Has Oppression Become a Brand? The Commodification of Oppression and the Diaspora Identity Economy

Something that i started to notice more an more as the war in Iran progressed was what I came to call the commodification of oppression in the diaspora or diaspora identity economy. I was struck by just how many of the anti-regime and often promonarchist voices from outside Iran seemed to have built their entire identity, and often platform on just that. Being a hyper-visible symbol of those in exile (often self-imposed) and supposedly being the only ones free enough to actually speak the truth on behalf of their oppressed countrymen in the mother country. But then I started to notice something else about them. They had almost all not just built an identity around this issue, but they had also built a brand. Their advocacy was monetised, and then I started to see them for what they really were.

The Questions About Diaspora Identity We Don’t Usually Ask
What does it mean to commodify oppression? How does diaspora identity function in the attention economy? Why do some voices gain more visibility than others? Is identity being expressed, or performed? Who benefits when oppression becomes content?

We are living in a moment in which identity is no longer merely a private matter of personal understanding. It is visible, performative, and increasingly valuable. Across social media, diaspora voices have become some of the most prominent narrators of political conflict, oppression, and cultural identity. They speak on war, displacement, women’s rights, authoritarianism, and historical grievance, often doing so with urgency, conviction, and moral certainty. Yet beneath this phenomenon lies a question that is rarely asked openly and even more rarely explored with care: what happens when oppression enters the attention economy?

Check here to read more of my posts about Empire and Resistance, Iran and Kurdistan.

This is not an argument that oppression is fictitious, exaggerated, or unworthy of discussion. It is an argument that in certain contexts, oppression is shaped, performed, aestheticised, and at times incentivised in ways that deserve closer scrutiny. In an era where visibility can be converted into influence, and influence into opportunity, the line between advocacy, representation, and performance has become increasingly difficult to define.

What Is the Diaspora Identity Economy? Definitions and Key Concepts

To understand this issue properly, we must first establish clear definitions. A diaspora refers to a population dispersed from its original homeland, often through conflict, persecution, or economic necessity, while retaining some emotional, familial, or cultural connection to that place of origin. Commodification refers to the process by which something is transformed into a product or asset possessing exchange value. Identity, meanwhile, is not simply a personal truth or emotional attachment; in contemporary discourse it also functions as a social position, political category, and, increasingly, a form of capital.

Scholars in sociology and cultural studies have long noted that identity can operate as a form of social capital—something that confers legitimacy, access, and authority within particular contexts. When diaspora, identity, and commodification intersect, we begin to see the emergence of what might reasonably be described as a diaspora identity economy.

Diaspora Identity and Acculturation: Psychological and Sociological Foundations

Diaspora identity is rarely stable. It is negotiated continuously between competing pressures. Individuals raised between cultures often find themselves balancing the need to assimilate into the dominant culture around them with the desire to preserve some connection to their heritage. This dynamic is widely explored within acculturation theory and research on bicultural identity, which emphasises the psychological tension involved in navigating multiple cultural frameworks.

Such conditions frequently produce what has been described as a fragmented or hybrid identity, in which belonging is partial and contingent. In these contexts, identity is not simply inherited or lived passively; it is actively constructed, maintained, and at times strategically expressed.

Assimilation vs Identity Performance: Why Diaspora Identity Becomes Amplified

Within this framework, two broad behavioural responses often emerge. The first is assimilation, whereby individuals align themselves with the norms, values, and expectations of the dominant culture. This alignment can provide access to opportunity, safety, and social legitimacy. The second is identity amplification, in which ethnic or ancestral identity becomes more pronounced, visible, and central to the individual’s public self-presentation.

Sociological research on symbolic ethnicity is particularly useful here. It suggests that when cultural practices are no longer fully embedded in everyday life, identity may instead be expressed through symbols, language, and selective performance. In this sense, identity becomes something that is articulated rather than simply lived.

These responses are not contradictory. Rather, they are parallel strategies for navigating the same structural tension: how to belong within a system that simultaneously includes and differentiates.

From Lived Identity to Labelled Identity: A Semantic Shift

As this process unfolds, identity begins to change in character. It moves from being something deeply lived and embodied toward becoming something increasingly declarative. It becomes less about who one is—complex, relational, and evolving—and more about what one is: a category, a label, a recognisable marker.

This semantic shift has been explored in linguistic and philosophical traditions, particularly in discussions of how language constructs social reality. When identity becomes something that can be clearly named and repeatedly asserted, it becomes more easily recognised and validated. At the same time, it becomes more easily mobilised.

In this sense, language begins to perform the work that lived cultural continuity may no longer fully sustain. The repeated declaration of identity is not merely descriptive; it is constitutive. It stabilises identity in contexts where it might otherwise feel diffuse or fragmented.

The Attention Economy: How Identity Becomes Currency Online

This transformation must be situated within the broader dynamics of the attention economy. Digital platforms reward visibility, clarity, and strong positioning. They favour content that is easily categorised and rapidly consumed, and identity provides precisely such a framework.

When individuals speak on political or cultural issues from the standpoint of identity—particularly identities associated with conflict, marginalisation, or historical grievance—they are often perceived as possessing a form of epistemic authority. This perceived authority can attract attention, which in turn generates audience, visibility, and opportunity.

Over time, a feedback loop can emerge in which identity produces authority, authority produces audience, and audience produces both social and economic capital. It is in this context that identity may begin to function as a form of currency.

The Aestheticisation of Activism: When Oppression Becomes Content

A further layer of complexity arises when we consider the visual dimension of digital communication. Identity is not only spoken but also seen, and what is seen is shaped by the aesthetic norms of the platforms through which it is communicated.

In many cases, political commentary is delivered through highly curated and visually optimised presentations. The backdrop may be carefully selected, the appearance managed, and the tone calibrated to appear informal or spontaneous. At the same time, the subject matter may concern violence, repression, or political struggle.

This creates a notable tension between message and medium. The visual language associated with lifestyle, fashion, and entertainment is used to convey serious political realities. As a result, oppression is not only discussed; it is rendered visually consumable.

Gender, Social Media, and the Aesthetic Economy of Visibility

This dynamic becomes more complex when examined through the lens of gender. Research across media studies and feminist theory has consistently shown that female visibility in digital spaces remains closely tied to aesthetics and desirability. Women are often required to navigate a system in which authority, visibility, and attractiveness are intertwined.

In such contexts, the presentation of identity is shaped not only by cultural or political considerations but also by the visual expectations embedded within platform economies. This does not imply insincerity or manipulation; rather, it reflects the structural conditions under which visibility is achieved.

The same individual may therefore operate simultaneously as a political voice, a cultural representative, and a visual persona. These roles are not always easily separable, and their convergence is often incentivised.

Monetising Identity: Fashion, Beauty, and the Business of Diaspora Content

At this point, the question of commodification becomes difficult to avoid. Oppression, in isolation, does not easily translate into sustainable income. However, when combined with identity, visibility, and aesthetic appeal, it becomes part of a broader content ecosystem.

This helps explain the frequent overlap between identity-based political commentary and industries such as fashion, beauty, and lifestyle branding. These sectors provide the infrastructure through which visibility can be maintained and monetised. As a result, a dual content structure often emerges: one strand focused on political commentary and identity-based authority, and another focused on aesthetic engagement and commercial viability.

Importantly, this does not necessarily indicate opportunism. Rather, it reflects the economic realities of digital platforms, in which sustained visibility often requires diversification into monetisable forms of content.

Power, Representation, and the “Native Informant” Problem

It is also essential to recognise that not all voices are amplified equally. Postcolonial theory, particularly the concept of the “native informant,” highlights how certain individuals from marginalised groups are elevated because their perspectives align with dominant narratives or are more easily assimilated into existing frameworks of understanding.

In contemporary media ecosystems, voices that are legible, articulate, and aligned with prevailing discourses may be more readily platformed than those that challenge dominant assumptions more radically. This does not necessarily invalidate those voices, but it does suggest that their prominence is shaped, at least in part, by structural conditions rather than purely organic factors.

Why Some Diasporas Appear More Performative Than Others

The apparent intensity of these dynamics varies across different diaspora communities. This variation is often less a matter of cultural difference than of structural positioning. Diasporas associated with ongoing conflict, geopolitical tension, or racialisation within Western contexts are more likely to experience heightened visibility and, consequently, stronger incentives toward identity performance.

Conversely, diasporas that are less visibly marked or less politically central may encounter weaker pressures in this regard. Their identities may not carry the same symbolic or economic value within contemporary media systems.

Ethical Considerations: Activism, Incentives, and Structural Pressures

It is important to emphasise that this analysis does not seek to delegitimise diaspora voices or deny the reality of oppression. Many individuals engage in advocacy out of genuine conviction and at considerable personal cost. They may face social backlash, professional consequences, or even threats to personal safety.

However, these realities coexist with structural incentives that shape how identity is expressed and how narratives are received. Recognising these incentives does not diminish the legitimacy of the issues being discussed; rather, it allows for a more nuanced understanding of the conditions under which those discussions take place.

Who Benefits from Diaspora Identity Narratives?

The critical question, therefore, is not simply who is speaking, but who benefits from particular forms of speech. Which narratives are amplified, which identities are foregrounded, and which forms of expression are rewarded?

When identity functions as currency, representation becomes entangled with systems of value, visibility, and exchange. The result is not necessarily insincerity, but complexity.

Rethinking Identity, Power, and Performance in the Diaspora

Diaspora identity today exists at the intersection of culture, power, economics, and media. It is shaped by displacement, reinforced through language, amplified through aesthetics, and sustained by digital systems that reward visibility and engagement.

None of this renders such identities inauthentic. However, it does suggest that they are increasingly mediated by structural forces that shape how they are expressed and understood.

When oppression enters the marketplace of attention, it does not disappear. It changes form. The task, then, is not simply to listen, but to understand the conditions under which certain voices are heard more clearly than others—and why.

FAQ

References

Thank You for Reading!

I hope you enjoyed this post and found it insightful. If you did, feel free to subscribe to receive updates about future posts via email, leave a comment below, or share it with your friends and followers. Your feedback and engagement mean a lot to me, and it helps keep this community growing.

If you’re interested in diving deeper into topics like this, don’t forget to check out the Donc Voila Quoi Podcast, where I discuss these ideas in more detail. You can also follow me on Pinterest @doncvoilaquoi and Instagram @jessielouisevernon, though my accounts have been shut down before (like my old @doncvoilaquoi on Instagram), so keep an eye out for updates.