Philosophy Professor Letitia Meynell in this portion of an essay postulates how we need to deal with ‘woke’ in our society.  I read the essay and found that it misses one of the key aspects of ‘woke’ and that is the use of polysemy to confuse the meanings of words and terms.  Let’s read her essay together and then propose a some counters to her arguments.  A long read, but it is necessary to see how ‘woke’ works in the wild and what you can do to counter it.

“A few years ago, there was considerable anxiety in some quarters about “political correctness,” particularly at universities. Now it’s known as wokeness, and even though the terminology has changed, the concerns are much the same.

Some years ago, I offered an analysis of political correctness that equally pertains to wokeness today. What interests me are ways to think about and discuss political correctness/wokeness so as to avoid polarizing polemics and increase mutual understanding.

The goal is to help us all envision and create a more just and peaceful society by talking with each other rather than talking past each other.

‘Woke interventions’

Typically, “wokeness” and “woke ideology” are terms of abuse, used against a variety of practices that, despite their diversity, have a similar character. Often, what is dismissed as “woke” is a new practice that is recommended, requested, enacted or enforced as a replacement for an old one.

These practices range from changing the names of streets, institutions and buildings to determining who reads to pre-school children in libraries and altering the words we use in polite conversation.

When a practice is identified as “woke,” there is an implication that the non-woke practice is better or at least equally good. Thus the dismissal of something as “woke” is an endorsement of some alternative.

If we stop there, all we will see is a power struggle between progressive and conservative values. To dig deeper, I am going to share a particular case of calling out, or language policing, as an example of wokeness.

This incident happened to a Jewish friend of mine when we were students. She was directing a play about the Holocaust and, during auditions, a young woman casually used the word “Jew” to mean cheat. When my friend challenged this, the young woman asserted that it wasn’t offensive; it was just the way people from her town talked.

In the wrong

I use this example because I think it’s clear this young woman was in the wrong. My friend wasn’t being overly sensitive and was right to call her out.

But this example is also useful because it’s fairly typical of cases where someone attempts a “woke intervention” and it’s rejected — someone follows a practice that is common in their community, a “woke” intervenor calls it out, and the person responds not with an apology or even a question, but with outright dismissal.

Often, such responses come with an explicit criticism that the “woke” intervenor is over-sensitive, irrational or controlling. Sometimes, the original speaker claims victimization at being targeted, ironically displaying the hypersensitivity often attributed to people described as woke.

Three claims

In thinking about this and similar situations, it strikes me that woke interventions tend to share the same kinds of motivations. They boil down to the following three claims about the targeted practice that justify the woke intervention:

1. The practice is offensive to the members of a group to which it pertains;
2. The practice implies something that is false about this group and reflects and reinforces this inaccuracy;
3. The practice implicitly endorses or maintains unjust or otherwise pernicious attitudes about the group that facilitate discrimination and various other harms against them.

So, in my friend’s case, she was right to call out this young woman, who had insulted her to her face and implied something about the Jewish community that is not only false but dangerously and perniciously antisemitic.

Now, in any particular instance, it is an open question whether, in fact, a specific term or practice is offensive, inaccurate or facilitates discrimination. This is where the difficult work starts.

Real effort is required to learn to see injustices that are embedded in our ordinary language and everyday practices.

Social psychological work on implicit biases suggests that good intentions and heartfelt commitments are not enough. It takes integrity and courage to critically examine our own behaviour and engage in honest conversations with people who claim we have hurt them.

However, once we recognize what’s at stake, to dismiss something as woke is a refusal to even consider the possibility that the targeted practice might be offensive, premised on false or inaccurate claims or discriminatory or harmful.

Defensiveness

Often such refusals are grounded in defensiveness and embarrassment. I suspect many of us can recognize the young woman’s sense of shock, hurt and denial at being called out for her behaviour.

But for those who disagree with a woke intervention, the right response is not glib dismissal or bombastic accusations of “being cancelled.”

Rather — after a sincere attempt to understand the woke intervenor’s perspective and consider the relevant facts — the right response is a respectful, tempered explanation of why they believe their remarks or actions were neither premised on false claims nor discriminatory. An apology may be in order. After all, at the very least, one has inadvertently insulted someone.

If my analysis is correct, we can now see why the knee-jerk dismissal of something as “woke” is so nasty; it amounts to a self-righteous choice not only to insult or denigrate others but to protect one’s ignorance and support injustice.

Unless we learn to talk with each other rather than past each other, it’s difficult to see how we can ever achieve peace on Earth or truly show our good will to each other.”

Refuting Wokeness: Clarity Over Obfuscation

Introduction: The Polysemy Trap

Philosophy Professor Letitia Meynell, in her essay on navigating “wokeness,” seeks to foster dialogue about contentious social practices. Yet her analysis falters by overlooking a critical feature of “woke”: its polysemy, which obscures meaning and confounds discourse. The activist Left often deploys poorly defined terms, resisting crystallization into cohesive arguments. This ambiguity is deliberate, enabling the Motte and Bailey strategy—where “woke” advocates defend controversial policies under the guise of innocuous ideals. For supporters, “woke” connotes kindness, empathy, and social awareness; in practice, it can manifest as discrimination against perceived “oppressor” groups. Meynell’s failure to grapple with this duality undermines her vision of mutual understanding, necessitating a sharper critique.

Engaging Meynell’s Core Claims

Meynell posits that “woke interventions” target practices deemed offensive, false, or discriminatory, citing an antisemitic slur used casually during a play audition as a clear case of harm. Her framework, at its strongest, is not a dogmatic defense of all interventions but a call to assess practices critically: might they offend a group, misrepresent them, or perpetuate unjust attitudes? She urges critics to engage intervenors’ perspectives before dismissing their concerns, a reasonable plea for open-mindedness rooted in social psychological research on implicit biases.

Yet this approach stumbles on two counts. First, it ignores the polysemy of “woke,” which allows advocates to glide between benign ideals and coercive measures. A call for inclusive language (the motte) can escalate into punitive actions (the bailey), as seen in the 2018 case of a University of Michigan professor disciplined for refusing to use preferred pronouns, despite no evidence of discriminatory intent. Meynell’s essay elides this slippage, presenting interventions as primarily corrective. Second, her reliance on subjective offense risks overreach. While the antisemitic slur is unequivocally harmful, many “woke” targets—debates over cultural appropriation or microaggressions—hinge on context and interpretation. Absent clear criteria for harm, interventions can stifle discourse, a tension Meynell underestimates.

The Unproven Premise of Systemic Harm

Meynell’s most compelling claim is that “woke interventions” address practices that “implicitly endorse or maintain unjust attitudes,” facilitating discrimination. She invokes implicit bias research to argue that good intentions cannot preclude harm—a point with merit, as biases can operate unconsciously. Yet she assumes systemic harm as axiomatic, demanding critics disprove it rather than requiring proponents to prove it. Research on implicit bias, like the Implicit Association Test (IAT), faces scrutiny for weak predictive validity in real-world behavior (Oswald et al., 2013). Correlation is not causation; asserting that everyday practices inherently perpetuate discrimination requires evidence—say, data linking specific language to measurable disparities. By sidestepping this rigor, Meynell inverts rational inquiry, undermining her call for “honest conversations.”

The Motte and Bailey’s Polarizing Effect

The polysemy of “woke” fuels a rhetorical sleight-of-hand: the Motte and Bailey strategy. In the motte, “woke” is empathy—uplifting the marginalized, fostering inclusion. In the bailey, it justifies policies that alienate or vilify, often without substantiating harm. Consider the 2020 backlash against J.K. Rowling, labeled “transphobic” for questioning gender ideology, despite her nuanced arguments. Such interventions, cloaked in moral righteousness, suppress debate. Meynell’s essay endorses the motte, ignoring the bailey’s divisive impact. A 2021 Cato Institute survey found 66% of Americans fear expressing political views due to social repercussions, suggesting “woke” practices can fracture rather than unite. Polysemy exacerbates this: without shared definitions, dialogue devolves into mutual incomprehension—a debacle Meynell’s framework fails to address.

A Path to True Dialogue

Meynell’s vision of dialogue is laudable but lopsided. She rightly urges critics to consider intervenors’ perspectives, yet spares advocates the same scrutiny. True dialogue demands reciprocity: proponents must substantiate harm with evidence—statistical impacts, not anecdotal offense—while critics must articulate principled objections, such as free speech or empirical skepticism. Meynell’s call for critics to offer “tempered explanations” or apologies assumes intervenors’ claims are prima facie valid, tilting the scales. Dismissing dissent as “nasty” or “self-righteous” poisons discourse, as does the polysemic dodge that shields “woke” policies from critique. A just society requires evidence-based debate: terms defined, assumptions tested, ambiguity exposed.

Conclusion

Meynell’s essay, at its core, aspires to bridge divides through reflection on social practices. Yet it falters by ignoring the polysemy of “woke” and presuming systemic harm without proof. Her prescriptive tone—demanding critics justify dissent while excusing advocates’ vagueness—corrodes the mutual understanding she champions. By dismantling the Motte and Bailey tactic and grounding discourse in evidence, we can forge a society that is both just and cohesive. Clarity, not obfuscation, is the path forward.

References

• Oswald, F. L., Mitchell, G., Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., & Tetlock, P. E. (2013). Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: A meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(2), 171–192.
• Cato Institute. (2021). National Survey: Americans’ Free Speech Concerns. Retrieved from cato.org.