Woke('s) on a rope?
Rihanna's stunt, The Embassy of Frenchness and "Quiet Thriving"...Is sensibility nudging out hypersensitivity?
I smell a slight tide turn. Only a slight one. But I celebrate the small wins and crumbs.
(BTW. To smell a change is not a literary device for me. It’s what I experience, such is the bloody overactivity of my olfactory system. Should I cover this in a pod or post?)
Working to a three-strikes-and-we-have-ourselves-a-trend rule, I’ve detected a few shifts - mostly in tone - that point to some helpful moderation amid the shouty barrage that bores us all (yes?). I’m not sure if it’s merely wishful, but I’ll discuss them anyway. My cases in point:
1. Wokism went too far (again). But the French laughed.
You probably caught the news? The Associated Press Stylebook, considered one of the most reliable guides to correct use of the English language for journalists, tweeted the following advice the other week:
“We recommend avoiding general and often dehumanizing ‘the’ labels such as the poor, the mentally ill, the French, the disabled, the college educated.”
The French? What?
Rather than unleashing a rabid woke v anti-woke stacks-on, the commentariat, at least in my echo chamber, laughed. The French, admittedly, led the mocking charge. The French Embassy in the US announced they were considering changing their name to “the Embassy of Frenchness.”
Right. So the AP went too far. They removed the tweet and apologised to the French (who, because they are the French, did not seem to be overly offended or to display any sign of feeling dehumanised in their Frenchness*).
And. Then. Some good discussion followed.
Nicholas Kristoff, a very left columnist for the New York Times, made a sensible point: “I wish we on the left could spend less time fussing over language and more time trying to actually solve problems.” He highlighted recent language debates: Latino v Latinx; Women v people with uteruses. Homeless v houseless. Then added that what people without homes yearn for isn’t to be called “houseless”; they want housing.
I also heard the point made a few times in the week that a Pew survey found that only 3 percent of Hispanics themselves use the term Latinx.
(PS. I explore the topic with Cambridge scholar Rob Henderson last year who calls this kind of woke hyper vigilance a “luxury belief”.)
In some ways the AP tweet popped a pimple. It was so ludicrous everyone was forced to pull back a little and take stock. And perhaps acknowledge the distraction that was going on. Some common ground was found, ironically.
This happens as I witness the left and the right clocking that they both hate wokism, by which I mean the hyperwokism that corrupts and leads to audience and institutional capture, not the original meaning of the word (alertness to discrimination). Indeed, I got an alert this morning for a new book to be published later this year by “one of the world's leading philosophical voices” Susan Neiman which argues, as per the title, Left is Not Woke.
Which begs, who actually is the woke now? Who is insisting on the Latinx neologism? Who exactly is insisting we call breastfeeding chestfeeding? Is (hyper)wokism now just corporate and institutional arse-covering? And can we now get on with really communicating and attending to the material discrimination?
*If you’re interested, The Atlantic just ran an essay on the French’s disregard for Le Wokisme. It’s telling.
2. Quiet thriving not quitting
Further to the comments thread on Friday’s post, this productive development: Last year millennials announced they were “quiet quitting”. That is, they were not-so-helpfully deciding to do their jobs, their relationships, their gym workouts and so on at quarter-mast. It was declared a (defiant or otherwise) response to overwhelm. But according to The Washington Post and Glamour, 2023 sees a rethink on this. Quiet thriving is where it’s at and it entails actively making changes to your work day to shift your mental state and help you feel more engaged in your job. Sensible things like setting boundaries (turning your apps and notifications off at work, people!), engaging in “job crafting”, advocating for a cause (like making meetings shorter). You know, confronting the issue instead of “I can’t even”-ing. Phew.
3. Rihanna shows us how to slay by DOING EXACTLY ENOUGH
Lots of people are saying a lot of things about Rihanna’s Super Bowl performance. I don’t wish to add to the noise, except to comment on the commentary on what appeared to be a case of quiet thriving (she chose to wear the one outfit, skip the theatrics, pare back the over-exertion and announce her pregnancy in an admirably efficient manner etc).
The Atlantic wrote that it was an act of radical minimalism and industrial-chic honesty. “She gave us what made so many people love her in the first place, including dignity where so much of mass culture offers only desperation.”
The New York Times reminded us that Rihanna “needs the Super Bowl less than the Super Bowl needs her, and her performance was a master class in doing exactly enough….she used one of pop music’s biggest stages to assert that despite all of that collective anticipation, she had other things to focus on: a private life to return to.”
The New Yorker ran with the headline: The Casual Anti-Spectacle of Rihanna’s Super Bowl Halftime Show and argued it “felt like a victory lap”.
I bolded the words that jump out for me: dignity, honesty, doing exactly enough. These are words of sensible moderation. They applaud the subtle art of being appropriate. They celebrate the “sweet spot” between caring and over-extension. They are not fawning, they are not grifting. They point to, yes, artfulness.
Am I reading too much into it all? No matter. Highlighting better behaviour is worthwhile, too. Discuss?
Sarah xx
And here’s the link to this week’s podcast guest again, former pro-skater and philosopher Nick Riggle.
The phrase "doing exactly enough" is heavenly to me. To me, it embodies individual "enough-ness" AND a deeply held trust that our enough-ness will suffice, it will not lead to diminishment/reprisal, and it will allow us to be content with ourselves (feeling enough), doing our best (doing enough), and experiencing a more pleasant satisfaction (being enough).
Heavenly.
I totally agree that we worry too much about the minutiae of “correct” words and that it can stop us from doing the real work. I have to jump in on one point though - the chestfeeding thing has been misappropriated in the media, particularly social media. It’s been painted as political correctness gone mad, but actually it arose from a UK hospital that wanted to provide inclusive language options for people that didn’t identify with the terms usually used. For cis women who feel like breastfeeding is the right term for them, nothing changes. The hospital was just providing additional options so that everyone could have language that fit how they wanted to describe their bodies. Here’s a link to the original guidelines for anyone who would like to see them (https://www.bsuh.nhs.uk/supporting-inclusive-midwifery-care/).