Why the Dark Academia Trend Hides a Bad Academic Culture
In light of the Dark Academia aesthetic’s rising popularity on Instagram and TikTok, I’d like to dive into the problematic side of Dark Academia that’s not highlighted enough. The aesthetic, often associated with Donna Tartt’s novel The Secret History (1992) or the movie Dead Poets Society (1989), became surprisingly popular during the lockdown in March when academic institutions were struggling with adapting their teaching to an online format. While Zoom university made me feel less motivated to put effort into my studies, I found myself daydreaming about strolling down a New England campus cloaked in autumn colours as I carry a big stack of books in my arms. An innocent daydream that had manifested after stumbling upon an IG account dedicated to the aesthetic.
The Dark Academia aesthetic is commonly known as a fashion trend. The aesthetic originates back to the clothing worn by students at Oxbridge and Ivy League schools in the 30s and 40s. To describe this aesthetic’s fashion I’d say it’s professor/grandpa chic. You can envision lots of heavy woollen or tweed blazers, blouses and oxford loafers. But the aesthetic is also a lifestyle dedicated to the arts and humanities. Many of the posts under the Dark Academia hashtag are also book and hobby recommendations. The favoured activities are for example reading literary novels, listening to classical music, visiting museums, and if you want to get real angsty, exploring abandoned graveyards.
However, as some people pointed out and made me realise, the Dark Academia aesthetic is rooted in this very toxic tradition of Eurocentrism and privilege. Like I already mentioned, the aesthetic is often associated with academic institutions like Oxbridge and Ivy League schools. These highly praised institutions are known to be where the social elite sends their offspring to receive an education while allowing them to mingle with people of a similar background. Moreover, Oxbridge and the Ivy League are known to be places where colour and diversity are quite lacking in their student body. It’s no surprise then that when you analyse Dark Academia posts, the aesthetic focuses mostly on western works of art and literature, and you also rarely see people of colour depicted in these posts.
It was quite a shock to realise that I was admiring this trend whose whole existence is based on the exclusion of people like me, people of colour and from a non-upper class background. It surely doesn’t hurt to fantasise about aesthetics like Dark Academia but I believe it’s also important to recognise that certain things like this aesthetic are rooted in elitist and racist practices. This is what Tartt tries to convey in her novel as well since the main characters are depicted as these extremely intelligent, sophisticated and mostly well-off young students, although their personalities leave much desired. The novel sharply points out that underneath all the beauty and glamour many dark secrets are being hidden away.
Let me now focus on the other reasons why the aesthetic’s link to academic institutions like Oxbridge and the Ivy League is problematic. In addition to Dark Academia’s and academia’s general lack of diversity, there’s also the issue of money because in our current capitalist society it’s all about money. We are but pawns in the market of demand and supply, no one is spared from its cruelty and unfairness, not even educational institutions. Especially since money, and a shit ton load of it, is what grants you entrance to these prestigious institutions that are the intellectual breeding zones of some of the greatest scholars you’ve ever known.
Any degree of these types of schools is a golden ticket to job security and financial stability. It’s a status symbol that says “Yes, I’m an extremely talented and intelligent person.” Nevertheless, like with all good things in the world, there’s a price to pay, a hefty one too. When looking at the fact how expensive something vital as education has become throughout the years, I think you have to be willfully blind or extremely privileged to say that academic institutions haven’t turned into capitalist organisations.
Many of us aren’t capable of paying the outrageously high tuition fees without the help of student loans. We keep racking on debts just to receive a higher education in general. And that’s just for the fees. There are also the costs of housing, textbooks, school supplies, groceries, clothes and of course money for fun things because young people are still allowed to enjoy their youth. Similarly to the past, only the rich and white upper-class can easily afford an expensive education like that. What about everyone else though? People who are equally deserving, and in some special cases even more worthy, of a good education but not capable of bearing the financial costs. And to come back to the issue of race in this discussion of money, certain ethnic minority groups are also often less financially capable to send their children to university, unlike white households.
A well-rounded education is a basic human right, not only to succeed in life by becoming employable but also as a part of our personal development. To my great disappointment, education has moved away from cultivating knowledge and to satisfy our intellectual cravings, to something that needs to be done like it’s a task on a to-do list instead of an activity to partake pleasure in. Academia appears to have died at some point in history before it was reborn into this money-hungry demon.
Another problem with the Dark Academia trend that annoys me is the fixation with the arts and humanities. Please don’t misinterpret this for a dislike of these fields. I’m a proud literature major and appreciator of the arts. What causes anger to flare up inside me is how this trend emphasises that people can harbour an appreciation and disdain for the arts and humanities at the same time. To name some examples of the subjects hailed by this trend: art history, literature, history, philosophy and the classics. These studies are often considered to exude an aura of “sophistication,” whereas, in reality, society deems these subjects as “irrelevant” and “easy.”
Humanities subjects are supposedly for lazy or less intelligent people in contrast to STEM subjects. I’m sick of people thinking what I’m doing is worthless and that all I’m good for is writing glorified book reports. Especially when it comes from a person who can’t even write one proper sentence without autocorrect and thinks reading The Catcher in the Rye once makes you a fucking literary expert. But if we can get lost in the romanticism of it all for even just a second then all is easily forgiven, right?
Besides, governments are less motivated to invest in the humanities and arts because in our capitalist society these fields aren’t contributing to our economy, or so these governments say. I think what they mean to say is that these fields aren’t perfect cash cows for them. Yet these fields are also what keep us human as they store the secrets and history of humanity. These subjects aren’t only a celebration of human life but also a critical study of human attitudes through the ages of time.
With an aesthetic like Dark Academia where academia and especially the field of arts and humanities are romanticised, I’d like to ask you to be more critical about the current academic culture and attitude towards these subjects in the future. Even though an aesthetic is meant as something fun and light-hearted, an innocent indulgence can easily become harmful the moment it sustains itself on the ignorance of serious issues like financial inequality and the exclusion of POC. You can dream on for a bit longer if you really want, but it can never last forever as reality will always catch up with you.
