[Editor’s Note: This article was published in print last AY 2019-2020]
by Juan Miguel Lopez
Social criticism permeates generations. Especially in a nation like ours, the ever-present problems we face will always reflect in the different ways we deal with the times. In every pressing issue, the loudest voices have always emanated from the youth. Having the world to gain, these young men and women chose to be woke, or otherwise.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, another definition to the word ‘woke’ is being “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues.”[1] It is a slang from the United States, the version of the word stemmed from the African-American vernacular amid their community’s continuous struggle in the social structure in the States.
In the aforesaid definition, the word is descriptive unlike its common definition—a variant of ‘wake’. It does not veer away from its original meaning, that prior to being ‘woke,’ it is presumed that the subject lacked consciousness in the figurative sense.
But what does it really mean to be ‘woke’?
Does it mean regularly posting on social media one’s opinions on current events? Or being persistent in debating online those who espouse archaic views? Perhaps it is synonymous to being a person who gives unsolicited opinions to others?
Many young people today have the penchant of using the term, either to describe popular personalities or even themselves. It can even describe statements or stances of individuals or organizations. Of course, the young generation has been susceptible to being branded as the generation of entitlement, sensitivity, and stubbornness. The perception may be often misplaced but it is not untrue that in some contexts, the elders have a point.
The essence of ‘wokeness’ is trifled when it is used to forward trivial matters instead of focusing on the more pressing issues. No wonder some young self-proclaimed “woke” individuals, are dismissed for having infantile approaches towards various problems. However, the problem lies when every contrasting opinion of the youth is dismissed mainly because of their age and because “they still have a lot to learn.” This is a sweeping argument against several young people whose legitimate calls are discredited. In a nation where the voices of the youth are threatened to be silenced, an unpromising future lies.
Truth and necessity
The gall to speak, to contradict, to debunk views that dominate society originates from the voices of those ignored or from those who seek to articulate the struggle of the marginalized. It can also come from those empty cans who echo different sorts of irrelevant noises. It is true that in a democracy, freedom of expression is encouraged, but true social consciousness provides lucidity to know what is necessary and what is not. How can one know where to draw the line that shall distinguish pertinent cacophony from ridiculous babble?
What is it in every truthful criticism of a young person that causes unease to the older generation? Why is the truth so disturbing? The truth spoken by the youth often exposes the omissions of the older generations. The problem persists in two ways: when the latter discredits the former when the reality is critically exposed, or when the former conforms with the latter’s acts of injustice.
Hence, the necessity for involvement arises. Every succeeding generation has the duty to know not only what went wrong during the times that preceded them, but also to be aware of the continuing wrongs that pervade our society. These can never be done without looking back and looking back means understanding the past.
On hindsight and foresight
Looking back, our history speaks much of generations of young people who believed in causes that were close to them. Some of those who fought were propelled to the higher echelons of society, and some paid dearly with their lives. They struggled in different ways and somewhere along the way where their paths were split, their youthful idealism may have persisted or faltered.
From the humble peasant who took arms because he rejected centuries of subservience, to the Ilustrado propagandist who envied the freedom of European societies during his time, these conscious individuals shared a common denominator—a sordid past. Nevertheless, it is not only their hindsight that has moved them, but also their perception of their eras and the kind of future they anticipated.
Centuries have passed and a new kind of instrument revolutionized the politicization of people: the internet. It has become the rapid avenue of circulating news—both the true and the fake. With the vast resources of information now at our fingertips, one can imagine the countless possibilities we have with such capability.
The internet is a double-edged sword. It can be a tool that facilitates the massing of people towards a movement, be it spontaneous or planned. It can also stagnate people, downplaying the struggle in the comfort of their keyboards and touchscreens. The worldwide web is so vast that it can provide to the people distractions that will steer them away from the real struggle.
As discussed[2] by Noam Chomsky, the internet is relatively the same sort of phenomenon as radio and television were—an automation. In relation to this, he also opines that in most cases, technology is not predisposed to help or harm people, there being rarely anything inherent in it which requires that either of those things be the case, it just depends on who gets control of it.
‘Clicktivism’ will never be enough. To this day, the truth remains that the marketplace of ideas is not confined in the internet. And beyond universities, one can find in the streets, in the countryside, diverse views on the human condition. It would not take a lot for us to reach out towards those belonging to the marginalized sectors of society. Beyond our insignificant concerns are the seemingly perpetual struggles of those who have less in life.
Of sensibilities and apathy
According to Paulo Freire, “One of the greatest obstacles to the achievement of liberation is that oppressive reality absorbs those within it and thereby acts to submerge man’s consciousness.” That to no longer be victimized by oppression, he suggests that “one must emerge from it and turn upon it”—which can only be done “by means of praxis: reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it.”[3]
With our unconsciousness, we fail to realize that we are being engulfed by the system we abhor. We cannot deny that in some way we have benefitted from it—a cycle of oppression that we have been complicit to. The tragedy lies when we realize that we can thrive in it and ignore its inherent inequities. But why must we change a system—which although abuses—provides opportunities for those who know how to prosper in it?
Our class interests will always be revealed in the kinds of stance we have on certain issues. Specifically, the privilege we enjoy manifests in our opinions. For instance, in dealing with the traffic problem, a person who does not commute would suggest for you to just “go there [your destination] earlier”[4] while a common man who relies on public transportation for his day-to-day activities will clamor for a more efficient mass transport system. A poor man in the slums who lives in constant fear for his expendable life during a regime of impunity will not say that it is better to just trust the government.
In a different light, some people who are vocal on issues sometimes carry a sense of entitlement, implying that the whole world needs to hear their opinion and that they have all the answers.[5] These people are usually those who have a certain degree of privilege in life, take for example those belonging in the middle class. Middle class sensibilities can either empathize with the poor or side with the powerful. They can immerse with the masses, humanize with them. Yet they can aspire for the comfort that the elites enjoy, and even strive to achieve even at least the crumbs of the power they yield—in other words, to social climb.
People can aspire too, to be relevant to the extent of using the plight of the underprivileged for their conceited interests. To try and pose to be ‘woke’ because it’s the trend. Nevertheless, all this fear-of-missing-out hullaballoo can even be a stepping stone towards genuine social awareness if one will choose to see the deeper significance of such advocacies. Nothing is wrong in spreading awareness about the problems faced by people in different countries—say the Amazon forest fires, discrimination faced by people of color, and the like. It becomes problematic when such advocate fails to see the problems in one’s own backyard—like the decades of militarization and deforestation of our natural forests, or the desolation of indigenous lands. If being woke means to be selectively fighting for some causes while turning a blind eye on the just struggles of the oppressed, then it loses its depth and genuineness, reduced to some sort of ‘convenient struggle’, not an oxymoron but a fraud in itself.
As students of the law
Real education is about getting people involved in thinking for themselves—a real complicated objective.[6] Although our laws, for instance, are dynamic—which may be reflected in its study as well—some of its orthodox characteristics still serve as pillars to the institutions and society we revolve in. Trouble ensues when these pillars are used to hinder progress and even perpetuate injustice.
What shall it take for us to question not merely the ‘whats’ in our laws, but more importantly, the ‘whys’ behind them? In law school, we are trained to instinctively focus on what the law says and to provide the applicable provisions and case laws. The objective rigidity of the study of law has the tendency to enclose our minds into a constrained box where our opinions least matter. It is true that sound opinion springs from a knowledgeable mind, hence, we must know the law in order to change it for the better. Indeed, the study of law in itself is a struggle and the process of transforming the law later on, is tedious as well.
Forming part of our collective process of towards consciousness, sometime in our career, or even as early as during law school, we will be made to choose either to be part of the status quo or to take the path less taken. To be a cog or gear to the machinery of exploitation or to be the firewood, selfless as it is, that shall fuel the fervors of the oppressed.
Neither imposed nor individualistic
The more you put yourself up on the pedestal of ‘wokeness’, the more you defeat the purpose of political awareness. Being enlightened is not a power meant to exalt the self and vilify the ignorant.
The consciousness on the human condition can never be imposed nor forced to an individual. It cannot be achieved through mere reading or art appreciation. Only with the corresponding immersion towards humanization with the struggling people, those who have been trampled upon by a system of impunity and exploitation, can one be truly woke, or mulat—as fittingly expressed in our language. With such gained consciousness necessitates moving towards change, a galvanizing action that will crumble systemic injustice.
To be woke means to rectify from the failures of the past generations, to break away from the ways that rust our morality and deter our collective progress. It does not mean total abhorrence of the decisions made by those who led us to this troubled state. It is a challenging process, a catharsis, so to speak, that entails the acknowledgement of their weaknesses as well as ours. As we tread towards the change we aspire for, beyond making the loudest demands, it is incumbent upon us to perceptively listen to those whose legitimate demands deserve to be amplified.
The crucial question is: “for whom we are being woke?” If it’s only for yourself, then you are still insensible—or worse, blinded.◾
[1] woke. 2019. In Merriam-Webster.com
[2] Chomsky, N. (2003). Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky. (P. R. Mitchell, & J. Schoeffel, Eds.) London: Vintage.
[3] Freire, P. (1974). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Seabury Press.
[4] Aguilar, K. (2019, October 8). Palace: No mass transport crisis yet in Metro Manila. Inquirer.net.
[5] Vosper, N. (2016, June 8). What makes me tired when organising with middle class comrades. The Guardian.
[6] Ibid.