The first thing that comes to mind, illustrated stunningly by this hilarious editorial on Disneyworld (unfortunately now behind a paywall) is that there is a fundamental shift in what is under assault. It is no longer the hallowed classics of Shakespeare, Dickens, and Milton that are under attack but Mr. Potato Head, "Trader Sam," and some of Dr. Seuss forgotten books. Woke is what happens when the canon wars go low, threatening the detritus of junk culture. This also changes the nature of the defense from this assault. Whereas the defenders of the classics could write The Closing of the American Mind and make a claim for the universality of western culture, the contemporary defenders of toys and theme parks have to embrace the irreducible particularity of their claim. Jokes about headhunters, "eskimos," and African savages only seem fun and harmless if you are not affected by them. What is being defended in many of these cases are the pleasures of casual racism.
The second difference is that while college professors and their duped students are still the primary purveyors of woke culture the list of villains now includes corporations. All of the decisions referred to above were made by the corporations themselves. In fact what is often bemoaned as a "woke" decision is really just marketing. What the ardent Disney fan above seems to miss is that Disney is in the process of making a film based on its ride, and the retooling of the ride will eventually match the film. Disney seems to excel at this particular kind of cultural recycling, making live action films that are adaptations of its animated films and so on, becoming a kind of cultural perpetual motion machine.
Moving beyond the passionate defenders of junk culture, and turning our attention to more important matters, the recent limitations to voting passed in Georgia, restrictions that disproportionate affect urban, working, and minority voters, have been met with boycotts and condemnations by corporations from Major League Baseball to Delta airlines. This has created the odd effect of politicians, the very same politicians who take in millions of corporate donations chastising corporate America for its influence in politics.
Taken together these two aspects of the current battle against the "outrage industrial complex" to use McConnell's term, which I must admit I kind of like, are part of the twilight of the bourgeoisie. By decline of the bourgeoisie I do not mean the decline of the power of capital, of those who own the means of production, nor do I necessarily mean, as others have argued, a neofeudalism. Rather following Balibar, I mean the creation of a "class of the super-rich which no longer have any pretension of distinction other than consumption." To which I would add that the decline of pretension of distinction is also a decline of universalism. Part of what sustained the bourgeoisie as a class, and as form of rule, was not only its distinction, the culture and norms which supposedly made it better, but its universalism, that anyone could acquire this culture and norms. Hence the importance of education and the ideology of meritocracy during the heyday of its rule. The contemporary ruling class claims no particular distinction. As much as I hate to bring him up, Trump was perhaps the first post-bourgeois president, or at the very least the presidency in the decline of the symbolic efficacy of the bourgeois.