Should We Turn Our Backs on Wokeness and Boutique Activism?

Quick Reminder: Stay ahead in HR! Watch the latest HR Insider episode for expert strategies on workforce planning, leadership development, and business transformation. ?? Watch Now!

A Nonpolitical and Nonjudgmental but Thought-Provoking Perspective

In today’s social and corporate landscape, the term “wokeness” has become a divisive topic, sparking debates about its true meaning and impact. While some view it as an essential call to awareness and justice, others argue that it has been commodified, diluted, and used as a tool for corporate branding rather than real change. Similarly, “boutique activism” describes a form of advocacy that appears more performative than transformative—raising questions about whether modern social movements prioritize optics over substance.

As companies, institutions, and individuals navigate these complexities, it’s worth asking: Have diversity and inclusion efforts become more about appearance than action? Are these initiatives driving systemic change, or have they been strategically repackaged to maintain existing power structures? These questions challenge us to examine the intersection of activism, corporate influence, and economic justice while considering what true progress should look like.

Has Wokeness Lost Its Original Purpose?

At its core, wokeness was once a call to be aware of injustice, particularly racial and social inequities. Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and former foreign correspondent for The New York Times, has observed that the corporate world has eagerly embraced this language, sometimes in ways that raise more questions than answers (ScheerPost).

For instance, is hiring a woman CEO the same as empowering working-class women? Does featuring LGBTQ+ representation in advertising equate to actual equity in workplaces? If diversity efforts do not challenge power structures, are they merely symbolic victories rather than substantive ones?

When Activism Becomes a Brand

Throughout history, corporations have absorbed social movements into their branding strategies. In the past, fashion brands have featured HIV-positive models to signal inclusivity, and today, government agencies recruit diverse candidates while maintaining controversial policies. While representation is important, does it become a distraction if it prevents deeper conversations about economic and systemic injustices?

If an institution remains fundamentally unchanged, should we celebrate its newfound diversity? Should we be concerned that these gestures are being used to shield corporations and institutions from more significant scrutiny?

Does Wokeness Ignore Economic Justice?

One of Hedges’ key critiques is that modern social justice movements often overlook economic inequality. Without addressing financial disparities, he argues, civil rights remain incomplete (The Real News).

Martin Luther King Jr. recognized this in his later years when he shifted his focus toward economic justice, fighting for fair wages and labor rights. Many of his former allies distanced themselves from him at that point, perhaps because economic reform challenged power structures in ways that racial integration alone did not. Are we seeing history repeat itself? Have movements for justice been softened into corporate-friendly messages that do not threaten economic interests?

Holding Power Accountable: Is Representation Enough?

At its best, wokeness should hold institutions accountable for both their rhetoric and their actions. The push for diversity and inclusion has led to real progress, but does focusing on representation alone let powerful entities off the hook?

For example, does it matter if a government agency is staffed with a diverse team if its policies continue to perpetuate global inequities? Should the fight for justice focus more on who holds power, or should it interrogate the systems that sustain inequities in the first place?

An HR Perspective: Navigating DEI Initiatives

From a Human Resources standpoint, fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is essential for building a thriving workplace. However, it’s crucial to implement these initiatives thoughtfully to avoid alienating any group and to steer clear of political entanglements.

1. Prioritize Genuine Inclusion Over Optics

While it’s important to celebrate diversity, initiatives should go beyond surface-level representation. Focus on creating an environment where all employees feel valued and included. This means implementing policies that promote equity and addressing systemic issues within the organization (CultureAmp).

2. Avoid Common Pitfalls in Diversity Training

Diversity training can be a minefield if not handled carefully. Experts advise against approaches that may do more harm than good, such as mandatory trainings that can lead to resistance or programs that fail to address deeper systemic issues. Instead, tailor training programs to foster genuine understanding and commitment to DEI principles (SHRM).

3. Foster Open Dialogue and Psychological Safety

Encourage open conversations about DEI topics, allowing employees to express their perspectives without fear of retribution. Creating a culture of psychological safety can lead to more effective and inclusive DEI initiatives (Financial Times).

4. Align DEI Efforts with Organizational Goals

Ensure that DEI initiatives are integrated into the broader organizational strategy. This alignment helps in maintaining focus on genuine inclusivity rather than performative actions, and it underscores the organization’s commitment to DEI as a core value (CIO).

5. Measure and Communicate Progress Transparently

Establish clear metrics to assess the effectiveness of DEI initiatives and communicate progress transparently to all stakeholders. This approach builds trust and demonstrates a genuine commitment to continuous improvement in fostering an inclusive workplace (CIO).

By approaching DEI with intentionality and a focus on genuine inclusion, organizations can create environments that respect and value all employees, steering clear of performative actions that may alienate certain groups.

Are We Prioritizing the Right Conversations?

None of this suggests that representation and diversity are unimportant, they are. But if advocacy prioritizes identity while avoiding conversations about economic structures, are we settling for a version of justice that is more comfortable for the powerful than meaningful for the marginalized?

At what point does activism become more about optics than outcomes? If economic inequality underpins many forms of injustice, why is it often missing from mainstream discussions?

Where Do We Go from Here?

If wokeness has been repurposed into a corporate-friendly movement that sidesteps deeper systemic issues, should we reject it altogether? Or should we reclaim and reshape it to demand more than just surface-level change? Should we be wary of activism that focuses primarily on identity politics while neglecting economic justice?

More importantly, what does real justice look like in a world where even the language of social change can be repackaged, marketed, and used to sustain the very power structures it was meant to challenge?

Conclusion

The discussion around wokeness and boutique activism is not about rejecting efforts toward diversity and inclusion—it’s about ensuring they lead to meaningful, lasting change rather than superficial gestures. While representation matters, it must be accompanied by systemic reforms that address economic and social inequalities at their root.

For businesses and institutions, this means moving beyond performative actions and embedding genuine inclusion into policies, culture, and decision-making. For individuals and communities, it means critically engaging with advocacy efforts to ensure they are truly serving the people they claim to uplift.

The challenge moving forward is clear: How do we ensure that the pursuit of justice remains more than just a brand identity? How can organizations and movements create meaningful change without alienating or dividing? These are the questions we must continue to explore as we shape the future of equity, inclusion, and accountability.

?