Woke ideology has long since penetrated the daily life of the business world and public administration. There are major and unavoidable phenomena that everyone thinks about. And there are these little everyday things, against which we don't know what to do, and which nibble away at our space of freedom every day. What are some examples? Where does it come from? What can we do?
The search for pseudo-consensus in the arbitration of decisions
An example: A meeting of a CA committee must arbitrate the presence of gender-neutral toilets. Three employees, members of a well-known association, are adamant about the principle of respect for minorities and demand the installation of these toilets in the administration while this very idea makes all the participants uncomfortable. Rather than organizing a secret vote where everyone could freely express their discomfort, the "search for consensus" results in the adoption of this madness.
Explanation: A new phenomenon has appeared in the way meetings are managed in companies, and is now taught as a standard in the courses of prestigious schools such as ESSEC which, let us recall, offers courses entitled: "knowing how to organize a meeting"1. Because leading a meeting is a real skill, and a competence valued by the job descriptions of employers' unions such as SYNTEC.2. However, the main purpose of a meeting is not so much to organize the time that passes in a pleasant way as one would do at home, but rather to bring the participants to adhere to the decision-making process and to invest themselves proactively in the planning of tasks. This is point 4 of the training: "Successfully leading a meeting to implement change within your team".
Over the last ten years, we have seen the emergence of the challenge to voting for the arbitration of difficult questions in favor of "consensus". What is it? When a decision is contested by a minority, it was once accepted that the majority vote resolved the problem: it was up to the minority opinions to side with the majority. But today, every meeting has been transformed into a hostage situation. The systematic refusal to vote, decried on the pretext that it is divisive and cutting, paralyzes every meeting until all forms of contestation have been exhausted. The idea is therefore that in the absence of real consensus, the process of dialogue must be maintained until the forces present are exhausted. But what is actually happening? The majority, which is aware of the general interest without this being a cause, has no arguments to oppose to a minority federated around a questionable cause. The "principle" of consensus therefore brings about a decision that is often contrary to the majority idea, often in the name of the principle of respect for minorities, which is a majority principle of all social groups; and this, even though the vote would obviously have made it possible to foil this rhetorical coup d'état.
What should have been done? Stand firm and demand a secret ballot.
The biased promotion of inclusivity in corporate communication
Examples: The company's DEI (Diversity and Inclusion) representative sends a message reminding everyone of the need to work towards "promoting equality". At the same time, it is announced that in order to promote "equality", it is now forbidden to use certain polite phrases deemed "too gendered" in company correspondence. Inclusive or neutralized writing is therefore imposed on all departments, against the spelling practices of secretaries who thus find themselves in a situation of incompetence. This is a godsend for equality training firms who see this as an opportunity to provide training services to the same staff.
Explanation: Promoting equality cannot be done in absolute terms. It is generally accepted that working for equality means working for equality “between this category of people and that category of people”. And for many people, it means working to promote “men-women” equality, or to promote equal treatment between staff with disabilities and others. However, increasingly, DEI operations no longer mention the categories likely to be targeted by the promotion of equality, which becomes an arbitrary fact. “Gender” quietly replaces “sex”, and women who consider themselves discriminated against find themselves confused when they understand that DEI promotion did not concern them at all, but that it concerned the promotion of other notions with which they are unfamiliar, such as “transidentity”. It's too late, the disappointment is absolute but the DEI operation is implemented in the company or department and in the name of "equality", we end up promoting new forms of discrimination that can no longer be denounced. This is done, so to speak, at the "customer's head" because each operation to promote a woke minority becomes a communication fact for the company's HR department which is freewheeling. Stories of "male-female" discrimination are passed over in silence, because they do not sufficiently highlight the "dynamism" of HR who think they are fashionable by adopting woke communication.
What should have been done? Demand, through multiple formal letters, that the categories of personnel targeted by the promotion of "equality" be specified from the outset. The majority of things left unsaid, the implicit, what everyone thinks they understand: this is precisely what these firms are fighting against.
Violation of the rules of politeness
Examples: A receptionist is reprimanded for saying "Hello Madam" to a colleague who claims to have been misgendered. The scandal drags on: both parties are summoned to a mediation process by HR.
Explanation: Politeness is based on collective consensus and obviously gives a large place to the recognition in the eyes of others of one's own qualities. This distantly echoes the practice of certain groups of companions of the trade where one does not define oneself as "master", but where one considers that the recognition of mastery comes from the fact "that other masters recognize me as such". It is the same reasoning which presides over the development of diplomas in higher education: it is because peers recognize you as worthy of the rank of "licensee" or "doctor" that you become one. This recognition is an ethical fact, a fact of judgment essential to validate competence. In society, your way of dressing, of behaving, is a requirement of recognition in the eyes of others of your belonging to a social group. But today, the wokes consider that the notion of identity is an autonomous fact of individual declaration: "I am a rabbit" makes me a rabbit. This is obviously a logical inconsistency, which destroys the very idea of the constitution of a social group. We cannot impose on others our way of perceiving the world, at the forefront of which is the coordinates of your presence on their intellectual chessboard. This authoritarian takeover of consciousness results in this kind of drama: a student demands to be called by a first name that is not his on the pretext that he claims to be this other person; such a colleague, dressed and pampered like a pin-up from the 50s, demands to be called by a first name that is not hers, and this without having taken any steps to have this civil status validated. It is a "transitional" fact that many perceive as "transitory"...
What should have been done? In the manner of Jordan Peterson when the problem arose for him, we must oppose with a quiet force. The question is not that of harassment, and misgendering is not an outrage: it is a fact of dialogue that must be calmly arbitrated. On the other hand, the totalitarian hostage-taking that consists of imposing on someone words that they do not want to use to describe the world is a fact of " forcing " characterized. To a violence suffered, one must oppose its symmetrical: the violence that constitutes for oneself the fact of seeing imposed on oneself a universe of reference that is not common. Respect for the opinions of each is a reciprocal phenomenon…