Abstract
Under a self-serving, opportunistic and insincere endorsement of moral causes, large, usually international corporations are sabotaging democracy. Showing support for gender equality, mental health awareness or climate change mitigation, for example, is the defining trait of woke capitalism; but it is something dangerous that should be critically challenged and politically resisted, Carl Rhodes argues in his recent book where he explores yet a facet of corporate activism in support of controversial social, political, economic, and environmental issues (e.g., Eilert & Nappier Cherup, 2020; Gulbrandsen, Just, & Uldam, 2022; Maks-Solomon & Drewry, 2021).
Woke is a strange term. It was coined by Melvin Kelley back in 1962 to point out that “the language associated at the time with beatnik culture had been appropriated from the lexicon of Black America, often after its originators had stopped using it” (p. 1). But it was Erykah Badu, a multi-award-winning R&B musician, who made it part of the vernacular of our age. Echoing Martin Luther King’s call to remain awake in order to stay in touch with ongoing social changes, Badu’s song “I stay woke” expresses an aspiration that people should stay focused and pay attention to their socio-political context, “not easily swayed by the media, or by the angry mob, or by the group” (pp. 29–30). With the Black Lives Matter movement gaining momentum, the importance of remaining awake started to be endorsed by politicians and corporations and, for example, #StayWoke became a way to show solidarity with African-Americans’ fight against systemic racism and racist violence. But as the term became part of the mainstream it also became appropriated for entirely different purposes. It started to be used to criticise people, particularly white people, for their self-righteousness and hypocrisy. And right-wing pundits developed an anti-wokeness that called out the woke of individuals and corporations as a way of saying that they were either insincere or were manipulated in the kind of progressive views they held. Woke started to be used by conservatives to vilify progressive political ideas and those who held them. “Essentially, woke transmuted from being a political call for self-awareness through solidarity in the face of massive racial injustice, to being an identity marker for self-righteousness” (p. 38). Through strategic cultural appropriation, a reversal of meaning emptied the term of its democratic potential, making it synonymous with “vacuous politically correct morality” (p. 38) and making it possible for conservative politicians to “attack left-wing ideas wherever they arise” (p. 75).
It is important to keep this plurality and shift in meaning of the term to understand Carl Rhode’s claim and understand the difference in the critique of woke companies by conservative voices. In a way that is redolent of the critiques addressed at corporate social responsibility (CSR) and stakeholder management, supporters of a strict demarcation of economic and political spheres objected to committing companies to social causes, particularly progressive causes. True to Friedman’s mantra that the one social responsibility of business is to increase its profits, supporters of the shareholder’s view of the firm launched sustained critiques of CEOs who endorse social causes that have nothing to do with their moral and fiduciary responsibility to serve the interest of the owners of the company.
Carl Rhodes’ critique follows different paths. Detailing the case of Larry Fink’s (BlackRock) pleas for more corporate focus on climate change (Chapter 6), Jeff Bezos’ (Amazon) contribution of USD 10 billion to a fund to combat the devastating effects of climate change (Chapter 7), Alan Joyce’s (Qantas) support for marriage between homosexuals (Chapter 8), Nike’s “Dream Crazy” campaign in support of athletes’ protest against racial injustice (Chapter 9), the support of various corporations for the Black Lives Matter movement (Chapter 10), Gillette’s campaign “The best a man can be” in favour of non-sexist masculinity (Chapter 11), and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation’s new prioritisation of social justice – Rhodes considers woke capitalism to be a strategic corporate takeover of democracy.
If Larry Fink urges companies, both public and private, to serve a social purpose, it is not – as far-right critiques claim – to promote socialism and assault the very virtues of a purer form of capitalism. Instead, it is to show that, whenever the government fails, companies are able and willing to step in and take the defence of the people and the environment. Carl Rhodes suggests that Larry Fink wants companies to extend their influence to the political sphere in a defensive move against a possible revolt against the social inequalities and environmental damage that have characterised the development of capitalism in the last decades. To Rhodes, this amounts to “a hostile takeover of democracy” (p. 83).
Likewise, Rhodes sees Jeff Bezos’ philanthropy in the light of his successful attempt to pay as little corporate tax as possible. Rhodes reminds us that “paying tax is the main way that corporations can contribute to society” (p. 90). Thus, by defunding the state, Amazon’s extreme tax aggressiveness is one of the corporate strategies that creates scope for a shift in influence over social issues from elected government to individual billionaires. Moreover, Jeff Bezos’ commitment to climate change, poverty, education, same-sex marriage and human rights stands in stark contrast to Amazon’s massive environmental impact and systematic exploitation of its workforce. “[I]s woke capitalism entirely compatible with more traditional and obvious corporate strategies that seek to minimize cost and maximize the extraction of labour from workers?” (p. 94) – I guess the answer is yes.
Likewise, again, Rhodes praises Alan Joyce’s commitment to the rights of homosexuals but notes that this commitment to social causes from Australia’s highest paid executive (AUD 23 million in 2018) does not extend to income inequality. Describing how Alan Joyce argues in favour of his salary, which is almost 300 times the average Australian income, Carl Rhodes writes: “Woke capitalism is only interested in politics that do not threaten the commercial interests of corporations, or the personal financial interest of its executives” (p. 110). Woke capitalists monitor the public discourse to avoid threatening the system that has taken them where they are.
Wokeness is not as radical as it may seem, Rhodes shows. For Nike, connecting brand with socially conscious causes served as an antidote to its public reputation as a sweatshop profiteer and a way to increase sales. “Nike proved that being associated with progressive political causes was in no way inconsistent with commercial objectives” (p. 119). “When woke capitalism meets racial capitalism, corporations might well be amplifying the slogans of the Black Lives Matter movement, but they are also exploiting the movement for their benefit, while simultaneously trying to strip it of the radical politics that is needed if capitalist inequality and exploitation are going to change” (p. 137). And when Gillette aligned with #MeToo, it was a way to position itself in line with the changing norms of masculinity and secure its position in a declining market.
Rhodes puts corporate endorsements of social causes in a critical light: Woke capitalism is, at the end of the day, a matter concerned with preserving the power, influence and prosperity of big business and its beneficiaries, as well as ensuring that the capitalist market economy in which it thrives is maintained. The reality is that corporations have neither the will not the ability to address the real social, environmental and economic problems that neoliberal capitalism has fuelled. Inequality, discrimination, and climate change are prime examples of these problems. (p. 174)
However, firstly, it is regrettable that Rhodes ignores non-English speaking countries, and misses, for example, the ground-breaking campaign of Italian fashion firm Benetton on Aids in the early 1990s. European companies have endorsed social causes for a long time, with parts of the welfare state having roots in the industrial paternalism of the 19th century (Reid, 1985) – and it would have been interesting to see whether his critiques apply to them. It would also have been interesting to see whether Asian or South American companies are affected by wokism, despite the lack of democracy in many countries in these parts of the world.
Second, it could be argued that the charge that woke corporations do not actually address social issues is somewhat misguided. Woke corporations endorse social issues. However, they do not commit themselves to altering the structures that condition economic inequality and exploitation. Neither do they commit themselves to stop making money. It is therefore somewhat unfair to charge them with being superficial. An alternative view could be that woke signifies “the corporate extraction of value from the struggles for recognition led by historically oppressed populations” (Kanai & Gill, 2020, p. 11). In other words, yet another extension of capitalist exploitation.
Third, Rhodes does not realise that his critique of woke shares a key trait with the critique of woke by reactionary conservatives: to depart from the self-interest of corporations. Right-wing critiques mean that capitalist corporations should stay away from political commitment and remain strictly orientated towards their self-interest, measured by profit. Rhodes finds that woke capitalism is kind of a hypocrisy in the sense that it pretends to serve a cause but primarily serves its own self-interest. The former means that companies have no reason to be altruistic, whereas the latter means that their altruism is nothing but pretence and hypocrisy. These claims are compatible in the sense that companies end up not doing (Rhodes) what they are not supposed to do (conservatives). This ironic convergence of views explains why it is not always easy in the book to understand who it is that is criticising and what and why they are criticising. Indeed, Rhodes and anti-woke conservatives seem to agree that the political sphere should remain in the hands of governments, while corporations should remain out of it and stay within the economic sphere. But there is an important difference: whereas Friedmannians push for laws that interfere as little as possible with free markets, Rhodes argues for highly regulated markets.
Having said that, Rhodes convincingly argues that woke capitalism amounts to a corporate takeover of democracy rather than a true pursuit of societal change (cf., Eilert & Nappier Cherup, 2020). Woke companies contribute to making salient social issues, but only issues that do not threaten their economic interests. They put virtue signalling before structural changes. They make sure that they cannot be held accountable. They evade responsibility for problems to which they have contributed by portraying themselves as part of the solutions to these problems. They abuse economic inequality by giving themselves a voice that is significantly more powerful than the people they claim to represent. And they circumvent and disparage democratic ways of addressing social issues. Woke companies aim to enhance their power by installing a corporate-led feudal social order to replace the democratic order. In addition, the role of employee groups in engaging in woke capitalism is unclear (cf., Maks-Solomon & Drewry, 2021).
And there is a major difference between Carl Rhodes and anti-woke conservatives. Rhodes is respectful of the causes involved, even taking the risk of being charged of being woke himself by opening the book with “First and foremost, I respectfully acknowledge that I live and work on the land of the Gadigal people of the Eora nation” (p. ix). In contradistinction, anti-woke conservatives caricature these causes to delegitimate them, adding insult to oppression.
The term woke having been as distorted and twisted as it has been, woke activism can be criticised on more than one level. However, it is important to remember that the term is born out of a legitimate plea for critical awareness and practical opposition to injustice (Rhodes, 2022). Rhodes’s final pages underscore that any discrediting of the term must not entail discrediting the need to stay awake.
