In recent years, the importance of “self-care” has come back to popular discourse. At the hands of businesses masquerading under the claim of helping us love and care for ourselves, we have become the generation of empty wallets, dissatisfaction and self-care burnout. While we could play the blame game, perhaps individuals and corporations are equally at fault. We should be more critical of the brands who are using the umbrella term of “self-care” to profit heavily from new product lines.

Corporations love to tell consumers that self-indulgence is valid and we should get in the habit of treating ourselves. But how far is too far, and where does the concept of “treat yourself” truly fall? The commercialization of self-care exhibits a striking similarity to brands that utilize rainbow-colored branding during Pride Month, while simultaneously pushing for anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. If a brand claims to value mental health and physical wellness, then it should go beyond promoting dangerous fasting methods to “lose that unwanted belly fat” and instead focus on what will improve overall well-being and self-esteem.

Gwyneth Paltrow’s lifestyle brand “goop” is circulating at the center of the conversation about self-care being commercialized in harmful ways, having settled lawsuits for products that supposedly help assist women with their sexual health and claim to prevent depression. In spring of 2019, Paltrow joked that she could sell the company to Amazon, which only proves that many brands claiming to be aligned with self-care and wellness may just be in it for the money.

Now, the idea of self-care has become unrecognizable from its original intentions. It is competitive. It never should have been and it is becoming increasingly more expensive as we subconsciously play into the hands of corporations like Dove, Gillette, L’Oréal, goop and more.

Cosmetic and sexual health industries are guilty of playing into the irony that brands are well-aware that stressed, tired and insecure consumers are vulnerable to making emotionally-motivated purchases.

As busy human beings, the feeling of exhaustion, emotional stress and our occasional inability to cope with minor inconveniences has characterized a generation conditioned to achieve higher levels of self-gratification, perfection and productivity.

In the 80s, the definition of self-care held more with health-related connotations. In the 90s, it referred to the way that individuals could take responsibility for their own physical well-being in conjunction with doctor and pharmacist recommendations. Now, the advertising industry has managed to shift self-care away from introspection and self-awareness and toward consumer impulsivity.

The message these companies give us is clear: consumers who fail to purchase treats are depriving themselves, failing to meet their own needs and will be left behind. This type of toxic rhetoric is not expected to disappear any time soon. We must be more aware of the fact that it exists and make the right decisions when it comes to taking care of our bodies and minds.

Graphic by Patrick Higgins | The Oswegonian