Sunday, February 16Royal Holloway's offical student publication, est. 1986

Saltburn, Underconsumption, and Trad Wives: A Dramatic Reenactment of Working Class Life

Photo Credit: Samantha Gades via Unsplash

By: Kiera Garcia – Associate Culture Editor

Over the past few years there has been an emergence in media, both traditional and non-traditional, to tell a story about someone or to be someone who lives a life portraying themselves to be of a different, typically lower, socio-economic background than they are. 

One of the pieces of traditional media that really brought this discussion to light was Saltburn, Emerald Fennell’s film of the summer from last year. The movie follows Oliver Quick, an Oxford student who claims to be from a humble background, who quickly attaches to the wealthy Felix Catton, eventually securing an invite to his large family estate for the summer. The movie itself deals with many nuances of socio-economic differences in modern England, but specifically shocks audiences with the reveal halfway through the movie that Oliver has been lying to Felix about his background; Not only is he from a rather well off middle class family, but the father he claimed to be dead earlier in the movie is alive. 

This accidental reveal by way of a surprise visit to his family that Felix planned is the catalyst to the murders of the Catton family that occur throughout the film as a way to protect Oliver’s secret. Oliver’s obsession with Felix leads him to do anything he can to secure a place as his ‘equal’, going as far as approaching and befriending his mother years after the initial events of the film, securing himself as the heir to the estate and fortune. He pretends to be poor to benefit himself, ultimately forsaking this acquired persona when he has the opportunity to be wealthy. He uses the cluelessness of the uber wealthy Cattons to craft a life that he has not led, simply because he doesn’t care to be a typical middle-class individual. He is striving for wealth by pretending to have none.

This instance of being able to make money off of pretending to working class is also seen throughout multiple social media trends. The first that comes to mind is the trend that swept through TikTok this summer: ‘underconsumption core’. ‘Underconsumption core’ was a form of aesthetic that focused on taking care of belongings that one already has and lowering consumption, something that has been at the forefront of the public consciousness for a while. The core ideas around this were not necessarily harmful, with critics hoping that the seemingly temporary emphasis on consuming less would stick beyond the trend’s life, but it became quite the opposite as ultra-rich influencers took hold of it.

These influencers were taking this cutting back of consumption, something that is not optional or a temporary lifestyle for many, and making it a new popular thing to do before quickly forgetting it and moving on to the next microtrend taking hold of their algorithms. One influencer went as far as filming herself throwing away all of her extra skin care products, often in the multi-hundred pound range, and claiming that she was now the beacon of underconsumption. This ignorance of the inability for the typical person to afford the lifestyles they have, and then pushing to their audiences that they need to cut back on their consumption habits, was incredibly tone deaf and only furthered the critiques of them as they discarded this lifestyle the minute they saw something new to consume. Not only are these influencers apropriating a lifestyle that isn’t optional for others, they are making money off of it.

This is also seen in the presence of the ‘Trad Wife’ lifestyle that is permeating through TikTok at rapid speed. With influencers like Nara Smith and Ballerina Farm, women who themselves are incredibly wealthy as well as have wealthy husbands, promoting this traditional lifestyle, glamorising the life of a stay-at-home moms are also appropriating the lifestyle of people who in the past did not have a choice of how they lived. Without even touching upon the anti-feminist implications of this, the socio-economic implications are clear; Wealthy women are showcasing staying at home and tending farms or having many children as a way to connect with the traditional, typically working class family, while still earning massive amounts of money simply for doing this. 

It is important to acknowledge that in all of these instances of the wealthy appropriating a working class lifestyle, this is only done for as long as it suits them. Whether by tricking a wealthy family like Oliver, making money off of consuming less, or becoming breadwinners while claiming to stay-at-home and not work, these people do not confront the lived realities of the people whose lives they are glamourising.

Oliver, in his attempt to garner sympathy, claimed that his father died and that his mother had struggled with substance abuse issues, a very real lived experience for many. The film is constructed in a way to make the audience consider this deception and the implications it had for the stereotyping of working-class individuals being ‘leeches to the wealthy’, something often argued by politicians or the wealthy themselves in attempts to reduce their taxes and contributions to a welfare state. The film goes as far to insinuate it is the middle-class, those who aspire to wealthy but do not have the difficult experiences of the working class, who are the true deceivers, as they always strive for existing in one of the aforementioned classes that they do not belong to. 

The influencers who tone-deafly turned underconsumption into a way to glamourise spending less did not acknowledge that many people do not have the money to afford essentials, let alone over consume things. While the trend was prevalent, and as expected not a word has been uttered of it in influencer circles since this summer as it quickly died out, many who were critical of it took over the trend by showcasing their spaces and consumption habits as people who actually live the life these influencers were portraying. This allowed for a sort of homage to the true working class, who do not receive very much glamorisation or acclaim in media circles. 

The Trad Wives are a wider discussion over both a socio-economic and feminist realm, but their persistence to portray themselves as women who are subservient to their husband, while simultaneously acquiring wealth for themselves, misrepresents the lived experience of women who lived this life in the past. It minimises the struggles of the women who fought to have a life outside of the home, glamourising the subjugation they experienced and continue to experience throughout our world.

The appropriation of the working-class struggle, whether in a film on class commentary or tone deaf uber-rich individuals forming a working-class struggle for themselves, can be chalked up to vanity and the wish to portray oneself in a particular light. The use of media to do so has allowed for a sort of play to be created out of the crafted extent to which these people wish to experience the working-class struggle, as long as it benefits them and generates revenue. As long as it adds to the public perception these individuals wish to put out, they will leech off of the hardships of others before moving on to the next popular lifestyle to lead.