This is a paid article which your subscription is allowing you to read.

Wokeness, properly understood, has little to do with the pursuit of social justice or a fairer and more peaceful world. It is the political application of critical race theory and its related doctrines to institutions. It begins with the claim that Western society is structured by systems of group power in which white people act to keep black people down. In this view, racism is not a question of individual prejudice but is instead embedded in the economics, law, language, culture, and ordinary habits of all Western societies.

From that premise follows the woke programme.

If racist inequality is systemic to Western societies, then its institutions must be broken down. Equality under the law must be replaced by a strict black-versus-white segmentation of society in order to force racial equity through state policy. Individual merit must be subordinated to group outcomes. Colour-blindness becomes a form of denial. Free speech is judged as a means to maintain subjugation and should be limited. Markets are designed to keep white people on top and black people oppressed. Universities, corporations, schools, media organisations, courts, charities, and professional bodies must all be defeated to bring an end to structural oppression.

The effect is to erode the pillars of the Western liberal order by undermining economic competitiveness whilst fomenting internal conflict.

But the brakes on the spread of the ideology are considerable and increasingly in evidence.

From a global perspective, the most important brake on the spread of the ideology is that only a fraction of the world is open to woke ideology at all.

Wokeness was never a mass global movement. It was a doctrine of Western institutional elites. It flourished in societies with rich universities, activist courts, powerful non-governmental organisations (NGOs), global corporations, legacy media, streaming platforms, professional human resources (HR) departments, and legal systems capable of turning identity claims into administrative power.

Most of the world does not live in societies like that.

On a narrow measure, less than 10% of humanity lives in full liberal democracies, where the ideology became most prevalent, as it was in these societies that activist institutions could deeply embed progressive identity politics. Even on a broader measure, only around 20% of the world’s population lives in societies with significant sympathy for the full range of progressive social ideas associated with wokeness.

The rest of the world lives in societies that are religious, nationalist, socially conservative, authoritarian, communitarian, traditionalist, or simply resistant to importing the internal politics of Western elite neuroses.

Wokeness’s voice was global because Western institutions are global, but its audience was never global. It travelled through universities, NGOs, corporations, donor networks, entertainment platforms, and international bureaucracies. But those routes created institutional reach, not civilisational consent.

Across much of Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Latin America, woke ideology is treated as foreign, elite, abstract, destabilising, or irrelevant to the daily life of ordinary people. Many societies reject its premises outright. They do not easily accept that Western racial categories explain their own histories. They do not accept that sex, family, religion, nation, and inheritance should be dissolved into activist identity frameworks. They do not accept that societies should be reordered around group grievance.

This means the ideology, after spreading through the West, hit a hard demographic ceiling. It could dominate elite speech in London, New York, Brussels, Toronto, Sydney, and parts of the Western university world, shape Western corporate language, and influence Hollywood, philanthropy, ESG (the environmental, social, and governance framework), HR, and human rights discourse. But that was about the extent of it.

The second reason is that in the West itself, where woke ideology was most powerful, its institutional advance is now being checked.

The corporate retreat is already under way. Companies that once treated diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as a moral badge are now scaling back, renaming, softening, or abandoning those programmes. Harley Davidson, Lowe’s, Ford, John Deere, and others have pulled back from progressive policies after boycotts, shareholder pressure, employee disputes, and political scrutiny. The old assumption was that woke alignment reduced reputational risk. The new reality is that it creates reputational risk.

Executives are no longer so confident that activist language sells products, protects brands, or satisfies investors. Boards are more alert to backlash. Legal teams are more cautious about race-based programmes. The result is not a total disappearance of corporate progressivism. It is a loss of forward momentum that sees DEI projects moving from expansion to containment.

Higher education is also being forced into retreat. Western universities were the engine room of woke ideology. They supplied the theory, the vocabulary, the administrators, the activists, and the apparent moral authority. But across the United States (US), the factory from which most of the world’s woke ideology was manufactured and exported, public universities are now facing anti-DEI legislation, funding restrictions, and political oversight. The US Supreme Court’s ruling against affirmative action has weakened the legal basis for race-conscious admissions and exposed the wider institutional structure built around racial preference.

The old campus model is under pressure. DEI offices, bias-reporting systems, mandatory ideological training, race-conscious admissions, and activist bureaucracies are no longer expanding without resistance. State legislatures, courts, donors, alumni, and parents are now contesting them directly. The university is no longer a protected sanctuary for woke institutional power. It has become one of the central battlegrounds against it.

The political backlash is also visible in law in America.

Conservative lawmakers have moved against gender-affirming care for minors, transgender participation in women’s sport, and activist curricula in schools. These battles are not marginal. They mark the point at which woke ideology moved from elite language into the family, the classroom, medicine, and the rights of parents. Once that happened, resistance became democratic, organised, and legislative.

Media and entertainment are partially undergoing the same correction. For years, studios acted as though progressive messaging was a commercial formula. Identity-centred storytelling, activist scripts, diversity-driven casting decisions, and open contempt for legacy audiences were treated as the future of the industry. That model is now failing more often and more visibly. Studios are being pushed back toward broad consumer appeal, story, character, humour, escapism, and audience trust.

The problem with wokeness in entertainment was always going to be that its ideological contempt for the audience would hit subscription and box office numbers. Viewers can accept new characters, new stories, and wider representation. They reject being lectured, scolded, or told that beloved franchises exist mainly as vehicles for activist messaging. Box office failures, streaming fatigue, audience backlash, and executive pivots show that the entertainment market has begun disciplining the ideology.

The same shift is visible in politics more broadly. Parties of the centre-left are learning that activist language can alienate working-class voters, religious people, parents, men, small business owners, and immigrants from socially conservative backgrounds.

That is why the peak has passed. Peak woke was the moment when institutions believed that there was no cost to adopting the ideology and no serious resistance to its spread. That moment may be over. While wokeness still controls many institutions and still has influence in HR departments, universities, media, NGOs, corporate governance, and cultural production, it is now contested on every major front. The world outside the West has not absorbed it. The West itself is pushing back against it.