The term " woke " comes up regularly in debates these days, especially when it comes to equality issues. Often put forward to denounce excesses or dangers, does the term imported from the militant language of the US actually describe a vigilante fanaticism or is it a bogeyman of conservatism ? We take stock of the issues at stake in the debate.

What is wokism?

Wokism derives its etymology from an African-American slang term dating back to the nineteenth century, derived from the verb " wake ".   It was originally thought of as a movement aimed at opening eyes and awakening mentalities to everything that official history does not say, whether by voluntary omission when it comes to dark pages, by revealing forgetting of exclusionary or discriminatory patterns of thought, by a lack of consideration for certain categories of the population and/or by the effects of overvaluing others.

By recalling that such and such a celebrated figure did not only behave in an exemplary manner; that a particular period of history is not only a glorious legacy but also carries its share of violence ; that such a work is not only an artistic expression but also testifies to a potentially problematic vision, wokism is first and foremost an invitation to question our bearings, to access lucidity, to make room for the diversity of points of view.

When " wokism " is accused of attacking republican values

Often described as an ideology, suspected of paving the way for communitarianism or at the very least of orchestrating politically correct censorship and feeding " cancel culture ", wokism is decried as anti-racist and/or pro-feminist and/or LGBTQI+ and/or intersectional extremism ... The " wokism " thus pointed out readily accords with the ideas of " tyranny of minorities ", " anti-white racism", " reverse sexism", " paranoid militancy "...

What the detractors of the " woke culture" mean is to protect the principles and values of the Republic and universalism in the face of the rise, real or supposed, of so-called identity claims. According to the defenders of universalism, equality before the law has its place as a principle, equality of opportunity is a duty shared between a society offering opportunities to the greatest number and deserving individuals who know how to seize them, effective equality cannot be achieved by favouring one over the other (positive discrimination) and even less by disadvantaging the " privileged "... '

Nor is there any question of allowing social groups to form active communities, which would have the intention (and the power) to influence the supposedly neutral collective of the historically instituted majority. Thus, the opponents of wokism are wary of " lobbies" putting pressure on institutions (legislators, administrations, hospitals, schools, the courts, companies, publishing, the media, brands, etc.) to change the framework in line with their needs and desires.  A breach of the social contract, for the most Rousseauists who are concerned about the alteration of the power of the general will when particular or " community " interests are asserted.

There is no point in retorting to these purists of the philosophy of the Enlightenment that granting additional rights to certain categories poses no problem when it does not deprive others of rights : for Rousseau, regulatory inflation harms the balance of the social contract in that it promotes the illegibility of the great common rules imposed on all citizens. In other words, when the menu is too rich in attention to particularities, no one would be interested in the menu anymore!

When the universal is not so universal...

Except that the " menu " is not suitable for everyone... Not out of taste, preference or whim, but because the ingredients of the social contract as it has not necessarily adapted to changes in society and mentalities discriminate against them, or even do violence to them. It is generally not the formal and contractual part of the law that is at issue, but the set of unwritten rules and the informal functioning of the institutions. Although not illegal, these institutional practices sidelined certain categories of the population and overvalued others...

… At the risk, in addition to creating a loss of opportunity for those who remain in the shadow of the Matthew/Matilda Effect, to do violence to them if it appears that the figures legitimized by society are — or have been —  their patent oppressors or those of their elders.

Thus, historical figures such as Christopher Columbus (yesterday statufied for having " discovered " America and today debunked to be considered as the origin of the genocide of the Amerindians), Colbert (reputed to be a great craftsman of France's influence... But whose unfortunate " Code Noir " symbolises the country's dark slavery past), Leopold II (a king appreciated by many Belgians... But others remember the past of ruthless colonizers), are today targets of wokism. 

To continue to celebrate them, by maintaining streets, schools, statues to their name and glory, would be like publicly slapping the descendants of their victims and preferring a national narrative praising heroic landmarks rather than facing a more complex history, made up of violence, injustice, genocides omitted or hidden by the errors of those who narrated it or by the ideological will of those who had an interest in weaving laurel wreaths to the representatives of their vision of greatness.

What is the harm in being " awakened " and awakening our consciences?

Because what wokism intends to bring to the collective consciousness first is the set of narrative, imaginary and cultural foundations of an unequal society.  How, by drawing its civilizational roots from Greco-Latin antiquity, Europe would never have completely rid itself of a slavery heritage?

How, by sanctuarizing the spirit of the Enlightenment, one would insidiously legitimize the misogynistic trace of the thoughts of a Voltaire or a Rousseau? How can we consider universalism as a factor of emancipation for everyone everywhere in the world, perpetuate the idea of Western hegemony?

How, by contenting ourselves with arranging the civil code on the margins (and lagging behind) societal developments, we would refuse to question the unequal, sexist, paternalistic, bourgeois social order desired by Bonaparte?

How by chanting the calendar of Christian religious holidays, we would leave a secularism unfinished at the same time as we would maintain a hierarchy of religions?

How can we multiply street signs, place names, and the erection of monuments to military leaders, and at the same time refuse to question the abuses of wars at the same time as we make invisible the role of other actors in conflicts, such as the women who worked behind the fronts?

To undo inheritance or increase knowledge ?

In the end, what poses a problem for the most awakened opponents of wokism is not so much the substance of the case as its applications.

When we talk about the end of the compulsory modules in Greek and Latin in the classics curriculum of an American university, when we replace the statue of Christopher Columbus with that of an indigenous Amerindian in Mexico, when we give up publishing a book, when we destroy its print or when we change its title so as not to offend sensitivities, When a show is cancelled on the grounds that its creator has made sexist and transphobic remarks, when a white translator is prevented from taking up the texts of a black author, we can be sorry that an opportunity to open a useful debate on the complexity of the subjects has been lost on decisions that are experienced as cancellations, Rewritings of history, deprivation of knowledge, returns of censorship...

This is enough to set off those who are attached to their landmarks and fear change, for whom " deconstructing " and " replacing " sound like " destroying " and " taking their place ".

Also, some propose that instead of removing what is problematic in terms of social justice, we should increase knowledge of the facts : why not display under the statue of Colbert a text that clearly explains what the Code Noir was and what its implications were? Why not, when changing the street name, recall what the street was called before and why it was renamed ? Why not, when you distribute a work carrying content, not enrich the edition with metatext putting into perspective the stakes of the dispute it raises ? 

And more generally, what prevents us from seizing every moment when the " woke " identifies unthinkable things in our societies to open an enlightening, educational and nourishing debate in order to give as many people as possible access to the exercise of critical thinking?