Laura Kiely considers and critiques large corporations co-opting of the pride flag during the month of June, but lacking any true support for the LGBTQ community.
The genesis of LGBTQ+ Pride began with the Stonewall Riots in New York in June 1969; hence, why June is Pride month. In Dublin, however, it began with Ireland’s first LGBTQ+ group, The Sexual Liberation Movement (SLM), in October 1973. This was Ireland’s first organised group founded on a direct endeavour to support LGBTQ+ individuals. It was established by a group of Trinity College students who, in October and on June 27th 1974 put forth their first successful march outside Dublin’s Department of Justice in protest against the criminalisation of homosexuality. Today, Dublin celebrates Pride in June and has the SLM to thank as the precursor of progress made in the last 50+ years.
However, the assimilation of LGBTQ+ into the mainstream is still an ongoing process. The celebration of Pride is often exploited by massive fashion corporations that capitalise from temporarily engaging with LGBTQ+ identities to make a profit, before quickly erasing their rainbow-themed merchandise and advertisements by July 1st. When large clothing brands such as H&M release 30-day-long rainbow-themed stock it highlights their priority for short-term profit over genuine and sustained support for LGBTQ+ communities. In May 2018, just before June, H&M released their “Pride Out Loud” collection which garnered successful profits; today, the collection possesses a considerable consumer base. Albeit, only 10% of these proceeds are donated to queer foundations while the company keeps the rest.
When large clothing brands such as H&M release 30-day-long rainbow-themed stock it highlights their priority for short-term profit over genuine and sustained support for LGBTQ+ communities.
MI Leggett, the designer behind the genderless clothing brand "Official Rebrand" tells Teen Vogue; “Brands see June as an opportunity to capitalise on a culture that’s reaching mainstream acceptance.” Certainly, it may feel difficult to differentiate between tokenising and authentic support. Even when a campaign is achieved successfully, the fundamental question arises of who benefits materially. Unfortunately, it is conventional in our capitalist society that the lion’s share of profits funnel upwards rather than trickle down to compensate for the material well-being of LGBTQ+ lives. Beyond profit, it is difficult to say whether the top executives actually care for the identities they are appropriating.
It is conventional in our capitalist society that the lion’s share of profits funnel upwards rather than trickle down to compensate for the material well-being of LGBTQ+ lives.
The term “rainbow capitalism” has become increasingly prevalent in the discourse around the commercialisation of LGBTQ+ identities. Priya Elan tells The Guardian that “the question of who profits from rainbow capitalism is a sticky one […] to engage with the community sincerely and advocate for LGBTQ+ rights there is an onus on brands to put their money where their merch is.” Percentages as low as 10% from H&M or Balenciaga’s 15% are too shallow and only scrape the surface of the harsh realities experienced by LGBTQ+ lives all year round. An illustrative example of rainbow capitalism is Adidas’ ‘Pride Pack’ which was released in June of 2015. The issue was that Adidas has ongoing ties with FIFA and sponsors the World Cup, which they did when the tournament took place in Russia in 2018, a country with anti-LGBTQ+ laws. This hypocrisy underscores the tension between corporate gestures of “support” and their direct relationship with companies that display overt conflict towards those ostensibly being supported.
Research from Stonewall shows that almost 1 in 5 LGBTQ+ people have experienced homelessness at some point in their lives. Akt, the leading charity for young LGBTQ+ people experiencing homelessness in the UK, states that 77% of young LGBTQ+ people gave “family rejection, abuse or being asked to leave home” as causes for their homelessness. For the trans community, rates are even higher with 25% experiencing homelessness at some point in their lives. Branding awareness under a “one size fits all” blurs the disparate realities for LGBTQ+ individuals. What is imperative when brands market themselves as LGBTQ+-inclusive is that they go beyond the performative aspect of just releasing rainbow-themed stock and keeping up to 90% of the profits. Alex-Abad Santos tells Vox that “this consumerist donation structure creates a context of so-called slacktivism, giving brands and consumers alike a low-effort way to support social and political issues.”
What is imperative when brands market themselves as LGBTQ+-inclusive is that they go beyond the performative aspect of just releasing rainbow-themed stock and keeping up to 90% of the profits.
We are living in a time where performative activism or “slacktivism” runs the complex risk of erasing the foundations of meaningful activism. When brands render “awareness” into a commodity it does not guarantee that the capital raised will go towards any sort of tangible outcome. It is paramount to consistently register the differences between corporate interests and authentic activism if we want to maximise support for LGBTQ+ communities. There have been cases where such corporations have successfully been held accountable for their inauthentic actions, and this process should be repeated until real, meaningful change is brought about.