Michael Huemer tackles one of the most polarized terms in modern discourse not by apologizing for it, but by treating it as a precise sociological descriptor. While many philosophers dismiss the concept of "wokism" as a political slur or a vague catch-all, Huemer argues that it identifies a specific, coherent, and increasingly influential cluster of beliefs that has surged in the last decade. This piece is notable for its refusal to soften the edges of the ideology it describes, offering a stark, unvarnished definition that forces readers to confront the internal logic of the movement rather than its caricature.
Defining the Cluster
Huemer begins by dismantling the idea that "wokism" is merely a rebranding of the 1960s civil rights movement. He points to specific figures like Robin DiAngelo, Ibram X. Kendi, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as the archetype of this new phenomenon. He writes, "Woke people believe things like this: Many forms of unjust group prejudice are (still) rampant in Western society... Biology plays essentially no role in explaining group differences in behavior, psychology, or cognition." This framing is crucial because it isolates the specific claim that social outcomes are entirely the result of systemic bias, rejecting biological or cultural explanations.
The author argues that this cluster of views has become so dominant that ignoring it requires a deliberate retreat from contemporary society. "If you haven't noticed these things, then I would invite you to move out of the cave that you've apparently been living in for the last 10-15 years, and back into society," Huemer asserts. This rhetorical challenge sets a confrontational tone, suggesting that skepticism toward these ideas is a form of willful ignorance rather than legitimate debate. Critics might note that this framing risks alienating readers who are simply unaware of the specific terminology rather than the underlying issues, potentially shutting down the very dialogue Huemer seeks to analyze.
The Semantics of "Woke"
A significant portion of the commentary is dedicated to defending the term "woke" itself against claims that it is a slur. Huemer rejects the notion that the word should be abandoned to spare feelings, arguing instead that its negative connotation is a natural reaction to the content of the ideology. He writes, "It sounds negative because normal people are against those views. Any word that referred to this destructive ideology would also sound negative in the mouths of people with reasonable political views." By comparing it to terms like "fascism," he suggests that the emotional weight of the word is evidence of its accuracy, not a flaw in its usage.
This approach reframes the debate from one of language policing to one of ideological clarity. Huemer posits that the discomfort conservatives and moderates feel is not due to the word itself, but the "sheer insanity and malevolence of the cluster of views in question." While this is a powerful defense of descriptive precision, it assumes a universal consensus on what constitutes "normal" or "reasonable" political views, a premise that is itself highly contested in the current cultural landscape.
It sounds negative because normal people are against those views. Any word that referred to this destructive ideology would also sound negative in the mouths of people with reasonable political views.
The Equality Thesis and Reverse Bigotry
Huemer engages with the philosophical core of the movement, referencing philosopher Nathan Cofnas's "Equality Thesis," which posits that all group differences are environmental rather than biological. However, Huemer finds this definition insufficient, particularly regarding gender identity and the specific nature of the grievances. He proposes his own characterization: "reverse bigotry." He argues that the movement does not seek to eliminate prejudice but to invert it, replacing anti-black racism with anti-white racism and anti-female sexism with anti-male sexism.
He illustrates this by drawing a parallel to anti-Semitism, asking readers to consider the reaction if someone blamed the world's evils on the character of Jewish people. "If you replace 'Jews' with 'whites', then you just have a different form of racism," he writes. This analogy is the piece's most provocative element, directly challenging the moral self-perception of the movement. Huemer acknowledges that proponents would reject this label, but he argues that the analyst's job is to identify the underlying dynamic, not to validate the subject's self-image. "The fact that the people who are doing this would not admit that that is what they are doing doesn't mean that they aren't doing that," he notes.
The Limits of Definition
Ultimately, Huemer concedes that "wokism" may not be a strictly definable concept in the traditional sense. He leans on the philosophical idea of "cluster concepts," where a category is defined by a recurring pattern of characteristics rather than a single necessary and sufficient condition. He explains, "We group together things that have common clusters of characteristics, without defining exactly how many of the characteristics a thing must have to belong in the group." This allows for a flexible definition that captures the correlation between views on affirmative action, cancel culture, pronoun usage, and the denial of biological differences.
This methodological choice is both the piece's strength and its weakness. It allows Huemer to capture the nuance of a shifting cultural moment without getting bogged down in semantic disputes. However, by relying on a cluster of views that are positively correlated but not universally held by every individual, the definition risks being too broad to be actionable or too vague to be falsifiable.
Bottom Line
Huemer's strongest contribution is his refusal to treat "wokism" as a monolith or a mere slur, instead dissecting it as a coherent, albeit controversial, ideological cluster with specific claims about biology, society, and justice. The piece's greatest vulnerability lies in its assumption that the "reverse bigotry" framework is the most accurate lens through which to view these complex social dynamics, a perspective that may oversimplify the genuine motivations of those advocating for equity. Readers should watch for how this cluster of ideas evolves as it moves from academic theory into the rigid policies of institutions and the executive branch.