MY TURN: Waking up to a gaslit world
In the preface in C.S. Lewis’ book "Mere Christianity," a gentleman is described as being a man owning property and having a crest. It was not a word of praise but only fact. He could be a good gentleman or a bad one, which didn’t change the truth of his owning land and having a crest.
Over time “gentleman” came to represent a person of character; in other words, a responsible, moral, trusted man. Lewis was challenged by that idea as there were other words that could reflect a person’s character and the co-opted word "gentleman" lost its meaning of the facts regarding who the man was in the larger scheme of things.
Over recent years, other words’ meanings have been co-opted. One that is particularly irksome to me is “woke.” Woke is a perfectly good word just as it is. As I learned in school, woke is the past tense of wake, as in I woke up.
Uyless Black’s book "Fractured, Volume Two," discusses a poll which asked people their definition of “woke.” The responses were: (a) to be informed, educated on, and aware of social injustices, or (b) to be overly politically correct and police others’ words. He reports the poll showed 56% chose (a) and 39% chose (b). Amazing how a word can become so distorted.
I remember hearing "woke" being bandied about and how no one could figure out exactly what it meant. I know I couldn’t. I did understand that it was being used by some people in a negative way — a way that suggested to not even go there, don’t even try to look at what is happening in that environment.
To me, the person who disparages the idea of woke was trying to denigrate someone for being aware, for understanding what was happening.
The woke movement wasn’t just being used to disparage individuals but also cultures, institutions and the norms of our country. It seemed to me a person characterizing an informed, aware, knowledgeable person, culture, institution or individual as being woke was dismissing their knowing of what is right and what is wrong.
I became suspicious of the person using woke in that way. What is their ulterior motive? Has it been an obvious effort to introduce another meaning of woke? Why is it necessary to dismiss that culture, that institution or that person? Perhaps because that culture, institution or person was onto the nefarious intentions of the person using the second definition of woke?
Powerful, influential people are promoting the misrepresentation of words in our language. It is up to us to be woke (the first definition), to being aware and to be knowledgeable about what is going on. And, it is my belief, to be suspicious of those gaslighting our cultures, institutions and people that we have always trusted, by those using the second definition of woke.
So many of the governmental systems that have served us well for the last two-plus centuries are being trashed and vilified. Some I can think of are the U.S. Constitution, democracy, CIA, FBI, police, voting systems, political norms. Even the World War II war hero and senator from Arizona, John McCain, has been demeaned and denigrated by some. On what earthly ground should he be gaslighted?
For those who don’t know, the gaslighting term comes from the 1944 psychological thriller movie “Gaslight.” Charles Boyer, the lead, marries Ingrid Bergman in order to gain access to her mansion, where jewels are reportedly hidden. Through manipulation, Boyer gradually and systematically challenges Bergman’s sanity by manipulating the gaslight to the house. It is a movie I highly recommend.
Gaslighting is always problematic, but being aware and practicing the first definition of woke is wise.
In this day and age, gaslighting can be anything from problematic to dangerous. Being wise and informed is always the better choice. And being aware that those doing the gaslighting, are not doing it for our benefit, but for their personal ideological agenda.
• • •
Holly Waters is a Kootenai County resident.