Author: Soumya Shukla

Clean girl is untainted, clean girl is fresh, clean girl is natural, clean girl is deeply racist and classist. 

Who is A Clean Girl?

Growing up, I was always ashamed of my mother’s weekly hair oiling sessions: hair drenched in ‘smelly’ coconut oil, divided and laid out into neat braids, face shining. The same slicked back glossy hair that I see my feed online being bombarded by now. The only difference? This time none of the girls looked like me or my family.

The clean girl aesthetic is hard to ignore. Your social media must be dominated by this girl, she’s effortlessly gorgeous with her ‘model off-duty look: gold hoops, rosy glowing skin, slicked-back bun – all while looking like she spent no time getting there. 

This trend has surged on Tiktok this year, with the tag, going viral, having amassed 1.3B views since then. This aesthetic is loved by all – makeup tutorials going viral, inspired styling videos, and even celebrities putting their own spin on it.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Hailey Rhode Baldwin Bieber (@haileybieber)

However, despite this trend being loved by many, the face of this trend that the algorithm promotes consistently has the same similarities. Being “clean” according to Tiktok implies being white, skinny, able-bodied, having unblemished skin and straight hair. Opposing these Eurocentric ideals of beauty means being “dirty” or “trashy”. This aesthetic excludes any person of racialised descent, thus exacerbating the class divide within our society.

How is it Problematic?

The clean girl look has been a part of the heritage of black and brown women and therein begins the cascade of problems with this aesthetic. It serves as another culture stylised and reduced to a mere trend being appropriated by white women. Propagating notions that things are only deemed as classy and beautiful once they are associated with the Western lens. This relates strongly to Vatnam Sirdee’s ideas on the importance of racism to the making of modernity, as racism has been fundamental to the production and articulation of a concept such as the ‘clean girl’.

Clean puts an emphasis on “white femininity”. A call-back to the unsullied, untainted, rosy-faced beauties of the Victorian era that has been historically seen as the epitome of a pure woman. In stark contrast to other women of colour and femmes. There is no space for hyper-pigmentation, acne, unruly hair, larger bodies or any other cultural signifiers.

But people of colour isn’t the only one being harmed by this trend, to be a ‘clean girl’ also means fitting into a certain lifestyle and to do that, you need to belong to a certain social strata. ‘Clean girl’ requires you to be at your best, it’s far from effortless.

Future of Beauty

The trend of appropriation is an ongoing practice, picking and choosing elements of ethnic cultures that can be repackaged for consumption by the Western world while the original creators are put down. To combat this narrative, many creators of colour online have been trying to dominate the algorithm with their own take on the ‘clean girl’.

When it comes to the clean girl trend, the emphasis here should be on a redirection to crediting original creators, acknowledging cultural heritages and supporting platforms that want to educate others on issues affecting racialised minorities. The effects of this aesthetic rather than being narrow, can be impactful and consequential.

Being natural, as this aesthetic describes, should be seen as being comfortable and celebrating our own bodies. This can make all the change needed in how this trend is perceived.

Do brands really stand by what they advertise to us?

Skims Ideals and Controversy

Skims entered as a modern shapewear brand that seemed like the answer to many people’s prayers-inclusive, comfortable and chic-something that would help women all around the world embrace and accentuate their curves. The public reception was overwhelming, Kim Karshadian, the brand’s creator, made $2 million dollars off of her first Skims products within minutes of its launch. This was a breaking record in the amount of shapewear sales made in a single day ever.

Skims is only endorsed by many celebrities – Megan Fox, Kendall Jenner, Paris Hilton, Kate Moss all being featured wearing the products. Its campaigns and posts online regularly show women of all ethnicities and sizes lounging around gracefully, looking serene and seductive. It was one of these posts where users on Tiktok pointed at a distortion that can be noticed near one of her fingers, alluding to a possible photoshop fail.

Although this is not the first time something like this has happened to the family of influencers – regularly outed for their egregious photoshop fails.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Kim Kardashian (@kimkardashian)

Can Kim Kardashian be a Spokesperson for Body Positivity?

Kim Kardashian is arguably one of the most influential people of our times. She’s known for erecting novel beauty trends, unrealistic body standards and overall setting unattainable expectations for women and young girls. This relates to Banet-Weiser’s opinion on corporate companies advertising seemingly feminist campaigns to vulnerable young women.

One such instance happened at the Met Gala, in reference to her squeezing into the infamous Marilyn Monroe dress, she told Vogue on the red carpet: “I tried [the dress] on and it didn’t fit me. I said, ‘Give me three weeks.I had to lose 16 pounds down today. It was such a challenge. It was like a [movie] role. I was determined to fit [into] it. I haven’t had carbs or sugar in about three weeks.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Kim Kardashian (@kimkardashian)

This statement faced a lot of backlash, with some celebrities like Lili Reinhart speaking out about how this set a harmful example to young and impressionable viewers.

Go Woke or Go Broke

Skims is one of many when it comes to brands not aligning with the ethos it communicated to its audience. This type of ‘virtue signalling’ has been driving purpose-driven advertising, growing into a big trend to turn profits under false pretence.

On the Skims website, an FAQ on sustainability states “At SKIMS, we are committed to the highest ethical standards and legal compliance in all aspects of our business and product supply chain. We only work with suppliers and vendors who we believe in and share our commitment to sustainability, accountability and transparency.” 

But upon searching the brand’s name on Good On You, a world-leading resource for trusted insight into ethical and sustainable brand ratings, SKIMS receives the overall rating of “1-we avoid”. Another misleading promise by the brand. 

As far as the claims of diversity and anti-racism go, the brand had a rocky start, having to rename itself from Kimono to Skims at its launch after massive backlash. The brand still qualifies as a fast-fashion brand, working with cheap labour that relies on systemised racism to manufacture its pieces. Despite some of the good ideals that the brand wants to represent, a closer look into how, when and where production takes place; a more transparent interaction with its customer base; and steps towards essential social and business ethical practices are necessary changes that the brand should consider.

The Celebrity Factor

The launch of Rihanna’s “Fenty Beauty” took the beauty industry by a storm. Partly due to Rihanna’s celebrity or maybe the groundbreaking ad campaigns and promise of inclusivity and diversity like never offered by any brand before, there was no stopping the rise of Fenty – leading to 500 million euro sales in its first year and catapulting Rihanna to Forbes’ Billionaires List.

A part of this venture is her lingerie brand SavagexFenty, which is all about embracing individuality and confidence via her coined “bad gal” attitude. Rihanna has leveraged her growing popularity online to completely revolutionise and eliminate any negative or ‘risky’ connotations that come with promoting a lingerie brand.

What Led to Savage X Fenty’s Massive Growth?

But that’s not the only thing that contributed to the brand’s success, Fenty’s innovative consumer-centric strategy was a disruptor, its growth outpacing any other in the highly competitive beauty industry category. 

Fenty realised the power of social media platforms and thus turned to user generated content with the help of its audience to drive engagement. A large proportion of its marketing budget goes into non-traditional channels – social media and influencers.  And the result? It rose to a cult status  – influencers, users and even celebrities themselves wanting to be a part of it.

“Demographically, customers are 35 percent Black, 30 percent white and 20 percent Latina”

Natalie Guzman, Savage X Fenty co-president and chief marketing officer

Besides that, the inclusion of ethnic, body and gender diversity is reflected in the sales demographics. “Demographically, customers are 35 percent Black, 30 percent white and 20 percent Latina” – Natalie Guzman, Savage X Fenty co-president and chief marketing officer, said while commenting on the diversity of their consumer base. The brand has worked to forge authentic connections with its customers, making sure it gives everyone a platform to express themselves and feel closer to the brand with its viral hashtag #SavageX.

A Look at SavagexFenty’s Extensive Influencer Marketing Program

Savage X Fenty is always finding ways to stand out amongst other lingerie retailers and it’s done that again with its steady stream of high-impact user generated content also. The #SavageX campaign reflects the brands ethos of fearlessness, confidence and body positivity. It gives influencers and consumers a chance to be highlighted on the company’s socials by uploading un-retouched pictures of themselves in the brand’s pieces.

Since the company operates solely online, UGC has helped it maximise its reach by being promoted on its brand ambassadors and influencers’ social media accounts. Its success can be credited to their online presence, they offer shipping to over 210 countries and its own subscription service that has now turned into a trend in retail.

The brand claimed an extra foothold by launching its own Influencer Marketing Program that can be found on their website too. Is Savage X Fenty working with Influencers? *(pic)  Their “influencer-first” strategy and partnership program offers flexible contracts, transparent reports and proportional compensation for all influencers that work with it.

Who is the Real Winner Here?

Savage X Fenty realises that commissions and contracted payments are the livelihood for full-time social media influencers and creators. A further look into their program states “Savage X Fenty closely tracks campaign-driven incremental sales and full-funnel contributions on a performance basis so each partner can be fairly compensated for the value she produces”. This shows how the internet is, to speak with Nick Srnicek, ‘not only the infrastructure of economic transactions’ but also the “very oxygen that allows us to innovate, collaborate, produce, exchange and consume goods and services”.

The brand’s undeniable success serves not only as an example for others to drive sales but also as a company that users would be happy to be attached with.

Digitalisation of Agriculture

The commons-based platform called Farm Hack fascinated me. This worldwide community of farmers, contributing to their joint journey towards a more resilient agriculture. It is a socio-economic model that is booming in agriculture worldwide. Coming from India, it is intriguing to see the impact of digitalisation in rural areas. The use of data in commons-based data can be crucial in helping farmers to deal with floods, droughts and other adversities.

Commons.farm in India

Inspired by the commons-based platform Farm Hack, I’ll highlight an example from India here. The platform commons.farm is trying to make visible and connect the whole value chain in Indian agriculture: connecting farmers (thanks to increasing digitalization of rural India), with buyers and suppliers of inputs, while also providing (free of cost) farm advice to the farmers. 

The platform is presented as a commons-based media resource. Information is accessible and the platform offers different ways of interlinking stakeholders, from farm to fork: producer to retailer, producer to farmer producer organisation and also producer to input providers (seeds, fertilisers, etc.). I do feel like, from an ethical point of view, ‘commons’ would also mean a symmetric relation between the parties that are involved in the platform. As the platform involves subsistence farmers and marginalised communities, awareness on the consequences of data sharing is not equal among all stakeholders. Digitalization in rural Indian communities brings tremendous opportunities to enhance rural livelihoods, while at the same time it brings about an ethical debate. 

A commons based platform such as commons.farm uses farmers data to benefit them: they are better connected to markets and input providers (seeds, fertilisers and crop protection). Platforms like these function the same way as a doctor’s visit: the farmer provides data (the same way a patient is diagnosed) and consequently gets information on which inputs to buy (and from whom), which is like getting a prescription from a doctor. The difference is that the farmer pays with data. This data is being used to benefit companies that sell the products these farmers need. This concept is ultimately beneficial to farmers and input providers. However, there is a lack of awareness on what it means to share data in rural communities. Therefore, the rules of the ‘commons game’ are not equally clear to everyone involved. That challenge needs to be addressed before these platforms fulfil the premise of how Bollier and Helfrich deem commons based platforms a ‘bold and compelling alternative to the dead-end, predatory market-state system’.

The Takeaway

The course example of Farm Hack to me seems like an established commons based platform: farmers share expertise on more or less equal footing, the platform is by and for everyone involved. Different participants in the platform seem to benefit and contribute to a symmetric structure. I argue that this is different in the Indian context of Commons.farm, where the platform serves a noble purpose, but the relationship among stakeholders seems less equal. Commons based platforms are social economic entities that follow a pathway of mutualization in the economy (a transparent give and take).

I believe that in the rural Indian context commons platforms can still serve social economic purposes, but the starting points of different stakeholders are vastly different. In order to make commons platforms such as commons.farm even more purposeful one could work on awareness campaigns on data sharing and developing a social-economic model that identifies the ‘real cost of data’, in monetary terms but also from a social-ethical perspective. There seems to be a conflict here with the very basic idea of commons.based structures, a conflict of hierarchy and ownership in relation to the common good. Asymmetric power relationships can severely undermine the delivery of common goods. That’s why commons.platforms in an hierarchical society such as India, especially in rural India, need to ethically rethink the integration of rural India into the digital economy.

A picture that featured the morning frontpage of the newspaper The Times of India portrayed the party of Indian prime minister Modi, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The party paid a fair amount of money that day to be featured, just two days before municipal elections in Delhi. This is not a phenomenon that stands on its own, the BJP party has used its influence to push a one country, one religion and one language agenda in mainstream Indian media for over a decade now. In a few paragraphs I try to contextualise the de-democratisation of the media landscape in India and its relationship to ‘crony capitalism’.

McChesney describes in his book a media/democracy paradox. The first element of this paradox is that of a political crisis. The second one concerns media ideology and the weakened democratic debate in media ideology. McChesney debunks the argument that the media are democratic because they give people exactly what people want. I feel like McChesney presents several strong arguments and the paradox itself is a fascinating account of flawed checks and balances in the political and media landscapes in the US. I emphasize the geographical location here. Development and evolvement of democracy and its relation with the media is and has been vastly different in my country, India.

When thinking about McChesney’s paradox the developments in India partly fit into his theories. There is little room for a debate between the media and democracy and the autonomy of Indian media is undermined. However, the historicity of it is different from the pathways that led to the media/democracy in the US.

A Look into ‘Crony Capitalism’

India has gone through what author Gurcharan Das calls ‘crony capitalism’, an economic system in which individuals and businesses with political connections and influence are favoured, this is something we also observe in the media landscape. In the 90s media were primarily run by the state. In the 00’s privatisation started, but this did not change much, as the dominant Congress party still had a lot of influence on major media outlets. In recent times the BJP party has increasingly steered popular media outlets. An example is the relation between the Adani family, the BJP party and one of the most influential TV-stations: NDTV. The Adani family acquired NDTV and boasts its ties with the BJP through this channel. These relationships confirm Gurcharan Das’ crony capitalism theory. 

International media outlets have a fair amount of influence in India, mainly BBC and Al-Jazeera. However, these media sources only cater to a few affluent people in India’s urban regions. Some upcoming Indian sources, such as Mint and the Wire get appraisal for their objective and investigative journalism. They however, also do not manage to reach a wider audience.

Follow the money and you’ll find out that the Indian media landscape is still characterized by crony capitalism. There is a select group of businessmen and politicians that decide what millions of people get to read, watch and hear. This can be related to McChesney’s theory to the extent that democracy (India being the biggest democracy in the world) does not per definition strengthen independence of media, but it can rather weaken it. McChesney’s theory has its limits as it is set in the context of US capitalism. In order to get an understanding of the relation between state, media and capitalism in India, it is crucial to read and listen to Indian voices. Authors such as Gurcharan Das and Arundhati Roy are great voices to start with.

Salut! I’m Soumya, a fresh and bright MA student at UAL. I have enjoyed working in film production, surrounding myself with art, managing creative industries and exploring cultural spaces. But I was desperate for something more, my life seemed limited and I didn’t see much more potential for growth. So, moving to London, in a way, seemed fated.

However, actually being here has been….an experience, to say the least – moving houses three times in two weeks, getting lost in the maze of subways and bus routes, navigating a growing cost of living crisis in this city, unavoidable endless lonely nights and then missing everything that signifies a semblance of home; the same I was convinced I would find somewhere else.

In spite of my story so far, or maybe because of it, I still wake up increasingly excited every day. I want to see myself grow and experience a lot more and I hope this blog can track my journey through it.