online edition

The Student Newspaper of Hopkins School

The New Versailles: Influencers, Luxury, and Consumer Culture

Beatrice Lundberg ' 27 Assistant Op Ed Editor
In 18th-century France, the Palace of Versailles was a hub of luxury and authority that thrived in an era when common people could barely afford to eat.
As nobles lived in a utopia of festivities and indulgence, they could not even begin to comprehend the immense suffering that existed beyond their gates, and the people, for a time, watched in fascinated resentment before eventually burning it all down.

Scroll through your TikTok feed on a given day and ask yourself: How different are we now from pre-revolutionary France?

With rising gas prices, the threat of AI to nearly every profession and an increasing cost of living, the average American is drowning. Yet the life of the influencer paints a different picture: Brand trips, "get ready with me" videos and haul content don't exist within that dull environment. Rather, they thrive because of it. Companies exploit this contrast for profit through influencers, tempting consumers with the illusion of a lavish lifestyle.

Brand trips are the most obvious expression of this divide. They are created by skincare and makeup brands such as Rhode and Rare Beauty to promote products by flying influencers out to ski chalets and summer villas. Companies do not do this simply to sell a product; they do it to curate the desirable lifestyle they want associated with their brand. That lifestyle cannot be average — it has to be just as exclusive and glamorous as the thing they are selling.

This strategy has become pervasive because, beyond branding, many of these products are not dramatically different from others on the market. 

These trips are not as far removed from the Palace of Versailles as one might think. The palace was an engineered space designed to concentrate immense cultural influence in one location — so what is the difference between that and, say, Tarte Cosmetics' trips to Turks and Caicos or Dubai? Both seek to cultivate jealousy in the heart of the outsider; the only difference is that now consumers can ease their insecurities by buying a $22 lip treatment. 

Rhode and Rare Beauty are two of the clearest examples of this phenomenon. Both companies are among the most prominent makeup and skincare brands available right now. Although their followers may tell you otherwise, neither offers revolutionary technology that truly separates it from competitors.

The truth is that consumers are buying the "it girl" lifestyle associated with the faces behind the brands. You may be purchasing the "Rhode Pocket Blush," but you are also purchasing the image of someone like Hailey Bieber and the endless "cool girl" energy she radiates. 

This habit is not new. Throughout American history, consumers have supported large corporations that build on their brand recognition and market dominance to generate enormous profits. Now, in the age of social media, those companies have faces and follower counts attached to them. By granting the largest platforms to people who already come from privileged backgrounds, who are far removed from the average person, and who are marketed as aspirational, we are repeating patterns that have allowed the rich to become richer for centuries. 

Buying into these brands says something not only about society, but also about us as individuals.

Even though influencers capitalize on their audiences, how much can we blame them if consumers continue buying into the cycle? These companies succeed because people participate in the culture surrounding them, often without questioning it. Their profitability is built on consumer complacency, and recognizing that is the first step toward resisting it.

As we move forward in a time of economic uncertainty, it is important to question the people and brands we support and what their values reflect back onto us. 

Although we may never see an uprising as fiery as 18th-century France, we should not become accepting of this growing divide. The peasants outside Versailles did not change history by watching—and neither will we. 
Back
Editor in Chief 
Anjali van Bladel

Managing Editor 
Mary Winter Szarabajka 

Content Editor
Olivia Yu

News
Rose Porosoff
Sonali Bedi 
Gitanjali Navaratnam-Tomayko
Lena Wang
August Farouki
Giuliana Wright
Elyssa Power
Features
Aurelia Wen
Ashley Deng
Ari Mehta
Clarissa Castilho
Alia Mojibian
Jensen Rodriguez
 
Arts
Saisha Ghai
Karolina Jasaitis
Isha Seth
Margot Beckerlegge
Jean Wen
Victoria Morris
Op/Ed
Rebecca Li
Bea Lundberg
Ellie Luo
Leila Chaar
Anya Huang
Keegan Slovinski

Sports
Elaina Pakutka
Beckett Ehrlich
Lukas Roberts
Silvia Gozar-Zimbrean
John O'Connell
Isaac Lin
Cartoonist
Susie Becker 
Faculty Advisers
Stephen May
Elizabeth Gleason
Isabelle Wendt
The Razor's Edge reflects the opinion of 4/5 of the editorial board and will not be signed. The Razor welcomes letters to the editor but reserves the right to decide which letters to publish, and to edit letters for space reasons. Unsigned letters will not be published, but names may be withheld on request. Letters are subject to the same libel laws as articles. The views expressed in letters are not necessarily those of the editorial board.
     
The Razor,
 an open forum publication, is published monthly during the school year by students of: 
Hopkins School
986 Forest Road
New Haven, CT 06515

Phone: 203.397.1001 x628
Email: smay@hopkins.edu