The wellness industry has been hailed as a force for good in the modern world, offering people the opportunity to improve their physical and mental health through a range of products and services. However, the second act of the wellness economy has revealed that much of what was presented in Act I as a positive force for change was actually just another manifestation of overamped neoliberalism, with many individuals using the industry as a means to climb the social ladder rather than to promote genuine wellness.
In Act I, the wellness industry was presented as a movement that sought to promote holistic health and wellbeing, with a focus on practices such as yoga, meditation, and natural remedies. It was marketed as a way for people to take control of their own health and happiness, and as a response to the stresses and strains of modern life.
However, as the industry has grown and become more mainstream, it has become clear that many of those who embraced it were more interested in using it as a means to advance their own social and economic status. They saw the wellness industry as a way to gain entry into the world of the 1%, a way to network and meet influential people, and a way to signal their own status and wealth to others.
This has led to a situation where much of what is presented as wellness is actually just a form of consumerism, with individuals buying products and services that promise to improve their health and wellbeing but which are often ineffective or even harmful. The wellness industry has become a playground for the rich and privileged, with many of its practitioners more interested in promoting their own brand than in genuinely helping people to improve their lives.
Furthermore, there is a growing sense that many of those who embraced the wellness industry in Act I were simply confused about what it actually represented. They saw it as a way to promote individualism and self-reliance, without fully understanding the underlying social and political factors that contribute to poor health and wellbeing.
In some cases, this confusion has led to the promotion of ideas that are actually harmful, such as the belief that overpopulation is the root cause of many of the world’s problems. This Malthusian approach to wellness is at odds with the Deleuzian vision of the world, which emphasizes the interconnectedness of all things and the need for collective action to address societal challenges.
In conclusion, the Act II of the wellness economy has revealed that much of what was presented in Act I as a positive force for change was actually just another form of neoliberalism, with individuals using the industry to advance their own social and economic status rather than to promote genuine wellness. As we move forward, it is important to recognize these underlying dynamics and to work towards a more holistic and collective vision of health and wellbeing that is rooted in social justice and community empowerment.