How "Anti-Woke" Language Harms Our Well-being
It Damages Mental Health, Connection, & Community
Over the past month, I’ve found myself posting essay after essay on language and mental health. As a mental health professional, I work with adults and children every week as they struggle to navigate the complexities of their inner lives and a world that too often invalidates them. That’s why the widespread anti-DEI ideology and rhetoric—often labeled “anti-woke”—is not just political theater. It’s corrosive to mental health, human connection, and a stable sense of self. This rhetoric is not merely uninformed, it often functions as a sophisticated and subtle form of racism, frequently denying the very systemic barriers that decades of social science research have meticulously documented.
The Unseen Burden
It’s crucial to acknowledge that, like any broad social movement, the implementation of DEI initiatives—intended to guard against unfair discrimination and promote human dignity—can sometimes be imperfect. There's no such thing as a perfect social movement; that’s never existed and likely never will. One size doesn’t necessarily fit all. We've seen instances where generally helpful programs, despite good intentions, have been poorly executed, leading to misunderstandings, resentment, or a focus on superficial metrics rather than deep systemic change for a better world.
Indeed, some early or poorly designed diversity training programs, for instance, have been shown in meta-analyses to be ineffective or even counterproductive if not part of a broader, systemic approach. These are what the critics focus on. But such flaws in execution do not invalidate the foundational human need to feel seen, valued, and safe, nor do they negate the great social benefits of striving for truly inclusive communities. The point of these programs was never to instill guilt. I am making a much more nuanced point. Yes, there are pros and cons—trade-offs. And unfortunately, some reverse discrimination does exist.
However, this authoritarian critique of DEI's implementation often sidesteps the profound human need to feel recognized and understood, a need that is integral to our well-being. Acknowledging and validating fundamental human emotional processing is not antithetical to reasoning and logic; rather, it’s often a necessary pathway to it.
When individuals feel psychologically safe enough to acknowledge their emotional responses to injustice, they are far better equipped to engage in rational problem-solving and critical thinking. Validating an emotion is not an endorsement. It simply acknowledges that emotion exists among many others as part of our human experience.
At its core, “anti-woke” rhetoric mocks the strength of human diversity and systemic barriers to basic human dignity. The mockery itself stokes division and spreads fear, irrational mistrust, and hateful expression, especially on social media. For instance, hate crimes in the U.S. reached their highest level in over a decade in 2020 with over 8,200 reported incidents, according to the FBI, with a significant number targeting Blacks, Jews, and LGBTQ+ individuals. While subsequent years show some fluctuations, the underlying trend and disproportionate targeting remain a concerning constant. For those whose lives are directly shaped by these experiences, this can lead to profound invalidation of the emotional processing we must all do as human beings.
The realities, the histories, and the obstacles people face are denied or made light of and shamed. It’s like telling an antisemitic or racist joke. What’s the harm? By denying the validity of these experiences as real data points on systemic issues, this abrasive invalidation and devaluation is compounded when it occurs even within therapeutic spaces that should be sanctuaries for processing difficult experiences like grief and loss.
I've had clients disclose that previous mental health professionals discouraged or even forbade discussing certain realities, dismissing them as “political” rather than deeply personal and painful psychological experiences. Let’s examine the verifiable evidence. When the very profession meant to validate and support human experience participates in this silencing, it doubles the harm—clients learn not only that their experiences and need for emotional processing don’t matter to the community at large, but that they shouldn't even matter to themselves.
As mental health advocates and professionals, we see how fundamental it is for everyone, particularly children as they grow, to process their emotions and feel truly understood. This helps them develop a strong inner sense of right and wrong, rather than constantly needing outside approval. A little friction and pushback are sometimes necessary, and that’s healthy.
However, when the leaders of larger government and social groups (influencers) actively and destructively invalidate a segment of their populations, they undermine basic human dignity. It sets up an adversarial “us versus them” mindset. You are essentially being told that you are worth-less. This is what authoritarian leaders (and parents) do.
Constant daily invalidation in our language also adds a persistent, low-level burden. For those navigating the world with marginalized identities, escalating anti-DEI sentiment creates a constant drone of anxiety. They are likely to feel more vulnerable and less safe to be their authentic selves in everyday environments like at school or work or even shopping in their local businesses. They’re essentially being told that they don’t belong and don’t have a right to be here.
This isn’t about odd, isolated incidents but creating a pervasive and growing hostile atmosphere—a culture perpetuating a quiet weariness of constantly wondering if you belong, if you'll be judged, or if your concerns will be met with derision and dismissed rather than with understanding. Over time, this excessive friction wears down a person’s resilience and capacity for joy. Despite the clichés, ongoing antagonism does not necessarily strengthen us. We all have limits. None of us is perfect.
And it’s ethically dubious for psychologists selling their books to hide behind a false neutrality or “objectivity,” cherry-picking research to undermine fundamentally sound DEI or to confirm their own systemic (authoritarian) political biases. Evidence-based practice should not be weaponized to dismiss or “punch down” lived experiences—knowledge should be used to deepen our understanding of them. That’s a variety of scientific racism, and unethical pseudoscience at its core. For true understanding, and thus true reason, to flourish, psychological safety is essential. When our safety is eroded by invalidation, access to rational engagement and growth diminishes for everyone. This is basic conflict resolution strategy.
Among other authoritarian regimes, the Third Reich chillingly illustrates how ‘reason’ and ‘science,’ when divorced from empathy and ethics, can be weaponized to justify systemic dehumanization and summary detentions. Their ‘rational’ application of eugenics and appeals to efficiency demonstrate that cold, calculating logic, rather than unreason, can lead to horrific ends when it systematically erodes empathy and suppresses dissent in the name of a twisted “truth.” Just as historical scientific racism justified slavery, colonialism, and eugenics, the contemporary weaponization of “anti-woke” rhetoric justifies the silencing, harassment, and marginalization of those who challenge existing inequalities.
Moreover, anti-DEI efforts often strip away hope. Well-designed, ethically sound DEI initiatives represent tangible attempts to build a more just and fair world. When these efforts are aggressively attacked and belittled by our own leaders and public figures, it leaves many feeling stuck in persistent unfairness, believing that a reasonable equity is unattainable. As mental health advocates, we see how hope acts as a powerful guide and lubrication in navigating life’s challenges. Hope strengthens us and gives our lives meaning.
When broader academic and social conversations actively dismantle or block avenues for progress, it leaves individuals with a profound sense of resignation, a demoralization which can be truly debilitating. Perhaps that is the point of authoritarian rhetoric: disruption and demoralization, in order to gain power and control of the narrative.
The Erosion of Unity
Beyond individual distress, this corrosive anti-woke ideology and rhetoric damages the interwoven “fabrics” of our communities. Its language can strangely frame empathy and understanding across differences as “divisive.” Isn’t that interesting. Divisive to whom?
This becomes deceptively manufactured authoritarian propaganda. Unfortunately, I’ve found “staged” videos on social media that play into this division in order to gain viewers, exploiting both “woke” and “anti-woke” rhetoric. In reality, both forms of extreme rhetoric create division by demonizing genuine efforts to bridge gaps, directly undermining robust social science evidence showing that diverse and inclusive teams actually foster stronger unity and better collaboration. The whole point is to advance all of humanity, not just an elite few.
For example, research by organizations like McKinsey & Company has repeatedly shown that ethnically diverse companies are 35% more likely to financially outperform their industry peers, and gender-diverse companies are 15% more likely to do so, attributing this partly to improved problem-solving and collective intelligence. The anti-DEI rhetoric fosters suspicion within teams and between groups, making it more difficult to connect and build genuinely strong, constructive relationships. It undermines cohesiveness and a robust scientific consensus.
When certain experiences are deemed “out of bounds” for discussion by government agencies, or when people are told their lived realities are being exaggerated, it builds brick walls of mistrust between neighbors, colleagues, and even within families. In fact, minimizing or discounting emotional reactions is a way to disconnect people from each other. The trust and open communication mandatory for healthy relationships in therapy sessions (or any healthy conversation) are just as crucial for healthy families and communities. The corrosive rhetoric often found in social media poisons the well of family trust, making authentic connection much harder for everyone.
This ongoing language also actively shrinks our capacity for empathy. By ridiculing “wokeness” and efforts to see the world from different perspectives, it discourages understanding and curiosity of what it means to be human rather than opening us up to new possibilities and new meaning. That’s precisely what a neo-fascist authoritarian regime would aim to do in order to maintain power and control over the narrative. When we lose the ability to genuinely step into another’s shoes and understand their joys and struggles, we become less humane, less connected, and ultimately, less able to solve our shared, complex problems. From a therapeutic perspective, empathy and trust are the bedrock of healing and healthy human interaction. When authoritarian governments actively disincentivize it, we create colder, harsher, and ultimately less meaningful communities.
The overall result is more anxious, fragmented, and weaker communities. When public discourse is characterized by hostility towards inclusion, it perpetuates a general sense of unease. People become more guarded, less willing to engage in civil discussions, and more prone to hostility. We see this on social media every day, generating a less psychologically safe environment for everyone, not just those directly targeted. A cesspool of distrust weakens our relationships. Just as a dysfunctional family system impacts every member, a social system that promotes division (silos) and invalidation creates a background hum of stress that affects us all.
Preventing Shared Growth & Resilience
Finally, extreme ideological rhetoric prevents all of us from emotionally and intellectually growing. Engaging with diverse perspectives and challenging our own assumptions is an important path to our capacity for true psychological expansion. When we discuss systemic barriers, it is not to diminish individual achievement or to suggest that individuals are inherently responsible for historical injustices. Rather, it is to acknowledge that the playing field sometimes becomes uneven, and that truly fair communities require actively working to remove obstacles that disproportionately affect particular groups, so that talent and effort can genuinely flourish from all corners. This empowers us all.
When the rhetoric discourages this, it keeps individuals in narrower understandings of themselves and the world. It shrinks our intellectual and emotional horizons, preventing us from learning about the richness of human experience and the wisdom that comes from it. As mental health advocates, we aim to help others explore new ways of seeing themselves and in so doing, the rest of the world. Corrosive rhetoric actively prevents that community-level growth, leaving us collectively more rigid, less adaptable, and truly less intelligent. Less resilient.
From my perspective observing human distress and resilience daily, the ideological rhetoric against diversity, equity, and “wokeness” is not merely about policy or politics. It represents a retreat from the very qualities that foster psychological well-being: empathy, understanding, authenticity, and a shared sense of dignity. Empowerment. Like spending too much time on social media, it leaves us all feeling cynical, less safe, less connected, less hopeful, and less than what we could be.
For mental health advocates and professionals, healing requires us to create and support spaces for all parts of a person's consciousness to be acknowledged. As I noted earlier, a little friction can be healthy—the key is ensuring it serves growth rather than invalidation. We all need to show that same fundamental respect for wholeness if we want to thrive as empowered human beings rather than to merely survive as human doings.