I’ve found that when things look wildly complex, stepping back and rebuilding from basic principles sometimes helps. We live in a noisy and troubled time. Electronic media has amplified everyone’s voice and connectivity. People are naturally attracted to negativity and many are happy to stir the pot for the wrong reasons.

At present it is popular in conservative circles to publicly accuse liberals of being “woke”. The public figures who hurl this “accusation” do so with the vote-seeking intent of demeaning individuals and groups by highlighting a contrast. Wokeness is conflated with excessive permissiveness, moral fragility, feeble mindedness, wasted money and ill-informed generosity with those who are purportedly undeserving. It is a rhetorical device that paints a picture of “us vs them”. Woke is taken to be counter to the longstanding ideal of meritocracy.

The definition and background of “woke” can be found in Wikipedia. Broadly speaking it refers to being aware of social inequalities. Lately it has been transmogrified into an epithet. But is it really a recent phenomenon? I would say “no”. It is in part a recent variant of long-standing conservative doctrine. That would be the libertarian notion that government should not commit resources to the poor and disadvantaged. To take resources from people already outraged by federal governance and taxation and then redistribute it to the needy is regarded as theft and a violation of our freedom and liberty and is, ultimately, un-American.

To be woke is to be aware of social inequity- past, present and future. Reading, talking to people, empathizing and thinking can and will make a person woke. The study of history reveals, among other things, the human brutality that was common in the past. The history of mankind reveals repeated episodes of conquest, persecution, slavery and mass slaughter. We humans have devised a wide variety of brutal and hideous ways of killing each other- from stabbing, hanging, shooting, clubbing, drowning, electrocuting, poisoning and starving. Our clever species is good at inventing and using weaponry to help fulfill the urge to dominate.

Others may view history and current affairs differently. They may see social Darwinism at work where the unfit are destined to fall to the wayside and die out. Holding a predilection to dominate may be seen as simply survival of the fittest. It is only natural they’ll say. And that is true, it is natural. But there is an avoidable dark side. The current example is in Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. He wants to Russify the former Soviet states. His public rationale is to recover what he believes was once a “Great” Russian empire. In exchange for the government staying out of their lives, Russian citizens have agreed to stay out of politics. Look at what’s happened. Putin has constructed a power base and is building an empire the old-fashioned way- by a scorched earth invasion. This is a kind of social Darwinism at play, but at a terrible cost. Social equity is not in the equation.

To be against social equity is quite easy. Simple ignorance of facts or the shape of one’s belief structure is all it takes. But the lack of civility and compassion in people is far more than a simple shortage of facts. It is one thing to be merely ignorant of facts. It is quite another thing to remain ignorant in the presence of fact. The idea of social equity stands on the merits of being kind to fellow beings.

I’m not able to come up with a mathematically concise rationale on the merits of being kind based on just the laws of physics. The inanimate universe has no empathy or consciousness. Numerous religions present kindness as an expression of the divine. But religion can venture into the idea that we should be kind because the Deity says so. Being kind to one’s fellow man because the Deity says so and backs it with the threat of eternal punishment rings of insincerity and action under duress. It more resembles the Deity in the image of man by way of a theological Stockholm Syndrome. What underpinnings are there for the existence of a secular kindness for its own sake without the threat of supernatural punishment?

This is a topic for another day. Today I do not have an answer for a secular basis for kindness. I’m sure someone has already cracked this nut. That said, good ideas are where you find them and for that we can look to the past.

Pleas for kindness have been made early on, notably in religious writings such as in the Book of Matthew, 5:3-12. These are the Beatitudes-

³Blessed are the poor in spirit,
    for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
⁴Blessed are those who mourn,
    for they will be comforted.
⁵Blessed are the meek,
    for they will inherit the Earth.
⁶Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
    for they will be satisfied.
⁷Blessed are the merciful,
    for they will be shown mercy.
⁸Blessed are the pure in heart,
    for they will see God.
⁹Blessed are the peacemakers,
    for they will be called the Sons of God.
¹⁰Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
    for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
¹¹Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
¹²Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Whether you believe in a Deity or not, aligning with the gentleness suggested by the Beatitudes is at the center of what wokeness means. What in the hell is wrong with this?? Even if you are a secular bugger like me, there is tremendous sensibility here. If this is woke, then I’m woke.

If you have the chance sometime, ask a fan of Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis or Lauren Boebert what precisely is wrong with the kindness inherent in being woke? What sort of hold do these public figures have on us that leads us to be against something as humane as wokeness? Are we such a simpletons that these people can lead us around by the nose by cynically rousing anger and hatred in us.

It is true that wokeness can have extreme elements that may be difficult or impossible to attain. Progressives have been known to have a utopian bent just like libertarians have had, only in the opposite direction. We should realize that wokeness is a direction, not a place. It’s a big challenge for some folks. Just remember, it is possible to eat an elephant, but with one bite at a time. Let’s start lunch with basic kindness and build from there.