Challenging our intellectual arrogance: Part 1. Anatomy of wokeism

In the previous post we have looked at the historical moment when nationalism was as yet merely a nascent idea, a revolutionary proposition, a subversive phenomenon. It was being attacked and repressed by the contemporary conservatives, with Klemens von Metternich being one of the key protagonists. It must be added, to be sure, that there was no stopping of nationalism. In the same manner as there was no stopping of Reformation earlier on our historical timeline. Fast forward to our days, and it is as much inevitable that we would have our modern conservatives trying once more to halt the historical social progress, as it is inevitable that these reactionaries of today would be different from their colleagues from the post-Napoleonic era. And perhaps the most striking feature that stems out of such a comparison is that nationalism has now become the basis of the conservative position, and something to be protected, as opposed to a progressive idea that needs to be combated.

And whereas modern nationalism has now been fully embraced, there is always a wide spectrum of supposedly horrible and repulsive ideas and tendencies that might have recently emerged and which might constitute the targets for the outgoing generations. Among those today we find wokeism. And to pursue our historical parallels even further, it should not come across as a surprise that nationalism was at its nascence essentially a woke phenomenon. Therefore, in this sense our contemporary conservatives are fighting against the wokeism of the 21st century while having fully adopted the wokeism of the first half of the 19th century. And this despite the fact that hardly anyone would have referred to the nationalist ideology in such terms back in the day.

As far as our modern day wokeism is concerned, its origins are quite often explained in a somewhat complex manner. For example:

“The history of the woke movement includes more than just the adoption of Gramsci’s strategy for cultural revolution. Critical theory also plays a large role. Its roots can be traced back to Max Horkheimer (1895–1973) and a circle of intellectuals (mostly social scientists) called the Frankfurt school, named for where it was originally located in Germany. It defined critical theory as any approach to understanding a society that moves past merely describing it. Critical theory is the study of a society that critiques its institutions and traditions with the goal of liberating its people from the circumstances that enslave them. In many ways the Frankfurt school applied the revolutionary philosophies of Marx, Rousseau, Gramsci and others to social science research. Their work almost entirely revolved around the conditions necessary for social change in every arena of public and private life.”

We must also add here post-modernism, and here is the final result: “wokeism is the result and perhaps the marriage of these social and academic trends. They began to coalesce and surface in the 1980s and ’90s on college and university campuses.” But there are, of course, more concrete explanations of the origins of wokeism. And these are most often linked to the struggle against racial inequality in the US:

“‘Wokeness’ originated decades ago as African American cultural slang for having awareness and enlightenment around racism, injustice, privilege or threats of white supremacist violence. Several historians trace the idea to a 1923 compilation of speeches and articles by Jamaican-born Black nationalist Marcus Garvey.”

In simple terms, it has been claimed that “it comes out of the experience of Black people of knowing that you have to be conscious of the politics of race, class, gender, systemic racism, ways that society is stratified and not equal.” Now, it is understandable that by the time this term has reached our very days, its meaning and content have seen significant transformations. However, its foundational principle remains the same. What is implicit here is that the opposite of “awareness” and “being conscious” is being asleep. One is supposedly “woke” because he or she is no longer asleep. Naturally, what some find as the “reality” after waking up to it, others consider it as the decadence and the idiocy of the new generations. These judgements are always subjective, but they are based upon the objective material social reality and its perpetual historical progress.

So far so good. The whole woke principle is that the society was once asleep, hence not aware of the reality. Then it wakes up and finally fully grasps this reality. But, one might ask, what is the basis of claiming that this is the “reality”? The advocates of Reformation also essentially woke up to finally see the corrupt and irrational nature of the Catholic church. To them their protestant principles were the true “reality” that they were finally able to see. However, the Catholic church had always functioned in that manner. It was merely the changing social consciousness within the society that resulted in the emergence of a different judgement. Of different expectations. In addition, from our historical vantage point - as a result of living in an era where religion has been politically sidelined - we can safely conclude that the “reality” of the Christian reformists is now obsolete. Hence, it was only the “reality" for them. It was a subjective “reality”. Our “reality” today is different. We also see the world in a very different perspective, since we have a completely different social consciousness.

Here we reach the heart of the matter. And it might be referred to as our inherent intellectual arrogance. We tend to treat something as the “reality” or the “truth” not because they factually are those things, but rather simply due to the fact that we experience them as such. For it is obvious that “we” can not be wrong. “We” are the most intelligent of all, hence what “we” find logical and rational must be the truth. “Our” way of seeing the world is, undoubtedly, the correct way. It can not be merely a subjective worldview, solely corresponding to particular historical circumstances.

So what might all of this have to do with nationalism? Well, linguistic and ethnic differences have existed throughout the ages. However, these have only relatively recently become the basis for a political community, namely a nation. The modern nations that we today take for granted did not exist, for example, in the 13th, 15th, or 17th centuries. People back then did not identify themselves in such a manner. However, since today we experience ourselves through the nationalist framework, we also look upon the bygone ages through these same lenses. In other words, modern nations must have always existed. Only the people back then were not aware of these nationalities. Fortunately, however, they woke up in the 19th century. One of the reasons why the revolutionary events of 1848 in Europe are referred to as the “spring of nations” is precisely due to the supposed “awakening of national consciousness”.

Again, the above mentioned intellectual arrogance applies here as well. For instance, there is simply no way that the medieval societies were the ones truly awake, and that it is the people of our modern times who fell into this illusion of the world being divided into ethnic nationalities. Also, by extension, it is not possible to conceive the idea that modern nationalism could be as much an ideological illusion as all the previous historical identities. For it is impossible for us to be living with an ideological illusion in our minds. We are simply too intelligent to fall for that. Or, perhaps, too arrogant? Nevertheless, those who are capable of overcoming this intellectual arrogance have the potential to understand the following. The contemporary modern nations have not always existed, and one day they will also become obsolete. The much more detailed argument can be found here.

We have started this commentary with the proposition that the historical rise of modern nationalism was irreversible. We have also referred to this ideological phenomenon as the wokeism of the 19th century. Aside from the common underlying principle of both the emergence of nationalism and what is today referred to as “woke ideology”, the latter also shares with the former its irreversibility. In 2022 Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis signed the “Stop W.O.K.E. Act” into law:

“We will fight the woke in the legislature. We will fight the woke in education. We will fight the woke in the businesses. We will never, ever surrender to the woke mob. Our state is where woke goes to die.”

One might replace woke with nationalism within this quote and get a standard position of the conservatives in the first half of the 19th century. Yet, not even the harsh repressions and censorship were able to kill nationalism. And those who know how to read history can easily discern what the future bodes for such contemporary quests to kill wokeism.

Sources:
https://witness.lcms.org/2023/a-brief-history-of-the-ideas-behind-wokeism/
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/19/1188543449/what-does-the-word-woke-really-mean-and-where-does-it-come-from
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2025-09-30/how-woke-went-from-an-expression-in-black-culture-to-a-conservative-criticism
https://www.worldhistory.org/image/17601/the-spring-of-nations-revolutionary-europe-in-1848/

Image by Freepik.com