Come June 1st, all merchandise is splashed with rainbows and all companies have pride flags in their logos. Instagram hashtags are colourful, and we’re faced with puns (sometimes cringeworthy) that declare their support to the queer community. Everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon and advertise their “inclusivity” in order to increase sales. This is rainbow capitalism. Often referred to as “pink capitalism” or “pinkwashing,” rainbow capitalism is a term used to describe the commercialisation of LGBTQ+ symbols and movements by corporations for profit. At first glance, rainbow capitalism might appear as a supportive gesture, with companies releasing limited-edition rainbow-themed products during Pride Month or donating a portion of their profits to LGBTQ+ organisations, but one only needs to take a second glance to see that these gestures often lack genuine commitment to the cause they claim to support and can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and inequalities.
It is argued that just as greenwashing absorbs environmental struggles and hides the ecologically harmful practices of corporate firms, pinkwashing flattens the queer movement by absorbing the role of marginalised communities involved in these struggles. It commodifies nearly every part of queer life, and sometimes this leads to branding campaigns that range from cringeworthy to straight-up offensive (pun intended). This can reinforce harmful stereotypes and tokenisms, where queer individuals are valued primarily for their consumer power rather than their humanity. Their individual identities and struggles are swallowed up by the greater focus on targeting typically “queer” consumers. By focusing solely on the surface-level aesthetics of the movement, corporations can conveniently ignore the unique challenges faced by queer people of colour and those in less accepting regions. This erasure of intersectional identities contributes to the broader issue of systemic discrimination within the LGBTQ+ movement itself.
Associate Professor of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion at Ryerson University, Ben Barry says, “[t]hrowing rainbows on t-shirts and jackets…these looks continue to uphold a binary rather than unstitching it.” He also argues that this affects people’s perception of queer liberation, sometimes, confining the discussion on queer issues to gay rights and marriage. Pride revolves more around consumerism and heteronormativity as corporations ignore its history which is closely tied to racism and colonialism.
Sometimes corporations take part in Pride because of the social pressure to take a stand – they are forced to take part in every social awareness week or month, because they will stand out more if they don’t. Though seemingly progressive on the surface, this culture is harmful if you look deeper. Taking a stand when you’d rather not, and when you’d rather stick to the grey area in the middle, has serious implications. It can easily lead to the spread of unverified information and misinformation. This also makes people question the authenticity of LGBTQ+ supportive branding. Pride Month advertising thus comes off as forced and synthetic. It leads us to question what accountability actually means in the context of such a culture.
It is interesting to look at how many of these companies continue their support for Pride outside of Pride Month, and if they actually have a policy for LGBTQ+ employees – especially policies for transgender people. In fact, according to an Accenture study in India, 79% of the queer employees claimed that their career growth slowed down after they came out and began to express their identity.
What consumers expect out of corporations these days is not a slew of colourful and cheerful slogans in Pride Month, but real support that is extended throughout the year. Therefore, the question at the heart of the debate is how companies should stand for the queer community in a meaningful and accountable way. Dorian Electra, an American singer-songwriter, released a white t-shirt with the rainbow logos of many American companies which have a history of brutalisation against the queer community, like Disney, to show that we see through these companies; their act isn’t fooling anyone.
However, there are some who argue that any representation is a step in the right direction, especially in authoritarian countries with little to no freedom of expression. Writing in Harvard Political Review, Fresh Pisuttisarun says, “If an app changing color is enough to bolster the hope of a gay boy in the Middle East or a trans woman in South America, that is a small win that we should first accept, rather than shun completely.” However, these should not mask the LGBTQ+ exploitation by those very same companies.
All in all, rainbow capitalism puts company profits at the forefront while pushing the real fire behind the Stonewall Riots to the back. All intersectionality conveniently ignored, in the end, even Pride Month is straightjacketed to be marketed to consumers.
Edited by Amirtha Varshini V C
Article 19 