Monetizing activism; commodification of identity

- Ronkinee Sengupta

We currently live in a society where capitalist system is the one profiting from commodification of identity. Influencers, artists, activists are turning into brands knowingly, or unknowingly. Just for the sake of earning, people are giving into the capitalist system, meanwhile their own identity suffers existence. Monetizing activism and resistance often strips off their original intention for profit.

‘Woke-washing’ in genZ terms, highlights the issue where companies express their seemingly unwavering support to socially suppressed communities, or even using gender equality issues for profit. Through smart marketing strategies, they appear to be socially conscious while making no meaningful change. ‘Rainbow capitalism’ refers to corporations including LGBTQ+ symbols and language into their marketing. Huge companies are using Pride month based logos, while doing little to no work to actually support the targetted communities. It is often criticised for the lack of solid support throughout the year for queer people. While most brands pretend to be anti-racism, make posters about ‘Black history month’, they’re themselves guilty of not paying fair wage to their black employees. It is quite ironic to think how the larger-than-life brands profit from such shallow advertising, appearing to be empathetic towards the communities and we the consumers, blindly fall into their traps. 

Another word that we hear quite often nowadays is; Pink tax. It is a marketing strategy targetted towards women that stems from ancient patriarchal norms. Certain high expectations have been set on women and gender-based pricing is one of the most cruel ones. Fashion brands set the MRP for clothes made for women, way higher than the ones made for men. Makeup products, accessories, are extremely overpriced. Even when it comes to basic necessities like sanitary napkins, brands like Whisper, StayFree, Sofy, make a large profit out of the sales. Since it is quite obvious that regular life without this is practically impossible for menstruating individuals, their sales wont ever go down irrespective of the amount they sell their products for. So the companies make a significant profit from this. Skincare for men and pink tax are like two sides of the same coin. While skincare for women is normalised, brands make products extremely pricey for men to the point middle class men no longer afford to buy skincare. Addressing toxic masculinity in conversations might dilute this issue in the long run, and the notion that skincare is feminine should be challenged. 

There have been numerous recent examples where political movements, activism and protest has been marketed and made into commodities for profit. Referring to the recent revolt against the RG Kar catastrophe, protest nearly became a social media trend, feeding the apps like Instagram and Facebook with what they crave the most, data, and that too data that’s going viral on reels and content for people to consume. Ofcourse keeping in mind the fact that these have helped spread awareness but somewhere in the middle of politics and radical rebellion, the movement lost its value. Brands making t-shirts with graphics that say “Tilottoma’r joy”, “Justice for RG Kar”, while the brand themselves do not participate in the revolt, they made profits from these entities. On a wider aspect, feminism is also hot topic brands love to exploit. The image of an activist sells. In recent times a woman in West Bengal claims to be a Men’s Rights Activist, while being blatantly oblivious to the plight of women. She gets millions of views and has obviously monetized her work. Even though claiming to chase equality, she ends up putting down women yet she’s a famous internet personality. Activism becomes content; visibility is rewarded, but algorithms can distort or dilute radical messages.

Cultural appropriation is yet another example of commercialization of identity. Brands like H&M and Reformation, faced criticism for releasing designs resembling traditional South Asian garments like lehengas and salwar kameez without due credit to the origins. Such actions raise concerns about the erasure of cultural identities and the commodification of cultural elements. In 2022, Dior was accused of cultural appropriation for selling a $3,800 skirt resembling the traditional Chinese "mamianqun." The lack of acknowledgment of the garment's origins led to protests and widespread criticism. Victoria’s Secret has used Native American headdresses and Chinese dragon motifs in their fashion shows, often without proper context or respect. British designer Stella McCartney featured African Ankara prints in her Paris Fashion Week collection — modeled almost entirely by white models. Many accused the brand of using African culture as aesthetic while erasing black people from the narrative and the profits. 

The topics I covered might be the tip of an iceberg in the real issue of commercialization of identity, and we genuinely live in a sad state of affairs where consumerism wins over real motives of resistance and activism. We should all educate ourselves with real information and start boycotting such capitalist systems, to preserve the original meaning and value of the protests and issues.