Weaponising Woke: How the Left Turned Awareness into Ideological Enforcement

The term ‘woke’ originally signified a call to awareness, an alertness to injustice, especially racial injustice. However, in recent years, critics claim that the political left has turned this once-noble ideal into a tool of ideological enforcement, social control, and cultural dominance. This process, often referred to as the weaponisation of wokeness, has sparked fierce debate across the political spectrum.

From Awareness to Orthodoxy

Originally rooted in African American slang, “stay woke” was a warning to remain vigilant against systemic racism. But as the term entered mainstream progressive discourse, it expanded to encompass various social justice concerns, gender identity, climate justice, colonialism, and more.

Critics argue that this expansion has created a rigid orthodoxy. Any deviation from approved narratives is swiftly condemned. As Sean Thomas states in The Spectator, “It’s not enough to be quietly anti-racist, you must be actively and overtly anti-racist. You must show your allyship.”. This demand for performative solidarity, some argue, has created a culture of fear and conformity.

Cancel Culture and the Policing of Dissent

One of the most cited examples of the left’s weaponisation of wokeness is cancel culture. It refers to the practice of publicly shaming or deplatforming individuals for expressing views deemed offensive or out of step with progressive norms. While defenders see this as accountability, critics perceive it as a form of ideological purging.

In academia, media, and corporate environments, dissenting voices, particularly on issues like gender identity, race, or colonial history, are often labelled as bigoted or regressive. “Disagreement is treason,” Thomas argues, likening the intolerance of dissent to the authoritarian tendencies of fascism.

This has led to accusations that the left is not merely advocating for justice but enforcing ideological purity. They often use social pressure, institutional policies, and public shaming. Managers and leaders face this battle every day when contemplating whether their actions will create woke aggression and accusations.

Identity Politics and the Fragmentation of Solidarity

Another critique is that the left’s embrace of identity politics has fragmented traditional class-based solidarity. Philosopher Susan Neiman, in her book Left Is Not Woke, argues that the woke left has abandoned universalist ideals in favour of tribalism and symbolic politics.

Instead of concentrating on shared human struggles, critics argue that woke ideology creates divisions through hierarchies of oppression. Moral authority is awarded based on identity rather than argument. This, they claim, jeopardises the possibility of wide-ranging coalitions and alienates potential allies.

Daniel Bernabé, a Spanish author, similarly argues that woke politics are a product of neoliberalism. They are individualist, symbolic, and disconnected from material struggles like labour rights or economic justice.

The Redefinition of Language

Language has become a central battleground in the culture wars. Critics argue that the left has weaponised language by constantly redefining terms to suit ideological goals. Words like “racism,” “violence,” and “woman” have been reinterpreted in ways that critics say obscure meaning and stifle debate.

Thomas points to the use of “newspeak” in woke discourse, where terminology is fluid and ever-changing. BAME becomes POC becomes BIPOC, and so on.

This linguistic instability, he argues, creates a climate where people are afraid to speak. They fear using the “wrong” term.

Woke Capitalism and Corporate Opportunism

The rise of woke capitalism, where corporations adopt progressive language and imagery, has also faced criticism. While some view this as a sign of social progress, others argue it’s a cynical marketing tactic. It appropriates social justice for profit.

From rainbow logos during Pride Month to diversity pledges that lack substance, critics say corporations are using wokeness as a shield against scrutiny. Meanwhile, they continue exploitative practices. This commodification of activism, they argue, dilutes genuine movements and turns justice into branding.

The Left’s Internal Crisis

Interestingly, not all criticism of wokeness comes from the right. An increasing number of left-leaning thinkers and activists are raising concerns about the excesses of woke ideology. They argue that the movement’s puritanical tendencies, obsession with identity, and hostility to Enlightenment values such as reason and universalism are alienating and counterproductive.

Philosopher Stéphanie Roza warns that the rejection of Enlightenment ideals by some woke activists signifies a regression to reactionary thinking. Neiman adds that while the goals of wokeness, justice, equality, and recognition are noble, the methods often backfire, leading to division rather than solidarity.

This internal critique suggests that the weaponisation of wokeness is not just a right-wing talking point. It has created real tension within the progressive movement.

Cultural Authoritarianism?

Some go further, arguing that the left’s use of wokeness constitutes a form of cultural authoritarianism. They highlight the enforcement of ideological conformity in universities, media, and public institutions. Here, certain views are not just unpopular but unacceptable.

Thomas draws parallels between woke ideology and fascism. Not in terms of violence or nationalism, but in its intolerance of dissent, obsession with purity, and use of social pressure to enforce conformity. While this comparison is provocative, it reflects a growing concern. The left’s moral certainty is being used to justify authoritarian tactics.

The Backlash and Its Consequences

The weaponisation of wokeness by the left has not gone unnoticed. It has sparked a strong anti-woke backlash, especially among conservatives but also among centrists and disaffected liberals. This backlash has resulted in legislation, political campaigns, and media narratives aimed at resisting what is perceived as ideological overreach.

Ironically, this backlash has sometimes reflected the very tactics it criticises. It includes banning books, restricting speech, and enforcing ideological conformity from the right. This situation suggests that the culture war is less about left versus right. It’s more about competing visions of power, identity, and truth.

Conclusion: A Call for Balance

The weaponisation of wokeness by the left is a complex and controversial topic. While the original goals of the movement, justice, equality, and awareness, remain vital, critics argue that its current form often undermines those very ideals.

By promoting ideological conformity, reshaping language, and emphasising identity over universal values, the woke left may risk alienating allies, suppressing open debate, and provoking backlash. To stay a driving force for progress, the left needs to strike a balance. It lies between moral conviction and intellectual humility, as well as between passion and diversity of views.

Remember

“Nobody has the right to live their lives being protected from offence or from insults or from hurt feelings. It is an occupational hazard of living in society.” – Ann Widdecombe, Former Member of the European Parliament.