Woke HR vs. Anti-Woke HR
How "I don't trust the HR department" becomes "I trust the RED (OR BLUE) HR department!"
"HR is not your friend" is a commonly used expression for attempting to spread consciousness about the role of Human Resources (HR) departments. While the exact origin of the phrase is unclear, it has gained popularity and circulation within discussions and critiques of workplace dynamics.
While HR departments are ostensibly responsible for employee welfare and support, their loyalty ultimately lies with the company. HR functions, such as conflict resolution, policy enforcement, and employee management, are designed to maintain order, protect the company's legal interests, and align employee behavior with the organization's goals. Sharing concerns with HR might make them worse or put a crosshair on the employee (because HR will prioritize the organization's reputation and legal protection over advocating for the best interests of individual employees).
In my recent book criticizing “woke” ideology, Woke Ouroboros, I included a spicy chapter about how “wokeness” is deployed in corporate situations to minimize liabilities and how that fits with the HR paradigm. But “wokeness” as it exists today came after HR. “Wokeness” isn’t why HR isn’t your friend. Wokeness was a way to make HR seem like your friend.
With that in mind,, a new trend has emerged within the corporate world: HR companies adopting an "anti-woke" stance, strategically positioning themselves as opponents to "wokeness" in their branding and communication — making them your friend in a world where wokeness is raising a backlash.
Human Resources vs. Collectivizing Workers
Unions are an imperfect instrument for advocacy for general employee welfare or solving workplace issues and conflicts. They’re constrained to what is legally sanctioned in the current paradigm (capitalism, which favors capital, duh) and often neglect to challenge the underlying nature of capitalist relations. Thus, they have a weakness to co-option (an example of which was a months-long campaign for a General Strike on social media which ended up being effective trolling as the website was replaced with the propagandistic Victims of Communism Museum’s).
Despite these issues, unions can still potentially be a thorn in a corporation’s side. The collectivization of the individual workers’ power into a proto-conscious whole can potentially demonstrate the value of organizing over shared material interests rather than superficial lines (like identity or political affiliation). Further, given labor is the only expense capital controls directly, unions can potentially increase production costs while profitability falls.
So, if capital can, it will happily wedge something (here, an HR department) between the workers and even the thought of unions or other collective action. HR departments typically provide channels for employees to voice their grievances, offer support, and implement policies to improve working conditions. While these functions may seem beneficial, they maintain atomization between workers and follow protocols dictated by the capital they act on behalf of. This provides capital with the ability to pacify dissent rather than make concessions.
Furthermore, HR departments foster the “company culture,” which is typically portrayed as positive, showcasing its “values,” fostering employee “well-being,” and making what is often a soulless, alienated job “fun.” However, HR is an instrument of control and management, perpetuating a sense of individualized responsibility. Workplace problems are framed as interpersonal failings to “fit in” with said “culture.” This individualization diverts attention from collective action and class solidarity, reinforcing that workplace issues are resolved through personal effort and compliance.
This all contributes to molding the “ideal employee,” aligning employee behavior and attitudes with the interests of the capitalist class. Performance evaluations, employee recognition programs, and internal communications are often designed to foster loyalty, productivity, and compliance with the goals and “values” of the organization.
While HR departments may provide some temporary relief or assistance to individual employees (if that is more beneficial for capital than not doing so), they do not fundamentally alter the power dynamics within capitalist workplaces.
And all of this was true long before “wokeness” was a thing.
Wokeness and Anti-Wokeness: Both are Justifying Ideologies
Recently, RedBalloon, an HR/hiring company, hired The BiG Agency to produce an ad campaign that “exposes the nonsense in the workplace culture war.” They position themselves as '“pushing back against wokeness,” which they claim is destroying brands, polarizing consumers, and stifling creativity. And they aren’t wrong, per se…
However, a critical analysis would question whether this campaign genuinely challenges anything.
Certainly, this advertisement articulates legitimate observations about wokeness. “When I grow up, I want to be hired based on what I look like rather than my skills” is a damning statement that accurately reflects the paradigm from books like Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility. It’s a cliche at this point, but “wokeness” legitimately contradicts Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream, “a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
In my book Woke Ouroboros, I attempt to offer a Marxist critique of wokeness as an imperial-stage capitalism-justifying ideology. As a book, it starkly contrasts idealist critiques from all over the liberal political spectrum, like Vivek Ramaswamy’s Woke, Inc. and John McWhorter’s Woke Racism.
By taking a dialectical approach, the claim of directing us toward “equality” and “liberation” can be seen more plainly as a means to maintain essentialism and segregate people.
As one might expect, detractors dismiss it as “reactionary,” but my book contains a critique of the ideologies “wokeness” is reacting to (traditional bigotries), as well as “anti-wokeness.”
I wish to draw an important distinction: there is a crucial difference between a reactionary rejection of wokeness and a dialectical materialist one (what I am aiming to present with this book). I believe that rejection of wokeness on a purely reactionary basis typically comes from the approach of competitive consumption; reactionaries see wokeness as an aesthetic threat to their way of life. In their minds, the widespread adoption of a lifestyle is the market responding to popular demands. In their eyes, if a new, seemingly different demand gains popularity, life as they know it is about to end.
- Me, in my book you should read
Here’s the trick: “wokeness” and “anti-wokeness” sound like opposites but functionally perpetuate the same thing. Both approaches ignore the underlying material conditions and do not challenge the prevailing class structures. The focus on the obvious, surface-level problems of "wokeness" as some phenomenon unto itself – rather than as capitalist ideology, which it is not the only active example of – allows a simple assertion of the opposite.
Yes, “wokeness” is a cynical distraction from workers’ material interests. However, pitting two ideologies against each other isn’t a critique of ideology. It is a distraction. Yes, a backlash to wokeness is happening, but it isn’t based on any real understanding of power.
How is the solution to historical racism and bigotry hating and staying away from each other? Why does the ruling class wish to segregate people by any lines other than class? How does that necessitate essentialism?
By now, it should be obvious that this bigotry/anti-bigotry fight is long-standing and cyclical. When one justification gets unsustainable, another is created. Many pick one thinking it is the “new” ideology resisting the ruling ideology.
But it’s not “the” ruling capitalist ideology; it’s “a” ruling capitalist ideology.
The Marketplace of Ideas
The emergence of various ideologies in a “marketplace of ideas” is often hailed as a sign of a healthy democracy. However, the "anti-woke" branding serves as a perfect example of how no capitalist ideology, be it "woke" or "anti-woke," represents a true solution. Instead, a consumer choice is created where citizens are encouraged to pick between two (or more) capitalism-compatible frameworks.
The "anti-woke" branding represents a reactionary response to the perceived excesses or shortcomings of "woke" ideology. Still, it is important to recognize that this does not automatically mean it addresses the mechanical issues either ideology works to obscure. Bigotry is a real problem in the world, and “when I grow up, I want to be hired based on what I look like rather than my skills” is a pretty accurate observation about “wokeness,” the nebulous set of proposed solutions.
As “wokeness” gained market share as an ideology, dissent was bound to happen.
“Lifestyle,” in this context, refers to the patterns of consumption, behaviors, and choices individuals make to express their identities, aspirations, and social status. It encompasses many areas, including fashion, leisure activities, housing, travel, and personal preferences. However, within the neoliberal market ideology that we’ve become accustomed to, lifestyle becomes more than a personal choice; it becomes a site of competition and social distinction.
The “wokeness” lifestyle market arose when a number of the problems civil rights allegedly solved didn’t go away. It is a means to subsume that discontent into a lifestyle and an identity. The “anti-wokeness” market has arisen in reaction.
Various lifestyle choices and ideologies may emerge and appear to represent dissent or counter-culture, but they ultimately become part of the larger system.
Coincidentally, this is the topic of my first book, Custom Reality and You.
In this marketplace of ideas/ideologies, the capitalist system has the ability to co-opt and absorb dissenting ideas or subcultures into the mainstream. Alternative or dissident “lifestyles” that “challenge” the dominant cultural norms or critique the capitalist system can be commodified, packaged, and sold back to consumers. The market assimilates these ideas and transforms them into marketable trends, erasing their original transformative potential.
This market system keeps the lines between “counter-culture” and mainstream culture blurry at best. What may initially emerge as resistance or opposition to capitalism can be absorbed, sanitized, and commodified, becoming another product or lifestyle choice within the consumer lifestyle market. This process allows capitalism to continually adapt and incorporate new ideas, maintaining dominance while creating an illusion of diversity and choice.
Conclusion
The phrase “HR is not your friend” is neither “woke” nor “anti-woke.” Currently, it isn’t co-opted in any major way, though the “anti-woke” understanding of HR as exclusively “woke” might allow anti-woke people to claim it.
However, just like the phrase, HR is neither “woke” nor “anti-woke.” HR departments, while purporting to support employee welfare, ultimately prioritize the company's objectives and legal protection.
Furthermore, the emergence of an “anti-woke” stance within HR and corporate branding exemplifies my long-standing critique of the co-option of dissenting ideologies into the market system. This commodification of ideologies perpetuates the consumer culture and reinforces the capitalist framework. The marketplace of competing ideologies, including "wokeness" and "anti-wokeness," doesn’t only fail to address the structural issues and class struggle inherent in capitalist relations; its whole purpose is to acknowledge these problems while avoiding any path to solving them.
Just as I warn against “wokeness,” I warn against “anti-wokeness.” Neither is here to free us from anything; they exist to keep us fighting with each other rather than those we need freeing from. I firmly believe that rejecting the entire liberal “political spectrum” is necessary because it’s ultimately all reactionary justification for avoiding the potential subordination of the ruling capitalist class.
The point of my work isn’t “anti-wokeness.” It’s to expose all ideology for what it is. I don’t just reject “wokeness,” I reject the entire paradigm that it and “anti-wokeness” exists in.