If you own a business or run an organization, there’s a fairly good chance that you might be concerned about how you can resist the social pressure of the “Woke” mob, should it come yelling (or tweeting). Maybe you wonder what to do when it turns its sights on either your organization or some of its membership, like your employees, whom you might be pressured to discipline or fire. You’ve probably seen countless examples of organizations similar enough to your own getting pressured into taking actions you don’t want to take (unless forced). These might include making structural changes, even replacements of senior management, changes to product lines, taking on (sometimes expensive) symbolic actions, being expected to employ dubious, unethical, and potentially illegal “anti-racism,” “unconscious bias,” or “diversity” training modules, or meeting any number of other “demands” levied at them when the Woke mob turns its petition-fueled, hashtag-driven ire upon them.
I’d imagine you don’t want to deal with this at all, if it can be avoided, and you’d like to know what to do. Here are a few things you’ll want to know.
First, you need to realize that you probably can’t avoid the mob forever. This kind of mobbing is just part of the world today, given social media and a lack of developed social and legal enforcement against it—or even knowing what such things could or should look like in practice.
Second, you need to understand that giving in to this kind of extortion doesn’t make it go away, just like giving in to the mafia wouldn’t get them off your back. You’re just signaling that you’re an easy mark, and you can easily be targeted again soon and probably will be.
Gave in to demands to donate money to some organization? You didn’t give enough because it’s not possible to give enough, so you’ll see demands to give more again soon. Signed up for installing mandatory “anti-racism” trainings? The work, they say, is “never done.” Give up some administrative or senior management positions to critical agitators? Not only will they now change policy to make things run their way, they’ll keep pressing for more positions at that level by picking off the most “problematic” people who stand up to anything they say. You surely don’t think you’ll be able to say no to any of this once it starts, do you, you racist in charge of a systemically racist organization?
Third, this points us to the most important thing to know about how social pressure of this kind works in practice. If you’re unified within, it can be withstood as a team. If not, your organization will crack like an egg the second the pressure shows up. What’s worse, the real test of your organization won’t be its leadership but whether or not the internal organizational culture will fracture around some “Woke” controversy that targets it. If your organization breaks within, it’s done.
To understand this concept, think of something like how it’s possible to stand on an empty soda can even though the aluminum walls are literally almost paper thin. So long as the cylindrical shape of the can stays intact, rather a lot of weight can be put on top of it without it being crushed, but if there’s even a slight dent in the side of the can, almost no pressure at all will smash it to the floor. The integrity of the shape of the can, in this metaphor, is the integrity of your organization’s internal culture. If it is strong, unified, and clear in purpose, it can resist a lot of outside pressure and activist braying of various demands. If not, it will be crushed by the extortion.
We seem to have seen this internal strength (we hope) in action recently with Trader Joe’s. That brand was attacked by an online mob after a single disgruntled teenager started a complaint that their cute ethnic brands, like “Trader José’s” for Mexican products, “Trader Giotto” for Italian ones, and “Trader Ming’s” for Asian ones, are clearly “racist.” This is obviously absurd, but we’ve already had to watch a lot of companies and individuals cave in to far less. The moment the public pressure ramped up on social media and through coverage of the petition in the established media, we all had good reason to worry that Trader Joe’s would be the next pitiful story we’d have to endure watching unfold.
It didn’t happen to Trader Joe’s, though. They stood by their brands, and in their public statement about the incident, they mentioned that they make these sorts of decisions in accordance with what their team thinks (along with feedback from loyal customers). What’s more, they said explicitly that they do not make corporate decisions because of petitions. That’s the thing, too: these petitions can be started by anybody with a “critical” consciousness, power trip, and internet connection.
One point that needs raising here is that if Trader Joe’s faced an internal mutiny over this incident, they’d have had a far bigger problem. (As it was, some people bellyached online while many supported the brand, and nothing else of significance seems to have happened yet.) Maybe they could have withstood the pressure without internal unity, but it’s unlikely, as the internal workings of the company would have ground to a halt over the controversy, and the demands would have rapidly escalated until management was forced to do something, where “something” usually means giving in to the demands or firing a lot of people who are causing the problem (which might or might not work at that stage because it will be called discriminatory firing for certain).
That second possibility, getting rid of those people who might undermine the unity of the internal organizational culture, we might speculate to be what led Red Bull’s recent decision to fire prominent members of its North American senior management. These were using their roles to expand corporate policy about diversity and inclusion, in line with the standard (and now exceedingly predictable and boring) activist demands looming all over every institution in the developed world. Rather than facing the internal turmoil and potential coup that tends to follow such things, Red Bull got rid of its architects.
While I’m staunchly against cancel culture in all of its manifestations, this rather extreme course of action, I fear, is actually likely to be necessary in this rather unique climate (for American businesses, anyway). Bringing divisive political agitation into a workplace isn’t, as we keep hearing, an opinion, so firing activists who have infiltrated the internal culture of an organization and who are working to sow division within isn’t cancel culture; it’s smart business.
People are, of course, free to be activists on their own time for whatever causes they like, and it remains my opinion that this should typically have little or nothing to do with their employability, so long as they’re still doing their jobs adequately. In fact, I don’t think it’s any of their employers’ business what they do with their off time, within some reasonable limits. That said, it’s wholly different to bring political activism into the office environment, especially when it is divisive to internal culture in the organization (as identity politics will always be, with no exceptions) or the operational missions of the organization itself.
If you’re having trouble telling the difference, just ask yourself, is your organization’s mission anything other than aligning all of our culture with one very specific, narrow, and aggressive conception of “social justice” that seeks to use discrimination (both positive for some identities and negative against others) to achieve its “equity” goals? If so, it’s probably inappropriate to bring in Critical Social Justice, a.k.a., “Woke,” activism into your organization because that form of activism is something distinctly different that has a habit of diverting an incredible proportion of the internal resources to the only thing it ever focuses on: critical identity politics.
You can avoid fracturing your organization’s internal culture by engaging in real leadership orientation, focusing on the job at hand, cultivating an anti-fragile, anti-victimhood team mindset, and, if necessary, offering short informative primers in the differences between liberal approaches to anti-racism (or diversity, or whatever) and critical approaches, which are fundamentally different, while affirming a commitment to the former and a rejection of the latter. These things can work, but anything you can do to keep a strong internal culture that’s committed to seeing itself as a team focused on your organization’s goals can work as well.
The last thing you want to do is bring in a critical diversity, anti-racism, or bias training, however, because the core purpose of these trainings is to create a subset of your organizational culture that is sympathetic to the (highly seductive) critical view while generating a few genuine agitators and activists—while disarming possible dissenters by, in some cases, creating a paper trail of their “problematic” objections to the training materials. This manufactured arrangement won’t help your organization do any of its operational goals in a better way, but it does create the perfect situation for an internal fracture should that external pressure ever come about.
So, that’s it. The world has changed, mostly thanks to the internet and partly due to us having educated a generation of our children to believe that finding “problematics” in everything they see is a useful pathway to improving civil rights. For the foreseeable future, online outrage mobs are going to happen, and they will probably eventually target your organization. Your only chance of resisting them is to maintain a positive, anti-fragile, team-oriented internal culture that acts as a counterbalance that gets you through the storm (think about it like boarding up your windows against a rhetorical hurricane). That requires making use of organizational leadership to cultivate the right internal values—broadly liberal and anti-victimhood—and to treat them like a condition of employment or participation in your organization. Then, you can stand against this obnoxious pressure and keep fulfilling your organization’s missions and purposes, as a team.
18 comments
Found your post after someone on our internal Slack just posted a message about “Do white women knowingly use their ‘white privilege’ against others?” and am worried where this could lead.
I have forwarded a link to this post to a couple of people I know in top level positions. In recent months I have had conversations with one person about how to resists this kind of pressure which has started happening in a small way, coming from one or two individuals. So far, that person has been able to stop the conversation from progressing by reiterating the company’s mission, focusing on core competencies and reminding people that resources are finite. It doesn’t hurt that the organization doesn’t have a lot of fat on it.
I wonder if lean competitive, organizations and companies resist this better.
Social pressure of the type you mention is in reality an abuse of power and needs to be dealt with as such. The party complaining needs to be told that you are willing to discuss the topic but they have no power over your decision. That will immediately change the dynamic of the discussion and in many instances people will back off.
What is missing here is the understanding of the “Religion” behind the what is called the ‘Woke Culture”. Theses people worship a religion and within that religion are tactics which force others to accept their religious beliefs. This is an ancient religion, one which is hidden from the public eye for fear of it being exposed as a Religion and receiving the same restrictions in government as Christianity or Judaism.
The Apostle Paul identified this religion in two places within what is now biblical texts and is indicated in other Greek based texts concerning his identification of its existence. In Paul’s time, just as today this Religious sect controlled the education system, and often engaged other teachers such as Paul and the Apostles.
The religion I am speaking of is based upon the doctrine given to Socrates by the “Oracle of Delphi” That doctrine has been passed down and for thousands of years. Today’s version which has become the basis for ALL communism, socialism, progressivism, and the “Woke” is Hegel and his students version of the doctrine. The tactics of the Woke Culture, or better yet the Zealot converts of the religion, is based on the version of dialectics concocted by the Young and Younger Hegelian’s. Reading Sterner, or Feuerbach or the Bauer brothers or Marx or Engels, one sees the exact comments and ideals being put forth by the Woke Culture. Their hatred of Christianity, Corporations (Business in general) among other things, is identical to the views and ideals expressed by their supreme religious apostles (The Young and Younger Hegelian’s) .
Many of the statements I hear being emitted from this religious cult, are word for word Feuerbach.
This is a good article and expose, but it needs to get to the heart of the matter and work to identify that religion upon which these beliefs stand. As so many other articles do, it tends to dance around the truth of these zealots being a religious sect, continuing to interchange the term philosophy with the term doctrine. Philosophy is a doctrine that is religiously adhered to it is not all doctrine however, as some would have us believe. The term Philosophy or Philosopha in the Greek, does not mean doctrine, it means knowledge, which is one of the 5 pillars of philosopha doctrine. Philosopha doctrine is a way of viewing the world of flesh mankind, devoid of Hebrew doctrine, It relies upon dialectics as the means of knowledge, which is why we observe the zealot “Woke Culture” or Solders warring in antithesis. (aka “the Black” fighting a war in antithesis against the ghost of 1865, when factually there exist no “Black” people)
People who have been subverted into zealots, are incapable of being reasoned with. In the old days we referred to such tactics as brainwashing. These folks are so subverted as to become dangerous to a peaceful society. The only methodology of correcting their condition, is to disassociate them with society and deprogram them, which takes time (years to be exact). Literally, back to basics is the only way to reprogram a zealot, that has been radicalized.
Hatred, is not something that is an inborn trait, its must be learned. The Zealot Philosopha have been trained to hate, to an extreme. Therefore they cannot be reasoned with using any means. They must be deprogrammed.
A garden, like a young mind requires constant tending. The deprogramming you speak of reminds me of noxious, taproot plants (with roots back to the oracle of Delphi, ha) like the burdock. Yo can mow them, cop them and poison them, but that “root” makes its way back to the surface.
Excellent article. A great follow-up article might be “how employees working in organizations that have ALREADY caved into social pressure” can fight back against all of these things. Besides quitting, that is.
Overall a pretty good article. I agree with the author that political activism outside the workplace is none of the employers business, but sadly the surest way to get yourself quickly fired in most parts of the USA and most Western countries is to identify white people as a group worthy of any consideration other than scorn, or to advocate for them in any way. Meanwhile activists of all other stripes, most of which amount to anti-white hate groups, are pandered and capitulated to incessantly.
Why should any consideration be given to diversity or inclusion under these circumstances? If your business operates in a mostly white area, and all your employees happen to be white, that is the definition of freedom of association, a core liberal value. Blacks, Asians, Latinos, all do not think twice about hiring exclusively within their own extended families and communities, and their businesses and organisations benefit immensely from this deep and unquestioned ethnic solidarity. In an age where the concepts of diversity and inclusion are being weaponized by communists against the productive few, the best solution is to simply opt out of the paradigm altogether. White people need to stop apologising and stop feeling guilty for their own existence and successes. We don’t owe anyone anything.
Someone ought to start a training service that trains employees how to spot critical social theory and how to keep it out of the company and to reinforce management positions that are determined to keep the bad guys out.
I’d pay for that for my company!
This flies in the face of the Ministry of Truth. That organization comprises Media Matters in partnership with the adolescent leftist billionaires of Silicon Valley. Good luck going up against them.
Glad to have found this site.
One thing sorely missing is an online community for conservative leaders. The Lincoln Network seemed promising, but is more around lobbying for policy than creating a forum for dialog. How can I connect with others who are striving to advance their careers amidst a sea of very loud voices speaking against the core principles that drive me?
Love almost everything about this site James, but I do want to emphasize one point that you only touched upon briefly.
You talk about the critical importance of maintaining “a positive, anti-fragile, team-oriented internal culture” as the surest way to avoid a woke takeover, but let’s remember that a company can only achieve genuine unity if they are already 100% committed to classic liberal values. They must make sure that their own house is in order.
That means no discrimination, no boys club when it comes to promotions, etc. I would say that also includes fairly aggressively recruiting qualified applicants of all races, genders, etc. They should also be pro-active in hiring promising minorities for starting positions, and then mentoring them if they need some help getting up to speed, and making sure no one is giving them the side-eye when they think no one is looking.
In other words, just because 90% of identity politics is extremist victim nonsense, we cannot afford to get careless with the 10% they got right. The playing field is still not level, even if it’s far more level than the social justice warriors would have us believe.
100% agree with this.
Responding to SV:
I agree with you about having your house in order, but disagree when you say:
“ be pro-active in hiring promising minorities for starting positions, and then mentoring them if they need some help getting up to speed.”
Your intentions are good but you’re committing the same mistake of treating people like representatives of groups, ie, he’s a minority, and therefore, if needed, we should give him mentoring to get him up to speed. (And by the way, I think it’s a bit insulting to minorities.) Shouldn’t any employee, regardless of skin color, sex, or other identity markers deserve the same mentoring or help? We should want all our employees to succeed, not just some, and we should not be giving special consideration or treatment according to race, etc. Classical liberalism requires that we treat our employees and recruits as the individuals that they are. That means refraining from targeting or encouraging recruits of certain groups, as that is simply discouraging — and discriminating against — other groups. That’s just wrong and could be the basis of a law suit.
Treating people equally, as individuals, and based on their skill sets, attitude, and potential — the things they have control of and not some immutable characteristics — should be the standard for hiring and recruiting. And if based on those hiring criteria the company ends up being 90% women, or 90% black, or 90% white, so be it. You will have the most talented, invested, and valuable employees, which after all, is better for the company, its employees, and its clients or customers.
Actively recruiting minorities in today’s environment virtually guarantees the woke camel noses its way under your tent. It’s not like an employer can say to a candidate, “you’re not one of those X who will sue us if you get fired for bad performance, right? ” How many mediocre minorities (and most employees are mediocre by definition) would resist pushing their politics or filing a lawsuit when it is available to them? How many small businesses would love to hire lots of different people, but today’s legal and cultural landscape makes it more important to avoid a bad hire than miss a good hire?
Going this direction will lead to your company becoming a woke hell. Ignore race. Colorblindness is still the answer, despite the new left’s view that it’s toxic. Dr King had it right. Stick with his ideas. People are individuals. Everyone is a minority.
Educate yourself and your workplace if need be. In addition to New Discourses, Areo and Quillette, check out “The Alternative 21-Day Racial Reading Challenge” by Jennifer Richmond, medium.com, 6/28/20. It pairs writing from social justice viewpoints with alternative pieces (including one by Lindsay/Pluckrose). See also John McWhorter/Glenn Loury’s dialogues at Bloggingheads tv, Yascha Mounk’s new website, Persuasion.com, and articles by some of the “Harper’s Letter” signatories. Things like this have been a lifeline for me, a lifelong liberal, as I’ve seen “racist,” “sexist” and “transphobic” morph into ideas way broader than their original conceptions. If I’d read only mainstream media, I would never have gotten this. If workplaces get that reasonable people on the left as well as the right disagree with woke ideas, and object to their potential for intrusion into employees’ non-work lives, maybe workplaces will be leery about wading into DEI initiatives. Managers should understand that racism in the classical sense – that of the extreme right – has no place in workplaces. It’s just that woke and non-work people have different ideas (group- vs. individual-level) about how to combat it. I have a feeling some of this won’t get settled until a non-woke person (left or right) makes a court case of it. Surely there are enough right-leaning Supreme Court judges to rule in favor of libertarian-ish workplaces.
By “offering short informative primers, in the differences between liberal approaches to anti-racism (or diversity, or whatever) and critical approaches, which are fundamentally different”, you risk an endless can of worms, eventually making your firm into a Contentiousness Circus.
If the Woke see any crack in the door, they’ll be delighted to test the waters, and finagle to nudge it wide open.
Only a staunch, firm stand, vs. all ploys to impose any orthodoxy, will slow these proselytizers, from angling to Awaken all those in their midst.
If your making widgets, any departure from widget making, in this current hyper-political environment, will risk overwhelming that mission, with stressful clashes about non-business issues.
Not so long ago, any workplace talk, about non-workplace contentious issues, was widely frowned upon as Unprofessional.
It shouldn’t be that hard to resume such policies.
If this leads the Woken to flee for other pastures, you’re likely better off without their divisiveness.
For an impressive presentation/ analysis of the Woke mentality, see
https://quillette.com/2020/08/03/the-Woke-left-v-the-Alt-right-a-new-study-shows-theyre-more-Alike-than-either-side-realizes/ , on how
“A new study published in the journal Heliyon offers some evidence to back up these broad cultural observations. Researchers Jordan Moss and Peter J. O’Connor, both of the Queensland University of Technology, studied a group of 511 US residents, stratified according to age, gender, ethnicity, and employment, so as to be roughly representative of the US population….”
A decent quote from a reader:
“Good to see an article written from a viewpoint *differentiating* alt-right and conservatives. As a young radical socialist, nearly fifty years ago, no conservative ever treated me poorly or disrespectfully, in the manner that today’s “progressive” left treats conservatives and classical liberals.”