The Compass

Volume 1 Issue 9 Article 2

August 2022

Cottagecore and Rural Gentrification

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.arcadia.edu/thecompass

Part of the Migration Studies Commons, Place and Environment Commons, and the Rural Sociology
Commons

Recommended Citation
Johnston, Zoe (2022) "Cottagecore and Rural Gentrification," The Compass: Vol. 1: Iss. 9, Article 2.
Available at: https://scholarworks.arcadia.edu/thecompass/vol1/iss9/2

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@Arcadia. It has been accepted for
inclusion in The Compass by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@Arcadia. For more information, please contact
[email protected],[email protected].
Cottagecore and Rural Gentrification
By: Zoë Johnston, Arcadia University
The internet has become filled with imag- middle-class migrants of how the landscape can be
es of stone cottages covered in ivy, sepia-tinted tea cultivated to fit their romanticized agrarian lifestyle.
parties abundant with home-baked pastries, women For the majority of people that would be
in peasant dresses trailing their fingers across tall considered “rural gentrifiers,” they have no previous
grasses, and flower bouquets set into mason jars. Each experience living outside of urban or suburban areas.5
of these scenes is categorized under the aesthetic of Their migration is not driven by reality, but rather
“cottagecore,” which is growing in popularity. This by the opportunity to project their own desires onto
aesthetic movement draws upon people’s desires for a landscape outside of the rigidity of the city. Given
simplicity and a nostalgia for a pre-industrial lifestyle.1 its proliferation online, cottagecore standardizes and
However, an unexamined consequence of this idyllic aestheticizes this desire with images that adhere to a
fantasy is the subsequent gentrification of rural com- bucolic ideal of the countryside, facilitating a new cul-
munities. Gentrification is the process of funneling tural frame of reference of what an agrarian lifestyle
capital into low-income neighborhoods to make them looks like. This frame of reference serves to create a
more attractive to middle and upper-class consumers, popularized expectation and understanding of rurality.
often displacing previous low-income residents.2 This Even before the rise in popularity of cottagecore, re-
process is most often associated with cities, but over searchers Smith and Holt found in their case study of
the past few decades, it has spread further out from the Hebden Bridge, England that “migrants… seek a very
urban center. distinct representation of rurality, which encompasses
One of the driving factors of gentrification is a particular type of rural aesthetic [specifically]... the
people attempting to buy into a particular lifestyle. valley topography.”6 Many of the households that they
This is amplified in the rural sphere as migrants’ goals interviewed cited the visual beauty of Hebden Bridge
are often not to extract profit monetarily from the land as its drawing factor. Further, when questioned as to
but rather to collect values from experiences. While why they did not settle in neighboring countryside
urban gentrification pushes out previous residents, towns, the households said that the alternatives were
rural gentrification is more often observed as a change “uglier” and “not as stunning.”
in land use.3 As Gotham notes, “gentrification is not an Cottagecore has led its consumers to believe
outcome of group preferences nor a reflection of mar- that a specific country landscape is most desirable;
ket laws of supply and demand. Consumer taste for one characterized by an abundance of greenery, wild-
gentrified spaces is, instead, created and marketed.”4 flowers and berries, and perhaps an idle river flowing
In the age of the internet, this taste for a simple agrar- across the land. This may explain why Hines finds the
ian lifestyle is fostered by cottagecore. The aesthetic presence of “rural gentrifiers” to be more abundant in
movement of cottagecore encourages rural gentrifi- picturesque towns in the Western United States rather
cation by providing a cultural frame of reference for than anywhere in the sprawling prosaic plains of the

1. Rebecca Jennings, “Once Upon a Time, There Was Cottagecore,” Vox, August 3, 2020, https://www.vox.com/the-
goods/2020/8/3/21349640/cottagecore-taylor-swift-folklore-lesbian-clothes-animal-crossing.
2. Kevin Fox Gotham, “Gentrification,” in The Concise Encyclopedia of Sociology, ed. George Ritzer and J. Michael Ryan (Malden:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 255.
3. Martin Phillips, “Rural Gentrification and the Process of Class Colonization,” Journal of Rural Studies 9, no. 2 (April 1993): 124,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0743-0167(93)90026-G.
4. Gotham, “Gentrification,” 255.
5. Dwight J. Hines, “Rural Gentrification as Permanent Tourism: the Creation of the ‘New’ West Archipelago as Post Industrial Cultur-
al Space,” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 28, no. 3 (June 2010): 510, https://doi.org/10.1068%2Fd3309.
6. Darren P. Smith and Louise Holt, “Lesbian Migrants in the Gentrified ‘Valley’ and ‘Other’ Geographies of Rural Gentrification,”
Journal of Rural Studies 21, no. 3 (July 2005):317, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.04.002.

8
Midwest.7 Prime examples of these towns include: with a promise of safety and the opportunity to ex-
Durango, Colorado; Bozeman, Montana; and Taos, press sexuality. Although cottagecore presents itself
New Mexico. Hines also corroborates the findings of as an escape from social normativity, it is not the
Smith and Holt by noting that the rural West “offers land itself but the cultural frame of reference that has
newcomers a territory that is (perceived/described by been facilitated that offers this escape. In the Hebden
them as) cleaner, quieter, less populated, and more Bridge field study, the households explained that they
possessed of the possibility for valued experiences did not actually want to live isolated in nature and
than the places they have previously known.”8 It is preferred having a community around them. As the
this perception of possibility that drives people to community was established, it began to draw more
these communities, and cottagecore affirms that these lesbian migrants to Hebden Bridge as they knew they
desires can become a reality. would find people with similar values and desires for
Integral to this desire is the lure of freedom life.11 This demonstrates the necessity of sharing these
and community, and the safety and security that this spaces with people who have the same cultural frame
provides. While popular across demographics, cot- of reference of what the landscape is meant to provide.
tagecore has primarily been followed by members of Without this shared understanding of the environment,
the LGBTQ+ community. Although the impact on the migrants are more likely to experience a cognitive
land remains the same, it is necessary to acknowledge dissonance between their expectations and the reality
that queer people are rarely moving with the explic- that they come to face. Conversely, the presence of
it malintent of gentrification. Instead, cottagecore’s shared cultural references and similar intentions of
removal from densely populated areas offers queer building community in agrarian landscapes magnifies
people the freedom to pursue gender expression and the possibility and impact of gentrification.
romantic relationships. The case study of Hebden Seeking safety and security is not limited to
Bridge was undertaken because the town was dubbed only the LGBTQ+ community, especially not in 2020.
the “Sapphic Capital” of England due to the large One of the reasons that cottagecore is considered an
migration of lesbians there in the 1990s and early aesthetic or an aspiration is because it offers some-
2000s. Many of the lesbian households that were in- thing so disparate from the current reality. Despite
terviewed there in 2005 cited a desire for an accepting the subculture’s initial emergence on Tumblr in 2014,
community and a comforting lifestyle as their reason it was not until 2018 that the aesthetic was officially
for migration.9 This correlation between sexuality and christened “cottagecore,” and only in 2020 that the
movement to rural communities can be explained by aesthetic broke into the mainstream. This surge in
the longing to have the freedom to come out without popularity has a direct correlation with the increasing
the restraints of heteronormative expectations. instability of the world: the disarray of the political
Evienne Yanney, a young lesbian, explains she sphere, ever-mounting climate crisis, and the corona-
was drawn to cottagecore because “many of us aren’t virus pandemic. During the early months of the pan-
really accepted in the modern world, so the thought demic, “the cottagecore hashtag jumped 153 percent,
of running away to a cottage is really, I guess, kind of while likes on cottagecore posts were up by 541
soothing.”10 This is an interesting perception, espe- percent.”12 Amanda Brennan, a Tumblr trend expert,
cially since rural communities in the United States extrapolates that “every time there’s been a spike in
tend to be more socially and politically conservative. Covid cases, there’s a spike in cottagecore right along
However, this is the role that cottagecore plays: it with it.”13 Cottagecore offers people an escape from
reframes the cultural understanding of landscapes the uncertainty of politics and the vulnerability of the

7. Hines, “Rural Gentrification as Permanent Tourism,” 509.

9
coronavirus pandemic. Despite lacking a comprehen- migrants as it offers an ongoing performance to ce-
sive understanding of what rural life is realistically ment their role.
like, people are driven by the hope that they will reap While these migrants are driven to the coun-
the benefits of a stable, secure cottagecore lifestyle. tryside by perceptions, middle-class performativity,
Gentrification in the urban sphere is often and a desire to collect experiences, they enact a very
associated with an influx of capital and financial gains real change of the landscape. Gentrification in the
for middle-class and upper-class gentrifiers. On the urban context is often associated with a change in
rural stage, middle-class gentrifiers are not seeking architecture, businesses, and services. However, Hines
monetary profit, but rather experiential value.14 As the describes rural gentrification “as producing what it
middle class has grown and the economy has shifted seeks to consume, i.e. the displacement of industrial
to be post-industrial, symbols have become an import- working/middle-class people and the creation of a post
ant marker of socioeconomic status rather than mate- industrial landscape of experience.”18 In the process
rial goods. Hines gives Karl Marx credit for his work of rural gentrification, migrants change the economic
in observing that people deployed cultural commod- function of the environment, moving from the ex-
ities to discern their relative standing to one another, traction of resources to create material results to pro-
particularly within the nebulous middle class.15 These longing the aestheticism of the landscape to produce
symbols include experiences like traveling interna- experiential profits.
tionally, going to summer camp, and even attending One example of this shift is the case study of
college. Despite cottagecore maintaining primarily an Georgetown Lake in southwest Montana. The lake was
online presence, the ability to actually live the lifestyle built in 1901 to produce electricity for the local mining
is the ultimate form of status in the world of experien- companies, and the runoff benefitted cattle farmers in
tial value. the area. However, in the late 1980s, there was a surge
One reason the middle class values the cot- of ex-urbanites who moved to Georgetown Lake and
tagecore lifestyle is because it signals that they were quickly bought up lakefront property. As previously
successful enough within capitalism to maintain an explored, these migrants held specific perceptions and
illusion of being able to opt out of it and remove them- expectations of the landscape. Their expectations are
selves from the hustle culture that seems synonymous articulated in the purpose statement of the homeown-
with urban centers. In the postindustrial, consumerist er’s association covenant:
culture of the United States, success is sometimes “[To] ensure use of the Property for attractive
understood in the context of having bought everything recreational and residential purposes only;
that is necessary and transcending to a life of simplici- to promote health and happiness; to prevent
ty. While cottagecore is the epitome of simplicity, this unecessary impairment of the environment; to
also explains why it is dominated by whiteness and maintain the tone of the Property in its native
middle-class migrants.16 For people with economic form and preserve its natural beauty as far as
and racial privilege, cottagecore signifies a conscious possible.”19
choice to opt out of capitalism but for those that don’t These migrants placed the highest value on the
hold that historic power, it is instead perceived as a long-term visual beauty of the land. While the lake
failure to reach societal expectations of success. Hines was exploited for economic purposes for decades,
explains that the middle class is no longer a definitive the new residents demanded that the level of outflow
position, but rather a performance that is put on by from the lake be decreased significantly, consequent-
gathering experiences, signifying to others the level of ly harming the mining companies and cattle farmers.
status and success that has been claimed.17 Therefore, One reason for their demand was to keep the water
cottagecore is highly appealing to white, middle-class level high enough to cover the shoreline, ensuring an

14. Phillips, “Rural Gentrification,” 125.

10
aesthetic view of the lake from their properties. An- displace working-class residents in order to remake the
other reason was to maintain a habitable environment land into an idyllic scene and market it for experienc-
for trout in the lake, allowing residents and tourists to es. Cottagecore began online but has since seeped into
continue sport fishing. A compromise was eventually the collective consciousness, and encourages its more
reached, but a shift had occurred in Georgetown Lake, privileged consumers to engage in rural gentrification
changing it from a working-class, industrial mining disguised as an embrace of simplicity and agrarian-
community to a middle-class, ex-urbanite destination. ism. The cozily decorated cottages hide the reality of
Hines succinctly summarizes the process of rural working-class displacement, and the aesthetic photos
gentrification as the assertion of “class-based ideals in nature mask the dwindling economic opportunities.
of proper land use.”20 While it is not identical to the In trying to escape the woes of city living, these cot-
gentrification that occurs in cities, rural communities tagecore migrants brought the process of gentrification
still experience the change in businesses, the devel- with them.
opment of landscape to be visually appealing, and the
ignorance of working-class needs that are associated
with gentrification.21
Both Hebden Bridge and Georgetown Lake
demonstrate the tangible reality of how aestheticized
emotional desires can eventually inspire migration
to and cultivation of rural areas. Jennings notes that
cottagecore “is just one of dozens of iterations of
movements fetishizing the countryside and coziness
over the past few hundred years,” but it is also “the
first that has existed almost exclusively online.”22 As
an online movement, cottagecore has accumulated a
significant audience and instilled a new ubiquitous
cultural assumption that an agrarian lifestyle is ideal to
pursue beauty, art, and the joyful simplicity of home-
making. While the bulk of cottagecore exists online,
there is still a portion of people that will move to rural
areas with the intention of changing the landscape to
match the photos they have collected on a Pinterest
board. A small percentage of people are realistically
able to move to rural landscapes and implement the
cottagecore lifestyle, yet there is the danger of these
communities growing and fortifying the impact of
gentrification. As was the case with Hebden Bridge,
the early presence of lesbians in the area led to an
exponential influx of more queer migrants.23 The same
could be predicted of emerging cottagecore com-
munities. However, these rural areas are not blank
canvases, and often have a long history of industrial
communities who are reliant on the natural resources
of the land. Therefore, the in-migration of cottagecore
followers echoes the gentrification of urban areas; they

20. Ibid., 523.

11
 Bibliography
Gotham, Kevin Fox. “Gentrification.” In The Concise Encyclopedia of Sociology, edited by
George Ritzer and J. Michael Ryan. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
Hines, J Dwight. “Rural Gentrification as Permanent Tourism: the Creation of the ‘New’ West
Archipelago as Post Industrial Cultural Space,” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 28, no. 3
(June 2010): 509-525. https://doi.org/10.1068%2Fd3309.
Jennings, Rebecca. “Once Upon a Time, There Was Cottagecore.” Vox, August 3, 2020.
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/8/3/21349640/cottagecore-taylor-swift-folklore-lesbian
-clothes-animal-crossing.
Phillips, Martin. “Rural Gentrification and the Process of Class Colonization,” Journal of Rural
Studies 9, no. 2 (April 1993): 123-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/0743-0167(93)90026-G.
Smith, Darren P. and Louise Holt. “Lesbian Migrants in the Gentrified ‘Valley’ and ‘Other’
Geographies of Rural Gentrification,” Journal of Rural Studies 21, no. 3 (July 2005): 313-322. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.04.002.

12