Consuming revolution: TikTok and Corecore
The advent of the Internet has radically influenced how people communicate with one another. At the very least, the Internet has opened up new avenues for communication that transcend previously existing geographic and temporal barriers. Owing to the virtually unrestricted access to information they offer, online platforms make up new spaces for cultural creation and expansion (Hebdige, 2012). But in creating space for culture, online platforms are also spaces where the hegemony of certain cultural forms can be resisted. There is value in examining these online spaces, and the resistance they garner. Hence, in this essay I will be exploring #Corecore, an aesthetic based video trend that became popular through the social media platform TikTok, as it constitutes an example of the aforementioned avenues for resistance.
This essay will begin by exploring the phenomenon of corecore. This
discussion will involve not only an in-depth description of the formula behind
the videos that follow the aesthetic, but also an analysis of the online
context in which #Corecore appeared. I will then proceed to analyse this online
phenomenon through a subcultural lens. This section will draw from the analysis
of 20th century subcultures carried out by scholars at the
Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS). More specifically,
I will be centring the analysis through Hebdige’s work on punk subcultures, to
highlight the elements of symbolic resistance present in #Corecore as an online
movement. This section will end through a discussion of post-subcultural
critiques. From this point forward, the final sections of the essay will focus
on the potential for real change the #Corecore movement has. This analysis will
be twofold. Firstly, I will explore the limitations of an aesthetic based
political movement through notions of magical resistance and recuperation and
drawing from Portwood-Stacer’s analysis of lifestyle anarchists. Secondly, I
will explore the potential of the movement through Mark Fisher’s capitalist
realism.
ORIGIN AND CONTEXT FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF CORECORE
As mentioned in the introduction, #Corecore is an aesthetic based video
trend that originated and became popular in the social media platform TikTok.
The name of the aesthetic stems from the suffix -core. With its origin in the
term “hardcore” and hardcore music, in online spaces, the suffix -core is used
to indicate that a given content is part of an aesthetic (Judkis, 2021). As a
result of this naming system, images, videos, and creators can be easily
grouped together into different hashtags.[1]
Through continued use, the hashtags eventually contain large amounts of related
imagery, which not only creates a given aesthetic, but it also provides a space
for the aesthetic to develop. Whilst this is not an exhaustive list, examples
of the use of the suffix -core are cottagecore, an aesthetic that honours rural life through a celebration of nature, simple living,
and second-hand and comfortable clothing (Ramachandran, 2021; Kay & Wood,
2021); fairycore an aesthetic aimed at looking like an ethereal version
of a fairy through the use pastel colours, and garments made with eccentric
fabrics and shapes (Michie, 2022); or cluttercore, a home space aesthetic that
escapes minimalism through combining colours, patterns, and objects within one
space.
#Corecore appropriates the -core
suffix to use it in a new and unconventional way, because it is not trying to
imitate or celebrate an already existing concept or style. Following a
structure that resembles the nonsensical nature of Dada art, corecore videos
consist of a collage of seemingly unrelated clips, that sometimes engage with
similar issues. Beyond imagery, corecore creators edit their videos with some
form of pessimistic or dark audio in the background that is superimposed with
the audio of the clips. The final result of this artistic process intends to
convey meaning and emotion through the juxtaposition of images and sound.
However, corecore creators are not trying to convey meaning and emotion in a
general sense, rather there is an explicit intent behind this aesthetic. The
original purpose of corecore was one of critique. More specifically, a
political and social critique of late-stage capitalism, modern consumer
culture, and the environmental neglect that these two factors contribute to. I will
illustrate the look and purpose of corecore with two examples.
The first uploaded video that followed the corecore formula, included
clips of various environmental disasters, as well as climate graphs, followed
by flashing images of the US military and busy supermarkets during Black Friday
(@masonoelle, 2021). It can
easily be argued that the creator intended an anti-capitalist and
environmentalist critique of both the military industrial complex and
overconsumption habits. This video set the tone for artistic appearance and
themes that make up corecore. We can see how this continued in a more recent
example. In this instance, the video consists of a series of clips showing
TikTok content creators opening Shein packages, it then cut into selected clips
of various documentaries about the working conditions of Shein factories (@thenicher, 2023). In this case, whilst there is a wider critique of
capitalism and consumerism, the commentary also focuses on how overconsumption
is performed in social media circles.
From this brief description, not only of corecore, but also of its
origin among other social media aesthetics, I contend that some of the tensions
created by corecore, namely its appropriation and subversion of existing
content and language and its purpose of critique, can be understood, and
explained, through a subcultural lens.
SUBCULTURES: ONLINE CULTURE AND
CORECORE
From the study of young working-class people, scholars at the CCCS
developed the subcultural approach during the 1960s and 1970s. They desired to
examine how the working-class experience had changed in post-World War II
Britain. More specifically, how the structural changes that had taken place
during this period, and specifically the new relationship with media, split
understandings of the working class (Guerra, 2020). In his book, Subculture:
The Meaning of Style (1979), Hebdige grapples with these issues and
explores how subcultures are born, as well as the rationale behind their
practices.
Drawing from Barthes’ Mythologies (1957), Hebdige
contends that “all aspects of culture possess a semiotic value, and the most
taken-for-granted phenomena can function as signs” which are “as opaque as the
social relations which produce them” (Hebdige, 1979, p. 13). In other words,
central to Hebdige’s analysis is the notion that there is an ideological layer
to cultural signs that is directly linked to the ideology behind social
hierarchies. As a result, mainstream culture excludes marginal discourses in
favour of dominant ones, and therefore, “tends to represent, in however obscure
and contradictory a fashion, the interests of the dominant groups in society”
(Hebdige, 1979, p. 15). Accordingly, subcultures emerge “to express and
resolve, albeit magically, the contradictions which remain hidden or unresolved
in the parent culture” (Cohen, 1980, p. 71).
This challenge to the parent culture occurs through the appropriation
and subversion of the meaning of signs. Hebdige illustrates how “humble objects
can be magically appropriated; ‘stolen’ by subordinate groups and made to carry
‘secret’ meanings” (Hebdige, 1979, p. 18). These secret meanings go against the
‘nature’ of the object and disrupt the naturalisation of dominant ideological
meanings. Hebdige exemplifies this subversion through the following example:
“The conventional insignia of the business world – the suit, collar and
tie, short hair, etc. – were stripped of their original connotations –
efficiency, ambition, compliance with authority – and transformed into ‘empty’
fetishes, objects to be desired, fondled and valued in their own right” (Hebdige,
1979, p. 105).
As introduced in the previous section, corecore engages with this
symbolical subversion. We take the other “-cores” as the parent culture that
represents the interests of the dominant groups in society. Arguably, the upper
middle-class background of many mainstream content creators informs the
ideological layer of TikTok aesthetics (Pijnaker & Spronk, 2017). So, for
example, while cottagecore is “about trying to create an ideal” (Judkis, 2021), which provides a “means to
express middle-class aesthetics, aspirations and senses of being in the world”
(Pijnaker & Spronk, 2017, p. 327), Corecore does not engage in such
aspirations. Corecore confronts the parent culture, not only through the ironic
appropriation of the suffix -core, but through the subversion of signs. Much
like Hebdige described how subcultures borrowed objects for their ensembles,
Corecore does this not with clothing but with videos. The videos and images
corecore creators use had previous meanings and purposes, the songs were
created for a different context. Corecore creators take what once was meant as
perhaps wholesome or informative content and flip it into critique through
shock and pessimism. It is this final element of critique that the following
section will focus on.
Before proceeding to the following section, I would like to briefly
engage with the critique of subcultural theories carried out by
post-subcultural scholars. A contentious issue raised by post-subcultural
theories concerns whether online practices can be considered within the label
of subculture. Central to this debate, is the notion that subcultures, as
defined by the CCCS, cannot “cope with growing cultural dynamism in
contemporary societies” (Guerra, 2020, p. 211). In agreement with this initial
notion, scholars such as Bennett (1999), or Muggleton (2000), argued that a
consequence of this cultural dynamism was that individual and collective
identities would be in constant transition and thus be temporary and
contextual. Furthermore, as the Internet gives people unrestricted access to
information, and therefore cultural spaces, it has intensified cultural
fluidity, and, consequently, the fragmentation of identities (Turkle 1995;
Castells, 2001).
However, the idea that, as a default, the internet fosters cultural
diversity is questionable (Hodkinson, 2003; Williams, 2006). Rather, I contend
that the opposite is often true, the internet has the potential to promote
specialised and limited interests. For example, in a study on Goths in the
early 2000s, Hodkinson (2003) concluded that the people partaking in the
subculture visited a closed network of websites that referenced each other
through hyperlinks. This continues to be the case for social media platforms,
and particularly TikTok where corecore is based. TikTok functions through an
algorithm that curates an individualised “For You Page” for every user. This is the essence of its appeal. The
algorithm feeds the user content related to the interests the user has already
established, based on the seconds spent watching previous content, accounts
followed, and videos liked, which creates a continued cohesive “style”
(Barnette, 2022).
I would like to emphasise that there is not a perfect parallel between
the subcultures the CCCS researched and corecore. There are components of the
subcultural analysis that cannot be extrapolated because corecore takes place
in an entirely different medium, on a global scale, and within a different
financial and social context. Consequently, issues such as the lack of “career
prospects” that stem from partaking in subcultural style, as highlighted by
Cohen (1980), cannot be applied to the example at hand. Nevertheless, given
what this section has argued, I contend that subcultural theory is an appropriate
analytical framework.
MAGICAL RESISTANCE, CO-OPTION, AND
LIFESTYLE ACTIVISM
Since corecore is meant as political and social critique, it is worth
asking the extent to which this form of activism may lead to real change. Following
the parallel I established in the previous section, I draw once again from
subcultural theory to examine this issue. Two notions are of importance here,
magical resistance and recuperation.
As established above, a central function of subcultures was to challenge
and resolve the ideology behind the parent culture. Scholars at the CCCS
developed the term ‘magical resistance’ to emphasise how these challenges posed
by subcultures could not go beyond the cultural realm and were thus an
ineffective challenge to the reality of working-class oppression that merely
provided a cultural escape for the youth (Cohen, 1972). In other words, magical
solutions offer the illusion of resistance without tackling the real oppressive
structures that lay underneath the parent culture:
“It is almost that the cultures, in their silent way, lived as if the
basic structures were changed – enjoying that in imagination while making no
attempt to bring it about in reality” (Willis, 1978, p. 177).
Furthermore,
because subcultural resistance often takes place in the sphere of leisure, it
is prone to recuperation (Hebdige, 1979). As defined by Debord (2012)
recuperation is “the process through which the spectacle can hollow-out any gesture of
resistance, re-represent it, and divest it of its radical content” (pp. 17-18).
Essentially, once a sign has been “recuperated” it becomes trivial and a
commodity and mainstream culture can therefore make use of it (Bleakley, 2018). It therefore
follows that subcultural resistance is, in a sense, “doomed to failure”
(Sweetman, 2013). As conceptualised by the CCCS, subcultures cannot overcome
the contradictions of mainstream culture, nor the oppression of working-class
positionality.
Building from these two concepts, in her book Lifestyle politics and
radical activism (2013) Laura Portwood-Stacer examines lifestyle anarchist
movements. Specifically, she discusses critiques of lifestyle practices. Said
critiques point out that while lifestyle practices may seem revolutionary, they
do little to actually subvert capitalism and its structures. Her discussion
involves notions of magical resistance and recuperation that she furthers
through analysis of the participation in these spaces as superfluous and
lacking in depth and understanding:
“the fact that many who became
involved in punk scenes lacked a deep understanding of anarchist history or
political philosophy meant that their enactment of anarchist principles could,
at times, be fairly limited, remaining at the “shallow” level of their
individual lifestyle choices” (Portwood-Stacer, 2013, p. 132)
The resistance presented by lifestyle activists is symbolic in nature,
but also superficial, which makes these movements prone to co-option, and
therefore “inadequate for the contemporary radical leftist project, which seeks
broader social reorganization” (Portwood-Stacer, 2013, p. 133).
Although the original creator of the corecore movement claims that “the
whole point of this stuff is to create something that can’t be categorized,
commodified, made into clickbait, or moderated—something immune to the
functions of control that dictate the content we consume and the ideas we are
allowed to hold” (Mendez, 2023), Corecore can be analysed in similar terms to
lifestyle anarchists. The nature of #Corecore is the aestheticization of a
political movement for its consumption in a social media platform. This creates
a situation similar to that of lifestyle anarchists, where activism presents
only a magical resistance that is prone to recuperation or co-option. Online
users can freely decide to become corecore creators, even if their
understanding and commitment to the cause is superficial or inexistent. As a
matter of fact, people have begun recreating the aesthetic, in an act of
repetition, rather than an act of creation, to benefit from the popularity of
the movement. For #Corecore, as the aesthetic has grown in popularity, the
videos being posted under the hashtag have shifted in content, intention, and
meaning. Many are now nonsensical combinations that have been stripped of all
political ideology, but that maintain the aesthetic rules, and only intend to
provoke an emotional response, generally of sadness and loneliness (See: @carpetedkitchn, 2023 for a nonsensical combination; @sigmatire, 2023 for turn into sadness). In this sense, not only has
the aesthetic has just posed a ‘magical resistance’, but its ideological subversiveness
has also been co-opted.
CAPITALIST REALISM
A second theoretical avenue can be used to examine questions of
resistance that allows for a more open-ended inquiry into the effectiveness of
subcultural resistance. In his 2009 book Capitalist Realism, Fisher uses
the term to illustrate “the widespread sense that not only is capitalism the
only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible
even to imagine a coherent alternative to it” (p. 2). With capitalist realism
Fisher is not trying to defend capitalism as the most adequate system. Rather,
he illustrates how capitalism and neoliberalism hold an ideological power,
reinforced in the 80 and 90s when socialist nations collapsed, that prevents
people from conceiving of a viable alternative. This is however not a theory of
the all-encompassing power of capitalism. Fisher does in fact believe that
capitalist realism may be threatened by disproving the ‘realism’ aspect of
capitalist realism. In the book, he contends that this challenge ought to be
done by showing that capitalism is inconsistent by highlighting the
contradictions that arise from mental health issues and bureaucracy.
Notably, corecore does not tackle these contradictions. However, Fisher
further explored avenues of resistance in an email dialogue with Jeremy
Gilbert. Whilst the two authors discussed a multiplicity of tensions contained
within capitalist realism, I focus here on the following quote:
“Having said all this about what
should happen at the level of political leadership, however, I think it’s also
necessary to think about what would have to happen at the ‘molecular’ level
[…]. To really make a political challenge to neoliberalism viable, we would
need to see some significant cultural upswell of radically democratic,
libertarian yet anti-individualist sentiment” (Fisher & Gilbert, 2013, p.
100).
If, as I previously argued, online platforms are a space for the
creation of culture, where corecore represents a form of subculture and
resistance to the neoliberal mainstream, then corecore could potentially
represent the change at the molecular level that Fisher & Gilbert argue
for. At the very least, corecore creators intend to bring to light the
contradictions of capitalism, which, according to Fisher, is an essential step
to overcome the ideological hegemony of capitalism. Even if corecore does not
lead to political action outside of the cultural sphere, the argument in this
section can be extrapolated to other online movements. It may very well be the
case that future activism starts from social media counter trends.
CONCLUSION
From all of the above arguments, I contend that two conclusions can be
reached in this essay. Firstly, examining corecore through a subcultural lens
allows for in-depth analysis of the tensions it creates. As highlighted within the
second section, whilst it is not possible to draw a perfect parallel between
the subcultures the CCCS explored and corecore, there are plenty of
similarities useful to examine the symbolic challenges corecore presents. In
essence, I have attempted to show that, as a movement, corecore is meant to
subvert many of the taken for granted features of participation in online
content creation. Furthermore, an analysis of this online aesthetic through
CCCS theories, brings out the contradictions inherent in a symbolic challenge
to the capitalistic class-structure. From these contradictions, the second
conclusion I reach in this paper is that the aesthetic nature of corecore,
leads not only to a surface-level critique, but also to an easily co-opted
movement with little potential to carry out real-life changes. However, in this
instance, and drawing from Fisher’s capitalist realism, I wish to leave questions
on the potential for real change slightly unanswered. Although I recognise that
there is a certain degree of co-option that has already taken place, which
might make corecore itself doomed to failure, other online movements might be
crucial to future social and political action.
Bibliography
Barnette, J. (2022) Hocus-Pocus:
WitchTok Education for Baby Witches, in Boffone, T. (Ed.) TikTok
Cultures in the United States, London: Routledge
Barthes, R. (1957) Mythologies, New
York: Hill and Wang
Bennett, A. (1999) Subcultures or
neo-tribes? Rethinking the relationship between youth, style and musical taste,
Sociology 33 (3): 599–617.
Bleakley, P. (2018) Situationism
and the recuperation of an ideology in the era of Trump, fake news and
post-truth politics, Capital & Class, 42(3), 419–434.
Castells, M. (2001) The internet
galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, business and society. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cohen, P. (1980), Subcultural conflict
and working-class community, in Hall, S., Hobson, D., Lowe, A., &
Willis, P. (Eds.) Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural
Studies, 1972-79 (1st ed.), London: Routledge.
Cohen, S. (1972) Folk devils and moral
panics: The creation of the Mods and Rockers, Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.
Debord, G. (2012) Society Of The
Spectacle, Bread and Circuses, ProQuest Ebook Central
Fisher, M. (2009) Capitalist Realism:
Is There No Alternative? Winchester: Zero Books.
--- & Gilbert, J. (2013) Capitalist
Realism and Neoliberal Hegemony: A Dialogue, new formations: a journal of
culture/theory/politics, Volume 80-81, 2013, pp. 89-101
Guerra, P. (2020) Under-Connected:
Youth Subcultures, Resistance and Sociability in the Internet Age, in Gildart,
K., Gough-Yates, A., Lincoln, S., Osgerby, B., Robinson, L., Street, J., Webb,
P., Worley, M. (Eds.) Hebdige and Subculture in the Twenty-First Century:
Through the Subcultural Lens, Cham : Springer.
Hebdige, D. (1979) Subculture: The
meaning of style, London: Methuen
--- (2012) Contemporizing ‘subculture’
30 years to life, European Journal of Cultural Studies 15 (3): 399–424.
Hodkinson, P. (2003) ‘Net.Goth’:
Internet communication and (sub)cultural boundaries, In David Muggleton
and Rupert Weinzierl (Eds.) The post-subcultures reader, 285–298.
Oxford: Berg.
Judkis, M. (2021) Cottagecore,
cluttercore, goblincore — deep down, it’s about who we think we are,
Washington Post, available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cottagecore-goblincore-cluttercore/2021/09/09/4656e958-09b6-11ec-aea1-42a8138f132a_story.html
Kay, J. B.,
& Wood, H. (2022) ‘The race for space’: capitalism, the country and the
city in Britain under COVID-19, Continuum, 36(2), 274-288.
Mendez, M. (2023) What to Know About
Corecore, the Latest Aesthetic Taking Over TikTok, TIME, Available at: https://time.com/6248637/corecore-tiktok-aesthetic/
Michie, N. (2022) TikTok’s fairycore
aesthetic is all about fantasy fashion, Fashion, Retrieved from https://manchester.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/magazines/tiktok-s-fairycore-aesthetic-is-all-about-fantasy/docview/2678575550/se-2
Muggleton, D. (2000) Inside
subculture: The postmodern meaning of style, Oxford: Berg.
Pijnaker, T. & Spronk, T. (2017) Africa’s
Legends: digital technologies, aesthetics and middle-class aspirations in
Ghanaian games and comics, Critical African Studies, 9(3): 327-34
Portwood-Stacer, L. (2013) Lifestyle
politics and Radical Activism, New York: Bloomsbury
Ramachandran,
V. (2021) Urban-rural mobility during COVID-19: the growth of ‘cottagecore’
in Australia and Aotearoa-New Zealand, MoLab Inventory of Mobilities and
Socioeconomic Changes, available at: https://www.eth.mpg.de/5851500/Ramachandran-Vidya_Urban-rural-mobility-during-COVID19_molab_5434.pdf
Sweetman, P.
(2013) Structure, Agency, Subculture: The CCCS, Resistance Through Rituals,
and ‘Post-Subcultural’ Studies, Sociological Research Online, 18(4): 22-32
Turkle, S. (1995) Life on the screen:
Identity in the age of the Internet, New York: Touchstone
TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@carpetedkitchn 13th January 2023
--- https://www.tiktok.com/@masonoelle 1st January 2021
--- https://www.tiktok.com/@sigmatire 6th January 2023
--- https://www.tiktok.com/@thenicher 4th February 2023 (Originally posted 15th
April 2022)
Williams, J. P. (2006) Authentic
identities: Straightedge subculture, music, and the Internet, Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography 35 (2): 173–200.
Willis, P. (1978) Profane Culture,
New Jersey: Princeton University Press
[1] In social media platforms, a user can
generate hashtag by preceding a word with the symbol #. This action creates a
metadata tag that contains content grouped by topic or theme.