Wokeness: Understanding the Social Movement and Its Supporters

By Antonio Ancaya

Political Discourse

Wokeness is a major social movement that has taken center stage in political discourse in recent times, so it pays to understand it. Wokeness is built on the belief that disparities and differences in outcomes are exclusively the result of institutionalized discrimination. This perspective tends to ignore or deny other contributing factors and holds that all differences between groups stem from systemic oppression. In other words, wokeness assumes that any variation in success or status is due to discrimination alone, disregarding individual abilities or other influences.

This view posits that people are essentially the same across all areas of competency and capability. According to wokeness, any perceived disparities are purely “social constructs” rather than reflections of inherent qualities or traits. This assumption, however, contradicts observable realities. For instance, on average, Swedish people are taller than Vietnamese people. While individual exceptions exist, such as tall Vietnamese or short Swedish individuals, the statistical averages between these groups are undeniable. Acknowledging such differences doesn’t imply superiority but recognizes that variations between populations are natural. Wokeness, however, tends to reject this notion, arguing instead that all differences in outcomes are due to external discrimination, not personal factors or group characteristics.

Consequently, wokeness dismisses personal responsibility for individual failures, attributing them entirely to societal oppression. This perspective denies that a lack of personal effort, knowledge, financial resources, or even just bad luck can contribute to someone not achieving their goals. Instead, it places the blame on external systemic factors, arguing that individuals are not responsible for their own shortcomings.

Wokeness further claims that institutions must be dismantled or radically altered to eliminate disparities, even if that means undermining the very structures that uphold societal stability. The movement often frames whites as collectively responsible for the failures of minorities, including minorities who disagree with its premises. Those who oppose wokeness, even within minority groups, are labeled as having a “white voice” or being “traitors” to their race. Ultimately, wokeness becomes a tool for inciting and weaponizing racial resentment, which can be exceedingly dangerous in a multi-ethnic society like the United States.

 Origins and Influence: The Role of Academia

The origins of wokeness can be traced back to academia in the 1960s and 70s, especially with the introduction of affirmative action. This policy sought to correct historical injustices by granting minorities preferential admission to elite universities. The idea was that affirmative action would serve as a form of “reparations” for past discrimination. However, these policies were not based on academic merit, leading to a complex dynamic within these institutions.

Students admitted through affirmative action, often labeled as “affirmative action babies,” found themselves struggling to keep up academically, which fostered resentment. Meanwhile, white guilt within academia grew in response to historical narratives centered on slavery and Jim Crow laws. This led many institutions to lower their standards and excuse underperformance among minority students. Consequently, even minority students who earned their place through hard work and merit found themselves broad-brushed with the negative stereotype of being less capable.

As a result, resentment built up both among those who felt unjustly characterized and those who viewed affirmative action as a form of unfair advantage. This laid the groundwork for the woke movement, which views all perceived inequalities as a reflection of institutional injustice rather than personal differences or failures.

The Upper-Middle and Upper Classes: A Strategic Alliance

Wealthy whites and upper-class individuals have also adopted wokeness, but often for reasons of self-preservation. By aligning with woke ideology, these groups divert attention away from the staggering wealth disparities in the United States. Consider that the median household income in the country is around $50,000 a year, while the top 1 percent earn at least $500,000 annually. The gap widens even more as you move into the top 0.1 percent, where income grows exponentially.

The wealthy elite can shield themselves from criticism about these inequalities by embracing woke ideologies and attacking the perceived racism of lower-income whites. This allows them to appear virtuous and socially responsible, distracting from the economic injustices that benefit them. Labeling their critics as “racists” further deflects any valid grievances that poorer whites might have regarding wealth inequality.

This dynamic is reinforced by the fact that many upper-class whites attended elite universities where affirmative action was prevalent. This exposure often led them to develop condescending attitudes toward minorities, whom they perceived as less capable. This is not to say they are explicitly racist, but there is an unspoken assumption of intellectual superiority based on their own educational experiences. Notably, this perception does not extend to Asians, who are widely seen as “model minorities” and are assumed to have succeeded on merit. Thus, affirmative action has, paradoxically, created a more racially divisive atmosphere among the upper classes.

 Corporate America and Wokeness: A Convenient Cover

Corporations have embraced wokeness as well, primarily because it offers a cheap form of public relations. By championing diversity and inclusion, corporations can shield themselves from scrutiny over their labor practices, tax strategies, and monopolistic behaviors. For example, Google, which operates as a near-monopoly, is rarely criticized for its anti-competitive practices or the vast amounts of personal data it controls. Instead, much of the focus is on its commitment to social justice.

Additionally, corporations use wokeness to justify controversial business practices like outsourcing labor overseas or hiring immigrant workers at lower wages. If anyone criticizes these practices, they are quickly dismissed as racists. This tactic allows corporations to avoid addressing legitimate concerns about worker exploitation or the impact of globalization on local economies.

 Political Parties: The Strategic Embrace of Identity Politics

Political parties, particularly on the left, have also adopted wokeness, though for different reasons. Historically, left-wing parties in the United States focused on improving the lives of the working class. However, as economic conditions for the working class improved in the 1980s and 90s, many began to vote more conservatively. Feeling betrayed, left-wing parties shifted their focus to identity politics and began courting racial minorities as a new base of support.

By framing societal issues through the lens of race, these parties ensure that racism remains a perpetual problem that can never be fully solved. This strategy keeps minorities voting for left-wing candidates, as any resolution of these issues would diminish the party’s hold on its constituency. Thus, left-wing parties have a vested interest in maintaining the narrative of systemic racism, even if it means stoking resentment and division.

 Conclusion: The Complex Coalition Behind Wokeness

Academia, the upper classes, corporations, and political parties have all embraced wokeness for different reasons, each aligning with the movement in ways that serve their own interests. What unites them is not a shared vision of social progress but rather a coalition built on resentment and self-preservation. This convergence of diverse supporters makes wokeness a powerful force, but one that could ultimately lead to more societal division and conflict.

Understanding these dynamics is crucial as we navigate the complexities of this modern social movement. While wokeness claims to address disparities and promote equality, its underlying motivations and effects often suggest otherwise.