June is Pride month, and for the past few years, there has been ongoing community discourse around the phenomenon of “rainbow capitalism,” a type of consumerism aimed at participating in and profiting from the LGBTQ+ community.
Earlier this month, YouTube personality Matt Bernstein released a short video entitled “from homo estas to homo goodbye :(“ where he argued that rainbow capitalism was always hollow, citing the trend of major companies like BMW, CVS, Abercrombie & Fitch, and more, scaling back or scrapping their Pride month campaigns.
“Some people will say that corporations don’t care about gays anymore, but did they ever?” Bernstein asks factitiously.
Bernstein makes some salient points, and I can see the leftist appeal in maligning major companies for abandoning the queer community on a whim, but I have always had a bit of an issue with the framing of rainbow capitalism as a net negative.
Is it performative and shallow? Yes. But is it harmful to the broader queer community? Generally no.
The United States is a deeply capitalist society; in many ways, we are more a nation built on capital than a nation built on laws. It’s an unfortunate but stark reality that social groups and communities are evaluated based on their purchasing power. Rainbow capitalism came about towards the tail end of the 20th century, as the LGBTQ+ community emerged as a viable market. This “pink money,” as some in the business world call it, saw an opportunity to cater to the queer customers: nightclubs, shops, cruises, food and beverages, and other services would specifically target the queer community to court their budding wealth of some within the LGBTQ+ umbrella.
Some, like the National Women’s Law Center’s Hunter Iannucci and Auden Perino, have argued that rainbow capitalism is inherently exploitative. Similar to Bernstein, Iannucci, and Perino argue that organizations like Target have kowtowed to far-right anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments, fearing boycotts from conservatives across America. Iannucci and Perino go as far as to argue that Target “has revealed itself as the most harmful kind of performative ally” by folding to these threats. That’s a bit of a stretch, especially when organizations like the FBI used to don rainbow colors under the Biden administration, the same FBI that now categorizes transgender activists as “nihilistic violent extremists.”
But this criticism of major companies for abandoning the queer community is, in my opinion, misplaced frustration. Companies are now making the conscious decision that catering to the queer community comes with too much of a financial risk and that they stand to lose more if conservatives decide to boycott their products. Given that people in the LGBTQ+ community have mocked rainbow capitalists for years as shallow, it’s not entirely surprising that corporate interests might someday pivot away from us.
Bernstein concluded his video by saying that this moment “reminds us that the bricks we need to be throwing were never going to be sold at Target,” referencing the bricks thrown at the Stonewall riots that people see as the origin point of the modern Pride movement. But this misses the point, of course; corporations were never going to be anything more than a fairweather friend whose conditional support was predicated on our spending habits. It is, however, an indicator of the LGBTQ+ community’s standing in society. Companies that see the community as a financial block were willing to risk alienating religious extremists in favor of LGBTQ+ inclusive policies.
It’s not a good thing that companies see conservative ideologues as a more reliable customer base than queer people. The rollback of Pride campaigns has coincided with companies jetisoning DEI programs, including worker protections for the LGBTQ+ employees.
When companies see the LGBTQ+ community as a worthwhile investment, they are less likely to discriminate against us or financially support anti-gay causes. There will always be companies like Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A, but for a brief period of time, companies like Target, Starbucks, and IKEA saw it as a worthwhile measure to offer tacit support for LGBTQ+ equality.
Now, in an era where corporations don’t see “the gays™” as a viable customer base, the queer community sees an unprecedented loss in visibility. Gay couples and trans people are quickly disappearing from advertisements and media. Gone are the days of companies like Tiffany and Google openly featuring a lesbian marriage or a gay couple. The queer community, which has fought tooth and nail for mainstream representation, now fights with the wind at our face.
Perhaps most importantly, the decline of rainbow capitalism should come as a warning for all LGBTQ+ Americans. If we are not worth targeting financially, then it is only a few more logical leaps to catering directly to conservative culture wars. Companies like Disney, which have a complicated but generally positive relationship with the queer community, are now cutting LGBTQ+ representation in an attempt to cater to what they see as “Middle America.” If the queer community isn’t being catered to by the interests of capital, then someone else is. That is the reality of living in American capitalism.
The bricks we threw may never have been sold at Target, but I would rather they be a performative ally than an indifferent bystander. In abandoning rainbow capitalism, the LGBTQ+ community runs the risk of alienating itself to the fickle whims of American corporatism. I understand the inclination from leftists, but until corporate interests aren’t the driving force in American governance, it’s shortsighted to push away the rainbow capitalists.
In a capitalist society, the power we, as a community, have over corporate interests is our wallets. Pink money and the financial capital of the queer community have and can turn us into a community that companies see as worth catering to. Will that liberate us? No. But I’d rather a fair-weather friend in Target than the alternative.
