens that enables an individual to identify moments of structural, systemic, or institutional discrimination subjugating particular groups of historically marginalized people. Those who adopt this perspective — critical theorists or zealous adherents — are said to have become awake (woke) to forms of injustice that are typically unseen, implicit, unanticipated, or previously unacknowledged..A woke person, in this sense, is thought to have developed awareness of unconscious or precognitive biases that individuals unwittingly hold as a result of the systems and structures in which they live. Society, then, is viewed as a perpetual struggle between those who are advantaged and those who are disadvantaged. The woke individual seeks either blatant or ostensibly innocuous practices and reinterprets or unveils them as potentially bigoted.In simpler terms: Being woke traditionally means being hypersensitive and aware of social injustices that a non-woke person is not privy to. Many progressives, therefore, regard it as a necessary and forward-thinking framework for addressing systemic bias and injustice.For those on the Left, a woke individual is, again, essential because they may rightly identify policies or practices that, whether intentionally or inadvertently, disadvantage a marginalized community. For example, the historic absence of subtitles or sign language interpreters in television broadcasts was a legitimate exclusionary practice. Limiting access to information. The primary critique of wokeism is that it can become misguided — untethered from reality — and identify illusory or phantasmatic forms of oppression. In other words, those opposed to wokeness feel like a woke person is identifying forms of bigotry that simply don’t exist, resulting in absurdly unfounded woke claims. .Such as suggesting that blackboards were replaced with whiteboards in the mid-1990s as a covert attempt to diminish black authority in education. This would be an unproductive and objectively inaccurate analysis, providing little to no utility or social advancement.Ultimately, woke individuals seek to uncover discrimination through a sociopolitical lens sprinkled with a flavour of critical theory. Sometimes they are correct, sometimes mistaken, and at times, their claims simply defy comprehension.The key point here is that the Right often dismisses any attempt from a marginalized community to improve social standing as mere wokeism — as unjustified or unsound complaining. This is how it has become a pejorative. Can the Right Be Woke?Returning to our earlier question: what happens if the Right adopts the same critical-theoretical lens, merely inverting the roles of who they think is systemically advantaged and disadvantaged? Is it possible that, theoretically, they too could be woke?.The modern Right often argues that contemporary laws, policies, and institutional practices openly discriminate. Initiatives such as affirmative action, diversity hiring targets, and DEI frameworks are frequently cited as examples of modern systemic, structural, and institutionalized neo-marginalization — advanced by an elite, left-leaning establishment intent on disadvantaging a particular demographic. Often under the guise of or in the name of reparative justice.Thus, the woke individual on the Right also perceives society through the binary of privileged and unprivileged. They, too, seek to uncover structural forms of discrimination — only this time directed at the identity-inverse. They claim to have become awake to new forms of unconscious bias instilled by the “oppressive Left,” taught through educational institutions, legacy media, and popular culture. For the woke Right, these are the neo-unconscious biases that now govern society, privileging one group while marginalizing another, simply capsizing the traditional binary.Therefore, the woke right-winger, much like the woke left-winger, seeks to expose social and institutional discrimination. Their frameworks of analysis are structurally identical — like two boys on a playground shouting, “You’re an idiot!” “No, you’re an idiot!”And just as the woke Left can misfire, so too can the woke Right. A right-wing woke person might, for example, claim that designated priority parking for disabled people marginalizes the able-bodied. But discrimination can actually be a progressive thing. .Moreover, the woke conservative may also provide valuable insights, such as identifying a pattern of church burnings as a discriminatory attack on Christians. This, clearly, is a phenomenon worth acknowledging and discussing within the marketplace of ideas.The key point here mirrors the earlier one: the Left, in turn, often dismisses any right-wing critiques, endeavouring to improve general social standing, as fascist, dog-whistling, or otherwise dangerous. Even when the critiques are truly identifying new discriminatory practices that have gone too far or been sustained for too long.Weighing the Pros and ConsWokeism, on both sides of the political spectrum, can be either beneficial or harmful depending on its application. On the Left, wokeism can effectively identify policies and practices that genuinely harm marginalized communities — such as funding cuts to identity-targeted mental health services. Yet when it becomes overzealous, seeing bigotry in every corner of society, it can sow immense confusion and discord. Resulting in unproductive and regressive outcomes. When one’s habitual or natural response to disagreement or discomfort is to label the offending idea or practice as systemically harmful, cultural and intellectual progress stalls..The same dynamic applies on the Right. A woke conservative can skillfully illuminate discriminatory or overreaching policies enacted in the name of equity or reparative justice. Such a critique can serve as a necessary corrective to excess. Yet when every single progressive initiative is routinely condemned or mocked as socialistic-authoritarianism or woke-nonsense, the Right too ironically becomes unproductive and woke, further deepening polarization.Thus, the term “woke” is perhaps best reserved as a pejorative for those who have strayed too far into ideological rigidity — whether on the left or the right. The healthiest path forward remains the protection of free expression and the robust exchange of ideas, allowing society and the general marketplace of ideas to discern what is constructive and what is corrosive.ConclusionIn sum, this admittedly brief analysis leaves us in a tricky bind. Neither form of wokeism is wholly benevolent or wholly destructive, yet both are prone to excess. When misapplied, each can undermine the very progress it seeks to achieve. Nonetheless, it is clear that the Left can be woke, and that the Right, by adopting the same analytical and theoretical tools, can indeed become just as woke.
