【推文】James Lindsay - Woke can be summarized simply by at least two overlapping characteristics: think

連結

• 原推文1 - x.com/conceptualjame...

原文及個人翻譯

推文

I'm really trying to help people understand Woke. I've pretty much dedicated my life to it. I'll try something new here.

Woke can be summarized simply by at least two overlapping characteristics: thinking Woke and acting Woke.

Someone might think Woke without acting Woke or act Woke without thinking Woke, or do both. A not-Woke person doesn't do either one, or not much of one.

Because there are two ways to "be Woke," one thinking and the other acting (theory and praxis, iykyk), it can be hard to tell if someone is Woke or not.

Further, because you can be a little bit Woke or a lot Woke in either of those two dimensions, diagnosis isn't straightforward. Usually, we call people "Woke" when they are actually "Woke enough" to clear a fuzzy line in one or both dimensions, especially the acting Woke dimension. Arguably, the thinking Woke dimension is more important, though.

我真的想幫助人們理解「覺醒」（Woke）。我幾乎已經將我的一生奉獻給了這個。我這裡嘗試一種新的方法：

「覺醒」可以簡單地概括為至少兩種相互重疊的特徵：「思考覺醒」和「行動覺醒」。

一個人可能只「思考覺醒」，而不「行動覺醒」，或者只「行動覺醒」，而不「思考覺醒」，也可能兩者都做。一個非「覺醒」的人通常不做到這兩點，或者最多只能做到一點。

由於「覺醒」有兩種方式：「思考」和「行動」（理論與實踐，懂的人就知道了），因此很難判斷一個人是否真的「覺醒」。

此外，因為你可以在這兩個維度上是「稍微覺醒」或「非常覺醒」，所以診斷並不容易。通常，我們將人們稱為「覺醒者」，當他們實際上已經「足夠覺醒」，以至於在一個或兩個維度上都超過了一條模糊的界限，尤其是在「行動覺醒」這個維度上。可以說，「思考覺醒」這個維度可能更重要。

Acting Woke: Leninism / 「行動覺醒」：列寧主義

Acting Woke means acting like a Leninist, or a Bolshevik. It's the behavior of the French Revolutionary, even in people who claim to hate "the Enlightenment," which usually (and confusingly) refers to the disastrous French Enlightenment when otherwise unspecified.

People are pretty familiar with the way Woke people act, but they're also confused about it. This is where we're talking about collectivism (identity politics), forced conformity, cancel culture, struggle sessions, Machiavellian behaviors (lying for power), gaslighting, crowd bullying, provocation, misrepresentation, ends justifying the means, using someone's reaction against them, etc., etc. This is the worst stuff in Rules for Radicals, for example.

The confusion arises because part of the (Woke) Machiavellianism is the classic DARVO projection as well as the fact that some legitimate behaviors look like the things the Woke do. For example, it is perfectly legitimate to give someone a damaging label when it actually fits, even though Woke people do this according to made-up terms like "systemic racism" (hence the overlap with "thinking Woke").

「行動覺醒」意味著像列寧主義者或布爾什維克一樣行動。這就是法國大革命者的行為方式，即使是那些聲稱憎恨「啟蒙運動」的人也如此（通常，而且令人困惑的是，「啟蒙運動」指的是災難性的法國啟蒙時期，除非另有說明）。

人們對「覺醒者」的行為方式相當熟悉，但同時也對此感到困惑。這就是我們所說的集體主義（身份政治）、強制一致、取消文化、批判會議、馬基維利式的行為（為了權力而撒謊）、煤氣燈效應、群眾欺凌、挑釁、歪曲事實、目的可以合理化手段、利用某人的反應來反擊他們等等。例如，這是《激進規則》（Rules for Radicals）中最糟糕的部分。

困惑的根源在於，「覺醒」中的馬基維利主義的一部分是經典的 DARVO 投射，以及一些合法的行為看起來與「覺醒者」所做的事情相似。例如，如果一個標籤確實適用，給某人貼上一個具有損害性的標籤是完全合理的，即使「覺醒者」會根據捏造的術語（如「系統性種族主義」）來使用這種方法（因此產生了「思考覺醒」與「行動覺醒」之間的重疊）。

If someone is actually being racist or antisemitic or something of the sort, it is fair to call them out and to expect there to be accountability or consequences. Woke people do this on illegitimate terms, but that fact doesn't negate that it can be done on legitimate terms too. Racism, antisemitism, and many of the rest can be real things that are not suddenly OK because Woke people abused the ideas with Marxist "systems of power" BS ("thinking Woke").

Making matters worse, Machiavellian behavior requires someone justifiably labeled with a term like these, or for other bad behaviors, to pretend they're the victim of a "Woke" witch hunt and to project Wokeness onto the people who are justifiably and legitimately calling them out and expecting justified accountability. They'll say they're "being struggled" or "being cancelled" when they're actually assholes who are actually out of line.

如果有人真的在種族歧視或反猶太主義，或者類似的事情，那麼指出他們並要求他們承擔責任或後果是合理的。 「覺醒者」使用不合法的術語來做這件事，但這個事實並不否定它也可以以合法的方式進行。 種族主義、反猶太主義以及其他許多問題可能是真實存在的，而且由於「覺醒者」濫用這些想法（例如，「馬克思主義的權力體系」），它們並不是突然可以被接受的（這與「思考覺醒」有關）。

更糟糕的是，馬基維利式的行為需要某人被合理地貼上像這些一樣的標籤，或者因為其他不良行為而假裝自己是「覺醒」運動的受害者，並且將「覺醒」的概念投射到那些正當且合法地批評他們並要求他們承擔責任的人身上。 他們會說他們「正在受到批判」或「正在被取消」，但實際上他們只是渾蛋，而且確實做出了過分的事情。

This behavior, ironically enough even when it comes from the Woke Right, depends on a kind of Woke moral relativism ("thinking Woke"), where all claims are effectively unable to be assessed on anything like objective grounds and it's just "my group" versus "your group" with no universal claim to legitimacy (like meeting an actual definition).

As you can hear, "thinking Woke" is actually a more important dimension of Wokeness than "acting Woke," which is Leninist behavior patterns. That's because for an action to really be acting Woke, it frequently has to be motivated by Woke thinking rather than objective standards and genuine respect for truth and justice.

Nevertheless, these Machiavellian and gaslighting tactics, plus a low-resolution, low-understanding of what people are seeing, plus missing context, plus in-group or tribal/political preference, often mislead people into thinking legitimate accountability behaviors and criticisms are "Woke." This generates much confusion and fighting, but it's the result of Woke manipulations and the underlying Woke allergy to accountability.

諷刺的是，即使是來自「覺醒右派」的這種行為，也依賴於一種「思考覺醒」的道德相對主義，在這個體系中，所有聲明都無法在任何客觀的基礎上進行評估，而只是「我的群體」與「你的群體」，沒有任何普遍性的合法性（例如，符合實際定義）。

正如您所聽到的，「思考覺醒」實際上是比「行動覺醒」（即列寧主義行為模式）更重要的「覺醒」維度。這是因為，要真正做到「行動覺醒」，通常需要受到「覺醒」思想的驅動，而不是客觀標準和對真理與正義的真正尊重。

儘管如此，這些馬基維利式的策略和煤氣燈效應，加上人們理解能力低、缺乏上下文以及團體/政治偏好，常常誤導人們認為合法的追究責任和批評是「覺醒」行為。 這會產生很多困惑和爭吵，但這是由於「覺醒」的操縱以及對追究責任的根本排斥所導致的。

Thinking Woke: Critical Theory / 「思考覺醒」：批判理論

Thinking Woke is a matter of adopting a "critical consciousness" or using "Critical Theory." Anyone can do this for their own ideological perspective, particularly both Leftists and Woke Right activists. Most Islamists also use this approach.

Critical Theory is a specific way of thinking that, in short, ruthlessly (not fairly) criticizes a system for not being ideal, meaning without problems, which is not real. It is making the good the enemy of the perfect and taking the side of the perfect against everything that is good.

Another feature of Critical Theory, which is Woke thinking, is believing that the fundamental organizing principle of society is a grand conspiracy that benefits certain powerful actors and their friends at the expense of some more legitimate group. Woke Left organizes this split by "class," construed broadly. Woke Right organizes this split by "nation" or "people," usually construed narrowly. There are some slight differences in approach, but the underlying societal conspiracy theory thinking is the same: society is unjust as it is and rigged by evil powerful interests and maintained by people who don't care enough to renounce their complicity and join the revolution.

If you don't have that element in your thinking, you're probably not thinking Woke. If you think there's some group or groups out there, other than actual straightforward political actors, who are controlling everything so that "people like you" or "people like those victim groups you care about" can't get ahead no matter what they do, you're probably thinking Woke.

Woke thinking is therefore counter-hegemonic thinking. This is probably its most prominent and observable feature, right up there with (a) a grand systemic and almost invisible conspiracy you have to be trained to see and (b) criticizing everything all the time for not being perfect (doing Critical Theory).

Cultural hegemony is, to put it simply, roughly the way everyone thinks, even if it's true, good, grounded, etc. It's the general beliefs about facts, history, and right and wrong that form the basis for the society. Woke thinking hates it and wants to destroy it. That's what it exists to do.

「思考覺醒」是指採用一種「批判意識」或使用「批判理論」。 任何人都可以根據自己的意識形態觀點來做到這一點，特別是左翼人士和「覺醒右派」的活動家。 大多數伊斯蘭主義者也採用這種方法。

批判理論是一種特殊的思維方式，簡而言之，它會無情地（而非公正地）批評一個體系，因為該體系並非理想狀態，也就是說沒有任何問題，但現實並非如此。 它將好的視為完美的敵人，並站在完美的一邊，反對一切美好的事物。

批判理論，也就是「覺醒」思維，的另一個特徵是：它認為社會的基本組織原則是一個宏大的陰謀，這個陰謀使某些強大的人物及其朋友受益，而犧牲的是一些更正當的群體。 「覺醒左派」通過「階級」（廣泛理解）來劃分這種對立。「覺醒右派」則通過「國家」或「人民」（通常狹義理解）來劃分這種對立。 雖然在方法上存在一些細微的差異，但潛在的社會陰謀思維是相同的：社會是不公正的，並且被邪惡的強大勢力操縱和維持，並由那些不夠關心以至於不願放棄自己同流合污的人所維護，他們加入了革命。

如果您沒有這種元素融入您的思考中，那麼您可能並沒有「思考覺醒」。 如果您認為除了實際的政治行為者之外，還存在一些群體或集團，這些集團控制著一切，導致「像您這樣的人」或「您關心那些受害者群體的那些人」無論如何都無法取得成功，那麼您很可能正在「思考覺醒」。

因此，「覺醒」思維是一種反霸權思維。 這可能是它最突出和可觀察的特徵之一，與（a）一個宏大的系統性且幾乎隱形的陰謀，需要接受培訓才能看到，以及（b）不斷地批評一切事物，因為它們並非完美（進行批判理論）齊名。

總之，文化霸權大致是指所有人的思維方式，即使它可能是真實的、好的、有根據的等等。 它是由於社會中關於事實、歷史以及對與錯的基本信念所形成的。「覺醒」思維憎恨它並想要摧毀它。 這就是它的存在目的。

The Critical Theory itself was invented by Frankfurt School Neo-Marxist Max Horkheimer specifically on the grand conspiratorial claim that an alternative society cannot even be conceived of, much less described, on the terms of the existing society. That is, cultural hegemony in a given society prevents even thinking of, much less describing, an ideal society or even a good society. (Psst: he means some kind of socialist society that magically works.)

Thus, Critical Theory embraces "counter-hegemonic" thinking, which itself has two components: (i) thinking and ideas outside of the current system's modes and models, and (ii) thinking and ideas that are critical of or subversive to the current system itself. Counter-hegemonic thinking is Woke thinking, and it must include both of these dimensions. These are the practical conclusions of the points made above.

If you see a preference for "other ways of knowing," "other knowledges," or "you're not allowed to say/ask this, but I 'bravely' am," you're at least encountering outsider thinking, the first ingredient of counter-hegemonic (Woke) thinking.

If the information provided by that outsider thinking undermines your ability to trust the established system, its claims to truth or goodness, its (legitimate) authorities (genuine, not false, experts), etc., or that is ruthlessly (not justly) critical of the good not being perfect, you're probably dealing with counter-hegemonic (Woke) thinking.

The point of counter-hegemonic (Woke) thinking is to tear down belief in the existing thinking, knowing, and communicating system so that alternatives (usually socialist and/or totalitarian, somehow) can be wedged into the space created by the doubt.

批判理論本身是由法蘭克福學派的新馬克思主義學者馬克斯·霍克海默發明的，他提出了一個宏大的陰謀論，即無法在現有社會的前提下構想甚至描述另一種社會。 也就是說，特定社會中的文化霸權會阻止人們思考，更不用說描述，理想的社會或良好的社會了。（悄悄告訴你：他的意思是某種可以神奇運作的社會主義社會。）

因此，批判理論採用「反霸權」思維，而這種思維本身包含兩個組成部分：（i）在當前體系的模式和框架之外進行思考和提出想法；（ii）對當前體系本身進行批判或顛覆性的思考和提出想法。 反霸權思維就是「覺醒」思維，它必須包含這兩個方面。 這些是上述觀點的實際結論。

如果您看到一種偏好「其他知識方式」、「其他的知識」，或者「您不允許說/問這個問題，但我『勇敢地』要說/問」，那麼您至少遇到了外在思維，這是反霸權（「覺醒」）思維的第一個要素。

如果這種外在思維所提供的資訊削弱了您對既定體系、它對真理或善良的聲稱、它（合法的）權威（真正的專家，而不是虛假的專家）等的信任，或者它無情地（而非公正地）批判「好的事物」不夠完美，那麼您可能正在處理反霸權（「覺醒」）思維。

反霸權（「覺醒」）思維的目的是摧毀人們對現有思維、知識和溝通體系的信任，以便為替代方案（通常是社會主義和/或極權主義，不知何故）在產生的懷疑空間中找到立足點。

The key here is that Critical Theory (counter-hegemonic thinking) is not the same as doing legitimate criticism, which is valid even when it's wrong.

Legitimate criticism is based in a demand to check for something that was legitimately missed or misunderstood, that is, to put it formally, for greater "epistemic adequacy" (knowing what you're talking about). We call this "critical thinking." It is NOT the same as Critical Theory, and nobody who understands the terms thinks it is. Max Horkheimer classified critical thinking under the opposite of Critical Theory, which he called "traditional theory."

Critical Theory is about assuming a conspiracy theory of hidden power dynamics, looking for those, and trying to undermine them, along with confidence in the existing system, epistemic, moral, political, social, economic, or otherwise. The point is not epistemic adequacy (knowing what we're talking about). In fact, Critical Theory considers epistemic adequacy (knowing what we're talking about) as part of the grand powerful conspiracy of society that has to be torn down. Remember Horkheimer's insistence that a better society cannot even be imagined "on the terms of the existing society." That targets epistemic adequacy as part of the "hegemony" conspiracy.

Critical Theory, as Horkheimer told us about his own creation, is made to "criticize those elements of the existing society that we wish to change," which means, given his immediately previous statement, to do counter-hegemonic (outside and critical, subversive) thinking. It is not legitimate criticism but (per Marx) ruthless (unjust) criticism in the name of societal and system transformation, not in terms of improving understanding (better epistemic adequacy, i.e., knowing better what we're talking about).

Obviously, these things can be confusing, and there are times when there is real corruption that deserves legitimate criticism. The difference with thinking Woke is believing in this "hegemony" hypothesis, which is to say believing it's a society-wide conspiracy theory to keep things the way they are ("maintain the status quo") to the benefit of the "bosses," whoever those people are.

They are different, and in most (though not all) cases, they can be distinguished as good-faith (legitimate) and bad-faith (ruthless) criticisms. Of course, when thinking Woke is identified rightly, the Woke thinkers will usually start acting Woke about it.

關鍵在於，批判理論（反霸權思維）與進行合法的批判不同。 即使是錯誤的合法批判也是有效的。

合法的批判基於對檢查某些被遺漏或誤解的事物的要求，也就是說，從形式上講，是為了獲得更大的「認識充分性」（了解您所談論的内容）。 我們稱之為「批判性思維」。 它與批判理論不同，而且任何理解這些術語的人都不認為它們相同。 馬克斯·霍克海默將批判性思維歸類為與批判理論相反的一種，他稱之為「傳統理論」。

批判理論是關於假設一種隱藏權力動態的陰謀論，尋找這些動態，並試圖破壞它們，以及對現有體系（無論是認識上的、道德上的、政治上的、社會上的、經濟上的或其他方面）的信心。 其重點不是認識充分性（了解我們所談論的内容）。 實際上，批判理論認為認識充分性（了解我們所談論的内容）是社會中一種偉大的權力陰謀的一部分，必須被摧毀。 請記住霍克海默堅持認為，一個更好的社會甚至無法在「現有社會的框架下」想像出來。 這將認識充分性定位為「霸權」陰謀的一部分。

正如霍克海默告訴我們關於他自己的創造，批判理論是為了「批判我們想要改變的現有社會中的某些元素」，這意味著，根據他之前的陳述，要進行反霸權（外在和批判性的、顛覆性的）思維。 它不是合法的批判，而是（按照馬克思的說法）以社會和體制轉型為目的的無情（不公正）的批判，而不是為了提高理解水平（更好的認識充分性，也就是說，更好地了解我們所談論的内容）。

顯然，這些概念可能令人困惑，而且在某些時候，確實存在值得進行合法批判的真正腐敗現象。 與「覺醒」思維的不同之處在於，它相信這種「霸權」假設，也就是說，它認為這是一種社會範圍內的陰謀論，旨在維持現狀，以「老闆」（無論這些人是誰）的利益為導向。

它們是不同的，而且在大多數（雖然不是所有）情況下，可以將其區分為善意的（合法）和惡意的（無情的）批判。 當然，當正確地識別出「覺醒」思維時，「覺醒」思想家通常會開始針對此問題採取「覺醒」的態度。

Summary / 總結

There are two dimensions to "being Woke": thinking Woke and acting Woke.

"Thinking Woke" is having a critical consciousness. This means having a mode of thinking that applies Critical Theory and counter-hegemonic thinking to tear down or subvert the present system in the pursuit of power for the critics, not in the pursuit of improvement for the situation.

"Acting Woke" means acting like a Leninist, a Bolshevik, or a Jacobin in the French Revolution, even if you're on the "counter-revolutionary" side. It is collectivist power-seeking, usually with a vanguard of intellectuals or elites who speak for the putatively cheated identity group. The means justify the ends, the behavior is brutally tribal and Machiavellian.

"Being Woke" refers to a state where you're sufficiently one or both of these, with a certain bias toward "thinking Woke" (as "Woke" is ultimately a mental state and way of thinking, then engaging the world in line with that).

You can also be "a little Woke" or "Woke in your approach" without "being Woke."

Woke is ultimately a way of thinking about the world and then engaging with the world on those terms. It isn't just a label slapped on people to control them or shut down discussion. It's a descriptive term describing counter-hegemonic thinking and action combined with certain bad behaviors rooted in friend-enemy tribalism.

Thank you for your attention to this matter!

「覺醒」有兩個維度：「覺醒」的思維和「覺醒」的行動。

「覺醒」的思維是指具有批判意識。 這意味著採用一種思維模式，將批判理論和反霸權思維應用於摧毀或顛覆現有體系，而不是追求改善局勢，而是為了讓批評者獲得權力。

「覺醒」的行動是指像列寧、布爾什維克或法國大革命中的雅各賓一樣行事，即使您處於「反革命」的一方。 這是集體主義的追求權力的行為，通常由知識分子或精英組成一個先鋒隊，他們代表被認為受欺騙的身份群體。 目的可以為手段辯護，這種行為極其部落化和馬基雅維利主義。

「覺醒」指的是一種狀態，即您在某種程度上具有上述兩種情況之一或兩者，並且傾向於「覺醒」的思維（因為「覺醒」最終是一種心態和思維方式，然後根據這種方式與世界互動）。

您也可以在不「覺醒」的情況下，「稍微覺醒」或「以覺醒的方式行事」。

歸根結底，「覺醒」是一種思考世界的方式，然後按照這些原則與世界互動。 它不僅僅是一個貼在人們身上的標籤，用於控制他們或阻止討論。 這是一個描述性術語，描述的是反霸權的思維和行動，以及某些植根於朋友-敵人部落主義中的不良行為。

感謝您對這個問題的關注！