Lena Dunham, feminist and film industry professional, told “The Guardian” on Nov. 2, 2014, “if feminism has to become a brand in order to fully engulf our culture and make change, I’m not complaining.” Whether it’s a faux feminist rally ending a Chanel runway show in Paris with models holding posters with messages about women’s rights, or the women’s group The Fawcett Society being accused of manufacturing T-shirts for a feminist campaign in a sweatshop in Mauritius, the emergence of and focus on “brand” feminism is problematic.
It seems that Dunham sees branded feminism as a vehicle toward equality and social change. Perhaps she conceptualizes branded feminism as a way to increase awareness of issues that feminism tackles. I do not doubt that Dunham’s intentions are good, and this isn’t a personal attack on her. It’s also possible that other feminists would also argue that the current development of a commercialized feminism would be good for the cause. But at what cost can feminism be branded?
Feminism, like other social movements, is complex because of the multiplicity of member experiences and perspectives, called intersectionality. There is no cookie-cutter, ideal feminist. Commercializing feminism to appeal to a wider base of people may result in reductionist practices, which may be detrimental in addressing and changing the societal inequalities that feminism works against. While social movements often simplify ideologies to garner a wider membership, in doing so, feminism may be risking superficiality. Feminism is a field in which many women of color, for example, have already expressed that their stories or voices are heard less than those of white feminists. So how will the potential simplification of feminism affect the inequalities or marginalization within feminism? How will efforts to expand the membership pool affect current members?
Race plays a factor in the marketing decisions that are taken by companies and the purchasing decisions made by consumers. For example, according to a 2013 study by the Economic Journal of the Royal Economic Society, if a black person advertises a product, consumers are less likely to buy it, except in areas where the local population is predominantly black. “Buyers might not be trying to avoid buying from black sellers, per se, but are trying to avoid something else that they think is correlated with race: traveling to a dangerous neighborhood, buying stolen goods, etc.,” said University of Virginia professor and co-author of the study Jennifer Doleac about the results.
While some marketing agencies have made efforts to produce positive multi-racial advertising, marketing is not an apolitical enterprise that is independent of ideas found in society, including racial discrimination and stereotyping.
Karl Lagerfeld, head designer of Chanel and instrumental in the protest at the label’s September show, was both lauded and criticized for the rally. My concern is that when feminism is co-opted by an industry or commercial enterprise, the movement will lose substance or legitimacy if it develops from a movement to a marketing tactic.
What will become of feminism if it predominantly comes to be associated with clothing or skin products, for example? Or if feminism is understood as a marketing fad and is subsequently replaced by whatever new, trendy product that arises? The ultimate goal in the marketing of products, for example, is to sell. If feminism is no longer a viable option for making money, why would companies or industries continue to use it as a marketing strategy? Will feminism become “so last year?”
Expanding the membership base for feminism is a worthy cause for the movement, but how branding is executed can be problematic. Who gets to brand feminism and for what purpose? Who gets to exercise their agency? If feminism is about advocating and working toward equality, the co-opting of feminism as a brand can perpetuate unequal power structures in society, including those involving race and racism. Why should a fashion professional or a film professional dictate what feminism is or does over other people who are involved with the movement? Many social movements have leaders, but how are Dunham and Lagerfeld, for example, appropriate as those who shape discourse about feminism in the media?
Perhaps the action to take is to foster conversation about the issues rather than focus on commercializing the concept of feminism itself. That is a complex challenge, and I imagine that much trial and error would have to be employed to figure out how to attract more people to feminism. It would be a shame for feminism to go the way of Che Guevara t-shirts. They are widely worn, but who knows if consumers actually know what Guevara fought for and who he was? Maybe buyers wear the t-shirt because they think it’s trendy and don’t know the backstory. Social movements lose power and legitimacy when they become caricatures of themselves. When the fad fizzles, what will happen to the fight for social change?
