In recent years, brands have increasingly incorporated themes of genetics and inherent traits into their advertising narratives, often with unsettling undertones. Dunkin’ Donuts’ newest campaign featuring Gavin Casalegno exemplifies this troubling trend. By attributing his tan solely to genetics and claiming the title of “king of summer,” the ad subtly elevates white features as naturally superior, reinforcing harmful stereotypes rooted in racial and racialized hierarchies. This approach not only simplifies complex biological traits but also perpetuates a dangerous narrative that beauty, vibrancy, and even worth are inborn and inherently tied to whiteness. Such messaging subtly insinuates that brown or darker features are less desirable or less ‘naturally’ aligned with summer appeal, which is a problematic and exclusionary perspective.
The Implications of Using ‘Genetics’ as a Cultural Signifier
The ad goes beyond superficial branding and taps into a deeply ingrained societal obsession with ‘genetic perfection’—a term that historically has been weaponized to uphold notions of racial superiority. When a brand highlights genetics as the determining factor for one’s appearance or attractiveness, it blurs the lines between personal identity and racial stereotypes. The viral backlash underscores a collective discomfort with this association, highlighting how such narratives marginalize non-white aesthetics and reinforce existing power structures. It becomes clear that invoking genetics in this context isn’t merely playful or humorous but a reflection of broader societal biases. We see how this messaging echoes past ideologies that have justified racial hierarchies, eugenics, and discrimination under the guise of celebrating ‘natural’ beauty.
The Cultural Context and Its Dangerous Echoes
This issue is compounded by the societal context where representations of ‘ideal’ traits are predominantly aligned with whiteness. The American Eagle campaign, which faced criticism for racialized symbolism, shares a similar penchant for linking ‘genes’ or ‘traits’ to racial hierarchies. When companies use these cues to sell products, they perpetuate a narrative that certain features—like golden skin or light hair—are desirable because they are natural or innate. Critics rightly point out that such rhetoric ignores the diversity of beauty standards across cultures and perpetuates harmful stereotypes that have historically fueled racial discrimination.
Adding to the cultural critique, figures like Doja Cat mock these kinds of ads by exaggerating the language, making clear how nonsensical and potentially damaging this fixation on genetics is. The ridicule underscores how these campaigns risk normalizing pseudo-scientific ideas that elevate certain racial features while degrading others. It’s not merely about aesthetics but about fostering a mindset that equates value and attractiveness with inherited traits that have been historically used to justify inequality. Brands need to recognize that promoting such narratives does more harm than good, and genuine inclusivity requires shifting focus away from superficial markers tied to race and genetics, embracing instead the richness of genuine diversity.