The label Woke Right can easily be applied to anyone on the right because it is an empty and vacuous descriptor with no objective content. It is simply based on a vague, but very negative, association with the Woke Left. And that, in the end, appears to be the main impetus behind its use: it evokes the fear and loathing that most conservatives and Christians already (rightly) have for leftist wokeness, shutting down reasoned discussion before it can even begin.

In light of James Lindsay’s recent prank, some Christians and conservatives in America have been introduced to the phrase “Woke Right.” In fact, if Lindsay is to be believed, the specter haunting America today is not simply unhinged leftism, but the equally deranged (and equally powerful?) reaction known as the Woke Right.

What is the Woke Right, you might ask? To answer this, I’ll use Neil Shenvi’s explanation. First, he defines the position of wokeism as the argument that:

1) society is divided into oppressed/oppressor groups along lines of race, class, gender, sexuality, etc, via 2) hegemonic power. But privileged people are blind, so 3) we need to defer to the lived experience of the marginalized to 4) dismantle unjust systems.

Lindsay, Shenvi, and others have recently claimed that the New Right is itself woke because it, too, adheres to this exact analytical framework.

How should one evaluate this claim? Perhaps Shenvi may be of service again. In a co-authored  American Reformer article, Shenvi argued that certain aspects of “antiracist criticism” can be profitably employed by Christians:

Although [George Yancey] acknowledges that we can’t assume that all disparities are caused by injustice, he rightly argues that injustice – both past and present – can contribute to disparities. Because all of these effects are conditioned on race, Yancey correctly argues that a ‘colorblind’ model which ‘ignores race’ is inadequate to address the complexity of racial issues that exist today. 

Elsewhere, Shenvi has stated that “critical theory can provide an insightful analysis of the ways in which power can corrupt relationships and institutions,” while rightly warning that “it often functions as a worldview – an overarching narrative by which we interpret all of reality.” Others have argued similarly. Carl Trueman, for example, has stated that we could employ something like Marx’s critique of religion in service of critiquing modern identity politics:

[I]t is noteworthy that Marx considered the criticism of religion foundational to making people face up to the reality of their lives. We should similarly consider the criticism of identity politics to be central to our task in this present age.

Tim Keller once wrote that

Karl Marx was the first person to speak of ‘alienated labor’ in the heyday of the early-nineteenth century European industry… The great shift from an industrial economy to a knowledge and service economy has improved the immediate working conditions of many but has locked countless others into low-paying service sector jobs that experience the same alienating disconnectedness from the fruits or products of their work.

Read More