Social Justice Weaponizing as a Form of Micro-Aggression

by Llewellyn J. Cornelius, PhD, LCSW

     With the democratization of social media on the internet, we are seeing both efforts to create social justice space online and pushback against these social justice allies. Phrases representing this pushback include “weaponizing social justice” and  “social injustice." In this counterattack on social justice, influencers and power brokers are manipulating the meaning of words that advocates and allies are using to promote social justice, equity, and fairness. They are also engaging in emotional, verbal, and physical assaults to stop or deter the activities of social justice and equity allies. These are merely new ways of engaging in the vast array of tactics of oppressing people that was analyzed in detail by Paulo Friere (2000) in his classic work The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. This essay summarizes some of these weaponizing tactics and offers solutions for countering them.

Weaponizing Tactics

     One of the ways in which influencers/power brokers have engaged in weaponizing social justice is by taking a term that originally meant in the 1960s “to be awake (wokeness)” to the meaning of social oppression in communities and using the same word “wokeness” to get people to argue with and fight against one another (Zavattarro, 2022). This occurred by using peaceful social protests against the horrors of homicides against African Americans, like George Floyd, to denigrate peaceful social protesters by calling them “thugs” (Kalich & Entin, 2021).

     A second way in which influencers/power brokers have used weaponizing tactics to oppress others is by engaging in what DaCosta, Lee, and Her (2021) call “linguistics racism" as a means to invoke hatred and violence against a class of people. This type of racism occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic when politicians claimed that Asians were spreaders of the "China" or “Wuhan” [COVID-19] virus (p.102). These incendiary statements led to verbal, emotional, and physical assaults against Asians.

     A third example of how influencers/power brokers have used weaponizing tactics to hinder social justice allyship is via taking “advantage of the anonymity of social media and free speech to unleash vitriol against individuals" (Smith, James, & Griffith, 2020). In this case, the owner of a widely popular plant-based feminine care product line, "the Next Black Girl," received extremely negative reviews for posting a 15-second commercial fostering African American entrepreneurship (Grant, 2020).

     Several themes underlie these types of weaponizing tactics.

• The manipulation of the thoughts or actions of others via the use of micro-assault tactics. This type of micro assault occurs via the use of  “data" out of context or emotionally laden language to inflame people. On the micro level, individual influencers distort publicly available information to invoke anger against or fear of a person. On the macro level, anonymously funded Political Action Groups (PACs) flood social media outlets with visual, verbal, or written assaults, all while hiding the identities of the transgressors.   

• Elected officials use the policy-making process to limit social democracy or penalize individuals who attempt to hold them accountable. An example of limiting social democracy would be restricting how people vote and making voting inconvenient or difficult. An example of penalizing whistleblowers would be to impose a fine on persons who attempt to use the Freedom of Information Act to document transgressions by elected officials.

Countering Weaponization Tactics via Restorative Social Justice

     We can best limit these weaponizing social justice tactics by engaging in restorative justice practices. One of the ways we can restore justice here is via creating brave spaces to allow for fostering respectful difficult/contentious conversations. More than 20 years ago, the Public Conversations Project developed a model based on family therapy principles to create such brave spaces (see https://tinyurl.com/ycksavy3).

     A second way we can restore justice here is by naming and calling out oppression, in this case, by constantly monitoring inequities, fostering individual and community empowerment, and engaging in affirmative policy action. These approaches have been noted by the World Health Organization (WHO) in their WHO Social Determinants of Health (SDH) Model (Solar & Irwin, 2010) as critical to the promotion of well-being. We can also restore justice in this manner via tapping into the elements of the NASW Code of Ethics that focus on our being active agents in counter discrimination (Section 4.02). 

     A third way we can restore justice is via pushing against anonymity and pushing for transparency in the ways we communicate electronically. In addition to the above, we need to increase our sensitivity to the ways in which people can hide their identities via email and social media. This lack of transparency can even occur when we choose not to show our faces on video conference calls. This lack of transparency can also occur more deliberately by agencies and companies using computerized communication software (“bots”) as a substitute for live encounters.

     We can finally restore justice here by fighting against participating in the Diversity Olympics. The Diversity Olympics occurs when one group acts as though its form of diversity should be more privileged than someone else’s type of diversity.

     In the end, this is a reminder that we should counter weaponizing social justice tactics via fostering community-driven collective empowerment and liberation efforts targeting under-resourced populations and being careful not to push our agendas at the expense of these under-resourced communities.

References

De Costa, P. I., Her, L. & Lee, V. (2022). Weaponizing and de-weaponizing antiracist discourse. Some things for language educators to consider. International Journal of Literacy, Culture, and Language Education, 2, 98-107. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijlcle.v2iMay.34380

Freire, P. ( 2000).  Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.

Grant, J. (2020). Exclusive: Honey pot founder Beatrice Dixon responds to racist backlash from Target commercial. Essence. https://www.essence.com/feature/honey-pot-founder-beatrice-dixon-responds-racist-backlash-target-commercial-black-history-month/

Kalich, S., & Entin, B. (2021). One year later: The aftermath of George Floyd’s death. New Nation Now. https://www.newsnationnow.com/race-in-america/timeline-one-year-since-george-floyd-death/

Smith, D. C., James, C. D., & Griffith, M. A. (2021).  Co-brand partnerships making space for the next black girl: Backlash in social justice branding. Psychology & Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21566

Solar, O., & Irwin, A. (2010). A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health. Social Determinants of Health Discussion Paper 2.  Figure B. Framework for tackling SDH inequities. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44489/9789241500852_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Zavattaro, S. M. (2022). How “woke” became weaponized in the culture wars. USApp – American Politics and Policy Blog (28 Mar 2022).  Blog Entry. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2022/03/28/how-woke-became-weaponized-in-the-culture-wars/

Dr. Llewellyn J. Cornelius is the Donald Lee Hollowell Distinguished Professor of Social Justice and Civil Rights Studies and Director, Center for Social Justice, Human, and Civil Rights at the University of Georgia.