One of the most interesting developments in identity politics is how much businesses have embraced it. For a number of years, companies have demonstrated inclusive approaches in moderate ways, for example by embracing Pride and Black History Month. More recently, however, this has intensified and become more political. 

The word ‘equity’ is cropping up regularly. Some businesses have completely changed their attitude to sex and gender, in some cases avoiding the word ‘woman’ altogether. A huge amount of support was shown for the highly political Black Lives Matter movement, especially during the summer 2020 protests when statues were torn down. 

This seems to be particularly strong in large corporations, particularly those in tech. Robin DiAngelo, the author of White Fragility and Nice Racism, is very influential despite her controversial claims that all white people are racist and that disagreeing with this line of thinking is evidence of racism. Companies including Amazon, Levi’s and Goldman Sachs have hired her for diversity training, which costs in the region of $30,000-$40,000 for just a few hours.

Nikole Hannah-Jones, the creator of the New York Times’ 1619 Project, has hosted lectures at Google. The project, widely criticised for inaccuracies, claims that America was founded in 1619, the date of the arrival of the first slaves in America, rather than 1776 when the country declared independence. 

Diversity is important, and we should all be aware of what happened in 1619. However, questions need to be asked about the intellectual and political diversity of the training offered by such companies. 

The signs do not look good. Whistle-blowers are starting to come forward. On the TRIGGERnometry podcast, former Google employee Taras Kobernyk alleges that he was fired after challenging company equity training. He argues that the training was ideological: 

“We were getting bombarded by messages from top management regarding all these ideologies … I decided to ask the question whether some actions inside of the company complied with the company’s policies about discrimination. And I got reported for asking that.”

Kobernyk also claims was reported for referring to ‘alleged racism’, instead of immediately believing that racism had occurred, which shows the influence of DiAngelo. 

Such an approach is political and needs to be investigated. Pressuring employees to believe certain ideologies crosses the line into soft totalitarianism. In a work situation, diversity of thought is vital as people may be hesitant about challenging a dominant view for fear of jeopardising their careers. It is essential that companies offer fair and balanced training. The Equiano Project has worked with some businesses to present a broader perspective, but regulation may also be needed. 

However, it goes further than this. Tech giants have powers beyond any normal company, and their use of it is extending into politics as a whole. After the Capitol Hill riots, Facebook and Twitter suspended President Trump from their platforms. Parler, a rival to Twitter, found its access to app stores and hosting services blocked by Apple, Google and Amazon. 

It is possible that, in the future, these companies may gain the power to rival that of nation-states. Within the industry, a techno-utopian movement has emerged and according to Ian Bremmer writing in The Times, “ [It] look[s] to a future in which the nation-state paradigm that has dominated geopolitics since the 17th century has been replaced by something different altogether”. He adds:

“Some of the world’s most powerful technology firms are headed by charismatic visionaries who see technology not just as a global business opportunity but also as a potentially revolutionary force in human affairs.”

It is important not to get carried away. Not everyone in tech subscribes to this view; nationalists and globalists play a big role too. Diem, a digital currency backed by Facebook (now renamed Meta), was scaled back following strong criticism from financial regulators. And many ordinary people are questioning the power of tech, particularly in the light of lockdown which revealed the limitations of communicating primarily via a screen.

However, the fact that such companies feel able to launch a currency and educate their employees shows huge ambition. If they gain power beyond that of nation-states, they could take over roles usually played by nation-states. So how they educate their employees (and indeed, whether they should be educating them in the first place) is of vital importance to us all. Their embrace of identity politics could be the start of something bigger.

All this has huge implications for democracy. If companies are creating political conformity now, it could develop into something more domineering for wider society in the future. Steps should be taken, using the law, if necessary, to ensure that businesses large and small respect the rights of staff to their own political views. The best future will be shaped by the majority, not the ideals of remote corporate visionaries.