Is ‘Woke 2.0’ a wave or a war?

Anyone who has opened social media between 2013 and now has seen the word “woke.” The feelings around wokeness are different depending on whom you ask.

For some, it’s a rallying cry encouraging Americans to wake up and understand the social injustices in our society. For others, it’s a witch hunt targeting conservative political values. 

“It’s used as a tool for enlightenment, but it’s also used as a weapon to destroy the enlightenment,” said Veronica Appleton, adjunct communication professor.

The word “woke” predates the digital age, first appearing in recorded songs in the 1930s as the phrase “stay woke.” During the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, the term “wokeness” was used primarily within Black activist communities, according to Sage Journals. 

From the 2010s through 2020s, the phrase became attached to a social justice movement on Twitter known as #staywoke after Michael Brown and George Floyd were killed by police in Ferguson, Missouri, and Minneapolis, Minnesota, respectively. In a related case, Trayvon Martin was fatally shot in Sanford, Florida, by a member of a community watch group.

New York City councilman Chi Ossé posted on the social platform X in May saying “Woke 1 was crazyyyy.” “Woke 1.0” implies that a “Woke 2.0” is already here, so what exactly entails this new edition of woke? 

Online discussions in Woke 1.0 dissected difficult subjects like racism and police brutality that dominated headlines between 2012 and 2020. In the workplace, diversity, equity and inclusion became standard policy across industries.

Now, woke and DEI have a negative connotation. 

Yahoo! News published an article saying that Woke 2.0 is “in part a reaction to President Donald Trump’s victory in 2024.” 

Following pressure from conservatives online and federal executive orders, major companies like Walmart, Amazon and Meta scaled back their DEI initiatives, seemingly to distance themselves from wokeness.

According to an article in The Economist, Woke 2.0 also seems to be shifting its focus into issues of class affordability, immigration and the U.S. relationship with Israel.

Somewhere along the way, the phrase that once signaled Black political consciousness has been reappropriated by other activist groups to fit their political narrative.  

“Woke 1 was crazyyyy” does two things simultaneously. It half-heartedly admits that extreme online activism and discourse of Woke 1.0 pushed people away from what otherwise were important topics to address. It also lacks critical analysis of what went wrong and what needs to change in Woke 2.0.

If Woke 2.0 is here, what does that look like? 

For conservatives, is it banning major news outlets from the White House press pool? Is it threatening to take talk show hosts off the air who say something they don’t like?

Whatever it looks like to either camp, Woke 2.0 seems to be transitioning its focus from the digital world to analog. 

Social media shapes how we engage with politics in real time. Woke 1.0 worked in part because it fit neatly within the 140-character limit of X, then called Twitter. 

Cordial debate where differing parties come to a mutual understanding does not make good clickbait. But Jubilee’s “Surrounded” series on YouTube, or “Prove Me Wrong” tables outside of college campuses draw attention. There is an incentive for that debate content to be filmed, clipped and primed for online engagement.

Woke 2.0 is in part a desire to engage with political issues offline. 

“People really do want to serve the community. They want to get closer to the social issues and where they really are,” Appleton said.

If we know social media is shaping how we engage in political discourse negatively, why do we continue to use it? 

On Sept. 21, an exchange between a DePaul student and an anti-abortion demonstrator led to a physical altercation near the university’s Lincoln Park Campus.

The demonstrator was filming himself on a tripod camera near campus when a student threw the equipment over a fence, according to a video posted to social media shortly after. The demonstrator responded by shoving and kicking the student.

The video spread on social media until it reached the feed of DePaul student Alexander Ogugua. 

“It stunned me in a bad way,” Ogugua said. “I was like, ‘Why would you do that? Why would he kick him on the street?’” 

The anti-abortion demonstrator has over 380,000 followers on Facebook and 200,000 on Instagram. According to his social media accounts, the demonstrator has made a number of videos featuring DePaul students.

Is the demonstrator truly interested in engaging in debate with DePaul students, or is there an incentive to provoke students for clicks?

Woke 2.0 is an attempt at “pushing people back into bubbles again,” Ogugua said. 

According to Ogugua, throughout history there have always been movements where people desire to break from traditional narratives, like the Renaissance era.

Social consciousness is not a new phenomenon. People have and always will desire to break free from cycles they no longer find useful, however imperfect or uncomfortable the pursuit of that may be.

Woke 2.0 is not a wave or a war, but a wheel helping us navigate towards a freer society.

 

 

Related Stories