In postmodern cosmopolitan societies one of the most significant questions as far as human behaviour is concerned is; what it means to be “woke”. Woke-ism, much like its predecessors, is unpopular, and for obvious reasons. Yet if we look at the roots of this polarizing, often ‘scandalous’ word, we find that it has nothing to do with the way mass media has portrayed it in the last three decades. Woke-ism in its strictest sense is the quality of being accountable to and aware of the needs of the proletariat, marginalized communities, and the common mass in general who are exploited in maximalist class-based societies. For a person who belongs to any one of these categories and even regardless of that, woke-ism means standing up for yourself as much as it is about standing up for the person next to you. Wherever that fact is portrayed as unethical is a tool to weaken the conscience of an enlightened society. And those not ready to compromise on that, more often than not also have the power to suppress such agitations, thereby securing their superiority in society.
Vicious cycles like such have an inlet and an outlet. But when the aftermath and consequence of the same is discreetly covered up by puppets running the media, the outlet fails to grab the attention of the larger public. Yes, the powerful have many minions; but none perhaps as influential as the media. In this age of tech explosion, as the media expands more than ever, conservatism and class conspiracy only find newer avenues to flourish. As with other media, social media too is at the disposal of bourgeois classes and market dominant groups. Many users may feel that social media is a liberating experience; a vital part of contemporary existence as it reconciles the distance between the stakeholders i.e., common masses and the power hungry. But such arguments have no value where there is an overwhelming number of cases where no considerable mobilization of the public has been possible through media. Capitalism flourishes where there is obstruction of thought. Thus, to sustain the features of a society which allows ready abuse and exploitation of human rights, capitalists depend on traditional institutions and preserving conventional hierarchies which rationalize mistreatment and corruption on both the part of State and individuals.Therefore, it is also reasonable to say that actions done purely on moral considerations have more to them than what meets the eye.
Let us look at a few examples. Social media mega personality Andrew Tate has acquired a tremendous following within a very brief period across various platforms: a following that venerates his much-circulated ideology and life philosophy. Tate promotes all things from heteronormativity to bitcoin under the umbrella of ‘masculinity’ and the controversies regarding him, at this point I think are common knowledge. Yet no amount of evidence or deeply problematic allegations against him can shatter the unity of his followers which though once all male have now even expanded to include females against whom a significant part of his content is targeted. Nationally and globally the Tate Effect has brought a fresh wave of orthodoxy and conformism which runs parallel to his hollow liberalism.
Closer home we have, jack of all trades, influencer turned God-knows-what, Ranveer Allahbadia better known by his YouTube name Beer biceps. Ranveer who started as a fitness influencer has since extended his horizons into politics, history and religion over which his ignorant and often naïve commentary leaves little to be desired. Moreover, his podcasts regularly feature a plethora of guests with whom he delves into all topics from paranormal theories to Islamophobia. This trend of normalization of malpractices or prejudicial ideas takes up diverse forms over media platforms. While interview clippings or tweets are quick to garner support, an individual’s ideals are converted mostly through spreading misinformation or even blatant lies. Elsewhere influencers cook up propaganda content, at first subtle and then unhinged. The various methods employed to popularize such content are also interesting. Social media exists on the concept of approval. But when creators, seen as representatives of their communities, sanction that very systemic hate and abuse that disempowers their community, the meaning of approval is severely distorted. Whether such actions come from a place of privilege is a different issue, but today it is not uncommon to see a female creator justifying rape culture, or a queer creator affirming an LGBTQ+ stereotype or a ‘black’ creator rationalizing slavery or xenophobia.
It may seem like the provided examples have nothing to do with some of the wider topics discussed earlier in the essay but directly or indirectly they function towards a greater goal, under a greater authority. As discussed earlier it is not only the mega rich or the mega powerful who benefit from the existing state of affairs but also the class that has been given the upper hand under capitalism.Their sustainment is critical to the sustainment of their superiors and they share a codependent relationship. That is precisely why we need to go back to being woke. We need to question everything. If the creator is a machine, the powerful are its engines. And every bit of output from this machine drills a nail through moral conscience, political ambition and the aspirations of the common people. It sucks into its vortex more and more people by implanting within their mutual goals the poison of intolerance. By spreading, justifying and encouraging hatred it shakes the foundation of a people’s movement.
