In the first section, Hinsliff reflects on the symbolic power of the 2020 protests-most vividly the toppling of Edward Colston’s statue in Bristol-and how such dramatic acts of protest raised awareness but failed to translate into enduring systemic change. She draws parallels between contemporary activism and historical movements, highlighting figures like suffragette Theresa Garnett and participants in the 1963 Bristol bus boycott. While these past movements have since been broadly celebrated, she notes, modern protest-whether around BLM, trans rights, climate action, or no-platforming-is far more contested and widely labelled as “woke,” especially when it is seen as loud, acrimonious, or online-centric. Public opinion and recent court rulings suggest that progressive causes have met a significant backlash.
In the second part of the essay, Hinsliff examines the critique of today’s “woke” activism as being overly performative, abrasive, and out of step with broader societal sentiment. Quoting research from More in Common, she suggests that progressive activists often overestimate public support for their views-on issues like immigration, free speech, trans rights-and underestimate the need for persuasion and coalition-building. She argues that for “woke” causes to regain momentum, advocates must adopt more inclusive, measured communication tactics: focusing less on moral grandstanding and more on framing systemic issues in relatable terms, bridging divides, and emphasising practical, incremental progress-especially within working-class and “Red Wall” communities.