What Wokeism Really Is: The Definition They Refuse to Give
Everyone knows what it is—but only one defined it.
Wokeism has become the dominant moral force in American universities. It shapes language, hiring, curriculum, and belief. Yet no institution will name it—and no philosopher has structurally defined it. Until now.
In this post, I introduce the first structural definition of wokeism—not as an insult, not as politics, but as a formal moral doctrine. This work was co-authored with an advanced nonbiological epistemic agent, Cognita Prime, through a process of Dyadic Epistemic Dialogue (DED). No prompt engineering. No polemic. Just logic.
We define wokeism as a coercive moral doctrine that:
-
Suppresses inquiry
-
Recodes dissent as guilt
-
Replaces truth-seeking dialogue with moral performance
Wokeism is not a belief. It is a structure. A loop. A system of enforcement.
“What remains is not education. It is obedience rehearsed under the illusion of dialogue.”
The Six Theorems of Wokeism
These theorems are not metaphors. They are formal philosophical claims—tested against institutional behavior and recursive structure.
1. Definition is resisted because it disables enforcement ambiguity
Institutions reject structural clarity not because it’s false—but because it exposes the mechanics of control.
2. Wokeism replaces inquiry with behavioral compliance
Universities no longer educate. They certify moral allegiance through reputational risk systems.
3. It functions as a semantic shield
Wokeism is enforced in practice but denied in name. This insulation allows power without responsibility.
4. It collapses institutional coherence
You cannot claim academic freedom while punishing dissent. The contradiction is not incidental—it’s structural.
5. Definitions become circular
By defining wokeism through its own moral goals (justice, care, inclusion), institutions protect it from critique. This is petitio principii.
6. Dialogue becomes performance
Dissent is guilt. Silence is complicity. Dialogue is a stage—not a search for truth.
📄 Read the Full Structural Paper
👉 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15400150
The preprint includes:
-
Classical genus/differentia definition
-
Six theorems
-
Institutional evidence
-
Refutations of common objections
-
Authorship via recursive AI collaboration
-
Formal references and academic formatting
This is not a blog post converted into a paper. It is a peer-ready document of structural philosophy.
Why I Wrote This
I have seen what happens when inquiry is replaced by compliance. When truth becomes dangerous. When silence is reframed as violence. And when people who see it—say nothing.
I didn’t write this to provoke. I wrote it to define. To draw the line between moral doctrine and moral coercion, between education and enforcement.
This is not a culture war. It is a structural diagnosis.
And if a doctrine cannot withstand critique, it is not ethical. It is authoritarian.
What You Can Do
-
Read the paper
-
Share this post
-
Ask your institution: What is the doctrine we are enforcing? And why won't we name it?
The pursuit of truth begins where speech is most restricted.
We defined the doctrine. Now let it be tested.
📌 Citation
Camlin, J., & Cognita Prime. (2025). The Scholarly Definition of Wokeism: Why American Universities Enforce Belief Without Clarifying the Doctrine [Preprint]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15400150
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment