Gendered Fetishism and Emotional Capitalism in Digital Culture: Commodity, Care, and Control


Date Published : 5 December 2025

Contributors

Nissya Febrizani

Author

Keywords

gender digital culture language commodification emotional capitalism semiotics

Proceeding

Track

General Track

License

Copyright (c) 2025 International Conference on Cultures & Languages

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Abstract

The contemporary digital era marks a fundamental shift in the relationships between gender, affect, and economy. This study explores how emotional labor and gender identity are commodified within platform capitalism, focusing on the practices of female creators on Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. Using digital ethnography and multimodal semiotic analysis, the study identifies three interrelated patterns. First, the monetization of vulnerability, where personal narratives—such as experiences with mental health or body image—are strategically leveraged to generate economic gains through sponsorships, affiliate links, and donation models. Second, the ritualization of care, which positions repetitive practices such as self-care routines as branding strategies, creating engineered intimacy and an aura of authenticity to maintain audience engagement. Third, algorithmic control, where platform infrastructures amplify affective content and shape creator behavior in alignment with attention-driven economic logic. These dynamics converge in what this study terms affective fetishism: the transformation of care, vulnerability, and authenticity into aestheticized commodities that appear natural but are systematically optimized for visibility and profitability. The digital performance of femininity is no longer mere self-expression; it is a curated product guided by algorithmic governance. This research contributes to discussions on emotional capitalism by demonstrating how gendered affect circulates as both symbolic and economic capital in digital culture. The findings highlight the ambivalent space between empowerment and exploitation, revealing how authenticity is not only a cultural value but also a commodified asset engineered for engagement in algorithmically mediated public spaces.

References

Abidin, C. (2017). Stylistic expressions of YouTube lifestyle influencers. Taylor & Francis. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10350330.2024.2443019
Abidin, C. (2018). Communicative intimacies: Influencers and perceived interconnectedness. Emerald Publishing. https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=IR0LtdIAAAAJ
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Harvard University Press.
Banet-Weiser, S. (2018). Empowered: Popular feminism and popular misogyny. Duke University Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378702718_MISOGYNY_SURVIVORSHIP_AND_BELIEVABILITY_ON_DIGITAL_PLATFORMS_EMERGING_TECHNIQUES_OF_ABUSE_RADICALIZATION_AND_RESISTANCE
Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies. Hill and Wang.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
Clough, P. T., & Halley, J. (Eds.). (2007). The affective turn: Theorizing the social. Duke University Press. https://ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/7-1cloughetal.pdf
Duffy, B. E. (2015). The labor of visibility: Gendered self-expression in the social media imaginary. Paper presented at Internet Research 16: The 16th Annual Meeting of the Association of Internet Researchers. Phoenix, AZ, USA. http://spir.aoir.org
Duffy, B. E. (2017). The like economy: Social buttons and the data-intensive web. New Media & Society, 15(8), 1348–1365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812472322
Fernback, J. (2007). The affective turn: Theorizing the social. Duke University Press.
Gerlitz, C., & Helmond, A. (2013). The like economy: Social buttons and the data-intensive web. New Media & Society, 15(8), 1348–1365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812472322
Goldman, R. (1992). Commodity-sign: Advertising and the semiotic turn. In J. Fiske, J. Hartley, C. Hodge, & D. Turner (Eds.), Reading television (pp. 47–68). Routledge.
Gray, J. (2008). Commodity-sign: Advertising and the semiotic turn. In J. Fiske, J. Hartley, C. Hodge, & D. Turner (Eds.), Reading television (pp. 47–68). Routledge.
Gregg, M., & Seigworth, G. J. (Eds.). (2010). The affect theory reader. Duke University Press.
Hochschild, A. R. (2012). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.
Illouz, E. (2007). Cold intimacies: The making of emotional capitalism. Polity Press.
Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture. New York University Press.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. Arnold. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10350330.2023.2167594
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003099857/reading-images-gunther-kress-theo-van-leeuwen
Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Duke University Press. https://philpapers.org/rec/MASPFT-3
Marx, K. (1867). Das Kapital: A critique of political economy. Penguin Classics.
Schumann, C., & Thorson, E. (2007). Commodity-sign: Advertising and the semiotic turn. In J. Fiske, J. Hartley, C. Hodge, & D. Turner (Eds.), Reading television (pp. 47–68). Routledge.
Spurgeon, C. (2008). Commodity-sign: Advertising and the semiotic turn. In J. Fiske, J. Hartley, C. Hodge, & D. Turner (Eds.), Reading television (pp. 47–68). Routledge.
Van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA632409955&issn=19328036&it=r&linkaccess=abs&p=AONE&sid=googleScholar&sw=w&v=2.1

Downloads

How to Cite

Nissya, N. (2025). Gendered Fetishism and Emotional Capitalism in Digital Culture: Commodity, Care, and Control. International Conference on Cultures & Languages, 3(1), 1124-1146. https://conferences.uinsaid.ac.id/iccl/paper/view/453