Tensions between Black and Asian people are a distraction from the real problem: systemic racism

 

Why ‘anti-wokery’ is a sham, and misguided at that

“When we revolt it’s not for a particular culture. We revolt simply because, for many reasons, we can no longer breathe.” Frantz Fanon

It is an apparent paradox that a bad action can trigger subsequent reactions that actually make that bad action more likely to occur again. The almost fanatic ‘anti-woke’ campaign that is underway in sections of the media and political discourse is just such an example. Specifically, the murder of George Floyd, during the fevered setting of the pandemic, triggered a rise in public consciousness about the lethal consequences of racism. That reasonable response triggered the backlash of ‘anti-wokery’ intended to delegitimise campaigns for equity that we are currently living through. And let’s be clear that this is intentional – the ambition is to undermine the moral basis of equality actions and to do so by marginalising fairness as being hypersensitivity and fragility.

One origin of ‘woke’ as a term is derived from the idea of ‘double consciousness’ espoused by WEB DuBois, the early 20^th century civil rights activist. It described the phenomenon whereby African-Americans viewed themselves and their actions through the eyes of a discriminatory white society. From that origin developed the Black Consciousness Movement that arose during apartheid South Africa in the 1960s. Led by Steve Biko and Mamphela Ramphele, the movement espoused the need  for black people to value their blackness, not live as victims of their skin colour. This psychological awakening was the essential prelude to the struggle to create equity. During the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement, a number of corporations and individuals became aware of the societal damage arising from racism. However, beyond performative changes to websites and the making of pledges, there has been little meaningful change in policies and even less in outcomes. This is exemplified by the report from the Wellcome Trust who, two years after their original commitment to dismantle racism in their processes, acknowledge their lack of progress.

So, the word ‘woke’, with its roots in the Black community, became adopted in wider society. However, that embrace by wider society, led to a backlash and the word becoming weaponized. The intention of the ‘anti-woke’ warriors is to drive public feeling and legislation to undo the steps progressing social justice. The often-used conflation of ‘waste’ and ‘anti-wokery’ is deliberate to spread a message that we have an intrinsically tolerant society that does not need to squander resources when public sector finances are so parlous. This false message fails to recognise the twin facts that we are still a very socially unjust society. The intention of the language is to inflame culture war policies and marginalise parlous disadvantaged populations from full participation in society. The degree of weaponization of the word comes when political leaders deliver speeches  juxtaposing ‘woke culture’ and ‘creeping antisemitism’: the linking of a word rooted in being aware of social discrimination with a form of racism is especially egregious. The word has gone from its origin of being enriched by celebration of one’s heritage to just becoming a symbol of a mythical beast that right wing commentators can tilt at.

Another consequence of this mis-symbolisation of being woke is that the word gets attached to symbolic actions in isolation, rather than connected to the underpinning structural change that is needed to shift the needle on institutional discrimination. The story becomes about pulling down a statue, not the necessary education in history and the search for the commonalities we all share. Reclaiming the word, would mean that the holistic approach necessary to effect change can be understood, and the bad faith pigeon-holing of actions targeting social justice can be seen for what they are. One way of evil triumphing is by good being mischaracterised, and therefore neutered.

In the NHS, moving towards being an anti-racist organisation requires us to refute the mischaracterisation of effective actions as ‘wokery’. Rather, we need to embrace that investing in individuals’ consciousness of their heritage is the starting point to create a just system where all feel they belong and which provides best experience for staff and public. Using data to identify targets for action is fulfilling our public sector equality duties, it is not a political choice. Developing evidence-based actions to address those targets is an enlightened approach to improve public life, it is not a fringe activity of extremists. In different eras, the actions of Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, the suffragists were all considered woke, or the equivalent in their time – history has revealed that values driven causes prevail over reductive prejudice.