Broader statement that can be applied to any business/industry but I’ve always suspected the whole ‘woke phenomenon’ was just a way for a brand/business to be more risk-averse. You need serious capital to finance serious projects which would have higher return yield than say, a crowdfunded homegrown startup or whatever.
I think more and more companies/businesses/people though are realizing being ‘woke’ is not that potent of a risk deterrent they once assumed…so yes ‘go woke go broke’ is a thing (though not entirely true either). However being ‘woke’ does more to ensure you have a steady relationship to big creditors, ie banks, who can loan you the money you need for the big undertakings. Banks will drop you if you’re a neo-nazi for example.
How does this relate to fashion? Well same thing is going on, and has been going on, because it’s commercial (minor) art. Independent designers who don’t need that institutional backing might be more boundary pushing in their narrative/designs but I’m guessing at some point, if they want to scale, they’d want to tone it down…
On a final note, I remember coming across that NYT article on Elena Velez/business of fashion from a Bliss Foster video, and I looked at what that girl is doing now to finance her brand; she’s just schmoozing up to ‘right wing’ patrons ie Thiel, Red Scare, Praxis types. Maybe they have the money/connections/resources to help launch her into something bigger (I doubt it) but it shows the rise of alternate moneyed institutions could help counteract the homogenizing influence of conglomerates like LVMH (maybe for the worse, we’ll see…)