Over the late summer, “underconsumption core” emerged on short-form video content sites as the newest trend in sustainability and environmental awareness. Videos tagged under the label encourage viewers to rethink their spending habits by showcasing the continued use of old or worn items.
These content creators normalized satisfaction with their possessions, emphasizing reducing and reusing rather than buying new, viral products. The posts feature using old makeup products, mending clothing rather than buying new and finding household items secondhand.
“Underconsumption is promoting a more realistic lifestyle. I’m not going to go buy a $50 or $100 tote bag when I have one that I made and works for me,” said sophomore Lily Lang.
The trend stemmed from frustration and exhaustion with the constant normalization of overconsumption. “People are buying new accessories and things they don’t need but are getting because of the brand. They barely use things before a new style is all over social media,” continued Lang.
Influencers increasingly plug products, posting everything from PR unboxings to Amazon storefront links and secretly sponsored product promotions. These advantageous business deals resulted in a nearly 250% increase in the value of influencer marketing since 2020.
While underconsumption challenges people to lead a more simplistic lifestyle free from the pressure to conform to mainstream popularity, the practice bears differences from early-2000s minimalism. The former standard idealized sleek modernization to the point of bleak angularity.
This new trend, though, is compatible with maximalism, keeping and using possessions without the need for careful curation.
The initial movement to under-consume may have been well-intentioned, yet widespread use has brought the naming of the trend into question. “Under” implies a deficit in spending- an abnormally low amount. Critics argue that reuse should not be lauded as frugal and uncommon. Instead, this behavior is better categorized as “normal consumption” and held as the expectation, not the exception.
Still, others are bothered by the development of the topic into another of the myriad of “core” labels. This categorization confines sustainability to a romanticized, rigidly defined lifestyle. “Core” implies a higher standard of shared identity and aesthetic, rather than letting each person determine what mindful consumption strategies work for them. The fear of backlash created by the social media competition to appear the most environmentally conscious works in direct opposition to the original purpose of the trend.
Most of the participants in this trend are middle to upper-class, young white women. Those unable to fit the sustainability standards set by these dominant voices may be less likely to join in. “Being able to use ‘eco friendly’ materials is costly and is a way to show others how ‘well off’ they are. There is so much effort that goes into this lifestyle that cannot be provided by those who work constantly to keep themselves afloat,” said senior Cassandra Paget.
Economic status affects peoples’ likelihood of posting about underconsumption. A central feature of the trend is the assumption of an educated, free decision to cut back on consumption. Where influencers are praised for choosing to stop buying new products, many people live on second-hand items out of necessity.
As the trend’s popularity rose through July and August, prominent news sites including The New York Times, Vogue and The Guardian began reporting on the phenomenon. A new concern then arose that the trend could harm sales, with NBC even cautioning that the “’Underconsumption core’ trend may lead to economic slowdown”.
Yet, in less than two months, the trend has died down. Its obsolescence gives way to familiar waves of capitalism and product placement. Audiences are left to question whether influencers truly care to participate in advocacy or simply value the appearance of awareness.
