There might be a better title but it’ll do.
Corporations insincerely adopt progressive themes because, at least in most Western countries, it’s become increasingly accepted, popular and seen as ethical in the dominant culture, and therefore is a good marketing strategy for reputation management.
This phenomenon is widespread, but some core examples are pink/rainbow capitalism, greenwashing, and spin (e.g. presenting exploitation such as outsourcing labor to cheaper markets as “diversity”, as opposed to actual diversity programs). A classic example of this insincerity is various companies (Bethesda, BMW, Cisco, General Electric, Mercedes-Benz, Pfizer, Vogue and many more) famously adopting social media rainbow Pride logos only in some regions but not others - improving conditions for SGM is evidently not a true company value, it’s marketing.
I assume that before the normalization of progressive values in these markets, the same type of phony value signaling existed to exploit the dominant values of the time. For example, in the US, patriotism and Christianity.
I believe this is an useful topic to explore, because it can give us tools to explain to some of the more casual ‘anti-woke’ crowd the difference between progressivism and insincere corporate pandering, perhaps by comparing it with examples of corporate pandering abusing their values, perhaps the notorious commercialization of Christmas and Easter holidays for an example.
How did this manifest before? You only need to look at the advertising of the time. Take the 1950s America - McCarthyism and the red scare in full force. Most US marketing relied heavily on how buying American made you a good patriotic citizen, living the American dream… even if the product wasn’t 100% American.
To be fair, anti-communism is the opposite of progressive, though I get what you mean, lol. Companies will always take advantage of social issues to get profit.
I am generally skeptical of anyone who considers themself “anti-woke” or who complains about “wokeness” as wanting to have a sincere conversation about these things. I imagine in 99% of cases, it’ll be more likely that they complain about corporate wokeness because they simply don’t want to see representations of happy, successful lgbtqia+ people and people of color in mainstream culture, even if it’s just marketing. Maybe test the waters by making a similar point about the companies that market themselves based on pandering to the right and see how enthusiastically they agree about how bad corporate cooptation of culture is. At least then, you can say “and the same goes for corporations pandering to the left!”
Still, the fact that seeing a bunch of rainbow logos actually bothers these people for reasons other than being sick of capitalist cooptation of liberatory movements would not give me much hope that that line of argument will be meaningful to them.
I‘m one of those who hate companies for changing their logo to rainbow and being all-inclusive for that one month. The rest of the year they’re just inclusive enough to not receive a shitstorm. It’s just marketing. I once read something like “Look! We made our logo rainbow! Now give us your gay money!”
I’m happy enough to live in a country where a gay couple has the same rights as a hetero one. It’s even legally allowed for a lesbian couple to get an (I don’t know the English words for that) artificial insemation. Gay couples are allowed to have and adopt children. Even the heritage is the same as for hetero couples.
yeah, same. I think being tired of capitalist pandering is totally fine.
You’re missing a major incentive. Over the course of several decades, laws prohibiting discriminatory behavior internally and externally were passed. At the same time, unions became less militant and less democratic. So workers try to turn to the new laws to stand up for themselves. Especially middle- and upper- sections because they have the independent resources and systemic support.
The various waves of HR interventions are defenses against the above. Polices, trainings, disciplines, hiring practices, codes of conduct etc. Which are implemented in ways that are unserious, under-resourced, lots of loopsholes, designed to breed resentment, etc. But enough that if there is a problem, the boss can say “we did everything we could”. So any legal consequences will be eliminated or reduced.
Rainbow capitalism is a slightly different situation but in context of the above. After the western AIDS crisis settled down, LGBTQ+ leadership was entirely seized by wealthy people who were the least dead and least traumatized of everyone. They took advantage of work done by others to benefit their own individual positions.
It’s all in the context of capitalism being inherently about exploitation. There is no such thing as a woke corporation. it can’t happen.
The rise of progressivism has nothing to do with corporations decorating themselves with the relevant messages where it suits them. That’s just marketing. You see that in companies who championed the marginalized during the previous administration and dropped it near instantly when 47 came in. That’s corporate opportunism.
We have seen the rise of representative democracy, of fascism, the rise of communism in the past. I don’t think we have seen anything that deserves a similar label with regard to progressivism. There is a general sine curve thru the ages of left-leaning and right-leaning politics. And thru the swings from one side to another we have still abolished slavery, enfranchised women, built social security nets, decriminalized abortion (or at least permitted it in some cases) and same sex relationships, etc. A lot of it was built on political movements but I dare say none that rose to the top and stayed there. So a rise of progressivism is as non-sensical to me as a rise of conservatism. They are just opposite ends on the political scale and we dance from one side to the other and back again.
What you’re getting at is more accurately identified as class struggle. There, over time, becomes a sharpening conflict between the revolutionary classes and reactionary classes, and this pushes towards revolution. Marketing pretending to support broader social change is a pressure valve for the system, one of many.
the internet has radicalized most beliefs, so that makes for fast big bucks with identity groups.
in the before (the internet) times it was a much slower process.
but lots of examples: black/white, man/woman, rich/poor, etc
