There’s a moment in Buffy the Vampire Slayer when Buffy — the girl chosen in her generation to protect the world from evil — finally grows up. Let’s not spoil what might be one of the best-made episodes of the series, an hour of TV saturated with aching despair. Bills start piling up, money becomes short and Buffy can barely make ends meet for herself and her younger sister. With rising debts the destination of being the Slayer seems no longer to be enough to support their living so Buffy decides to start working at the local fast-food chain named the Doublemeat Palace. She finds herself behind the grill, where time becomes slow and all-consuming. The camera-work mirrors this drudgery, shifting from the show’s usual snappy pace into an unbearable, dragging experience — a reflection of the soul-crushing conditions of the wage labor workers reality.
Even when Buffy finishes her shift, she is haunted by the smell of that place: the oil, meat and grease. The odor becomes a constant reminder of a low-income job she loathes. When she goes out to fight the supernatural, to perform what is supposed to be her “destiny job” outside of the wage labor, the smell disturbingly haunts her, making her life’s promised destiny slowly crumble under the weight of dead-end fast-food shifts. Her despair becomes reflected in the transformed relationship with the vampires — in a humor adequate for the series, even the don’t want to bite her anymore.
The smell of the Doublemeat Palace becomes a residue that refuses to be contained within the working hours. Everyone who ever worked next to the frying machine will know that it’s true — you always take the smell of the oil home with you. It sticks to your hair, your skin, even your lingerie.
As dead beings, vampires crave to feed on blood which is the running, vital stream of life. Buffy however slowly becomes life-less, what is the reflection of her progressing depression. The working conditions at the Doublemeat Palace drain the life out of the Vampire Slayer. Vampires don’t just reject her because of the smell, but because there is not much more life left to steal in the exhausted, alienated worker barely dragging herself home between one shift and another.
For the bulk of the world’s population, working life is dead life, a meaningless waste of time, the realm of alienation, of watching the clock, of yearning for weekends, for vacation, for retirement… work is the realm of anti-magic, a nightmare that weighs heavily on the brain of the living, in which one assumes one’s role in the detailed division of labour, when one obediently fulfills one’s duty as abstract labour, as labour in general, as labour that quantifiable, measurable, indifferent to content, indifferent to the nature of capacities of concrete people.[1]
Andy Merrifield, Magical Marxism
In 2011, British philosopher Andy Merrifield published Magical Marxism: Subversive Politics and the Imagination — a chronicle of an intellectual attempt to find forms of contemporary Marxism that can break with stagnant materialism and expand into registers that are more imaginative and hopeful. His use of the word “magical” draws less from esoteric and religious traditions, but rather from the logic of magical realism: the project therefore becomes to infect the realism of traditional Marxism with elements that expand it into forms which, at least for now, can only be ascribed to the realm of pure fantasy.
Merrifield’s yearning beyond the confines of realism — and the pessimism that naturally follows from an honest look at what it currently offers — is far from isolated in the modern philosophical thought although it is always met with scoffs and raised eyebrows from those who consider themselves the realest of real Marxists. But the driving impulse of Magical Marxism is not far from Marcuse’s Eros and Civilization, Bloch’s The Principle of Hope, or Fisher’s Capitalist Realism: the shared understanding that the performance principle, turned into reality principle — telling us there is “no alternative” — is, to a large extent, a fiction. Imposed on us so that we will be hesitant to hope, hesitant to imagine, hesitant to even peek at what might lie on the other side.
I wonder how many scoffs and raised eyebrows Merrifield invited by ending his book with the suggestion that a butterfly might serve as an apt metaphor for a Marxist. I like to imagine — in some magical-realist register — that Merrifield’s Marxist butterfly shares a kind of kinship with what we now observe under the name of whimsymaxxing: not only because both provoke the same patronizing dismissal, but because both seem animated by a similar spark.
WHIMSY is something in between a live, laugh love GIF, Marxist pamphlet and a distress signal.
Beyond this, whimsy is a vibe, an attitude, an aesthetic and a life-philosophy — one that prioritizes a frivolous orientation toward reality, amplifying a sense of wonder and child-like curiosity in relation to one’s surroundings. The word is usefully slippery: something or someone can be whimsical, but a person can also simply have whimsy, the way one might have SWAG — an ineffable quality that is felt rather than defined. The logic of whimsy moves through TikTok and other internet platforms through life-hacks like — how to be more *whimsical*, mood-board displays for whimsical femme lesbian summer ahead, but also life stories, snippets of working conditions and dreams for a life that might be, perhaps, just a little more bearable. What the vibe of whimsy is chasing is the feeling you get after a whole day having a picnic in the sun, eating fruit and laughing with friends. The feeling of lightness and a fullness all at once, a fuzzy warmth that cannot be bought or subscribed to, that can only arise organically — in between circumstances, places and people — the little switch-moment in your brain that, after days of overpowering depressive thoughts, reminds you that life can still be quite freaking beautiful.
In order to recreate these circumstances the logic of whimsy turns towards the figure of the child:
Walking જ⁀➴ Dilly-dally, skipping or cart-wheels.
Eating જ⁀➴ Sow-thistle, grass blades and cookies.
Free time જ⁀➴ Glitter gel, coloring books and exploring the hollows of nearby trees.
Work જ⁀➴ (っ˕ -｡) ᶻ 𝗓
Letty Cole was among the first to theorise whimsy as a cultural phenomenon, in her piece for Polyester Zine. Beyond its dictionary meaning — strange, playful, humorous behaviour — whimsy had by then become a trending vibe, competing for the New York Times vibe of the year in 2025. Cole located its aesthetic kinship with the phenomenon of twee, reading it as an expression of the urge toward joy and play in nihilistic times. But unlike twee, she argued, whimsy resists being reduced to replicable aesthetic cues — its true aura vanishes the moment it is supposed to become a template. Since Cole published her essay, however, whimsy has accelerated and mutated. Its most visible transformation is linguistic: the participation in whimsy is now often referred to as whimsy-maxxing.
There is of course an irony in this — maxxing as the “snap-on template for ruthless optimization”[2] applied to something as process-oriented, playful and etheric as whimsy. But I don’t want to devote this essay to that irony. We know that neoliberal capitalism has qualities of the Hydra, which after her head gets chopped, finds a way to grow three more, wearing on them a cap with slogans of the movement she has just devoured. Yet, to write endlessly about the overpowering abilities of this creature would feel like taking away from whoever stands in front of it. Because of that I would like to devote this essay not so much to the Hydra, as to the Whimsy Girl, although — as in every mythological clash perhaps — her existence originates in relation to the monster she faces.
Will You Play With Me?
Andy Merriefield — when drawing the parallel in between a butterfly and a Marxist — believed that the subversive quality of butterflies was its’ ability to roam with the imperative of “avoiding steady forward flight, steady linear advancement”.[3] The possibility of movement that escapes this imperative can be understood as play, in the sense proposed by the anthropologist Henning Eichberg.
Eichberg too viewed the world as filled with alienation on all fronts: from your surroundings, your colleagues, the fruits of your labour, yourself — the conditions of work as dead life, which makes us closer to the living dead than to the vitality of the living. In that world, he argues, it is play that is capable of creating moments in which those conditions get to be contradicted.[4] The Whimsy Girl embraces play as a means of disrupting the reality of her alienation.
Life, as we often know it, happens in between beds and laptops, offices and metro stations, or — in a scenario which few years back would feel like a narrative of a dystopian sci-fi — within the four walls of our houses, on Zoom calls, door-dashing food, drinks and entertainment. In such environment moving freely becomes a sense of luxury, because even moving your body — gym, hot yoga, pilates and all like — are governed mostly by the logic of acceleration (maximum results, minim time). To counter that predicament the logic of whimsy creates a space where movement functions as adventure. This is expressed most precisely in whimsy’s varied use of alternative forms of walking, often referencing: dilly-dallying, frolicking, cartwheeling. Forms of movement normally excluded from our daily life, unless in a form of sentimental childhood memories.
The world of the Whimsy Girl caters to that unlimited possibility of movement: there are no walls, no boundaries — what lies after the next hill is a question to be answered only when you cross it. If you need shelter, there is always the hollow of a tree, the ruin of a castle or the little cabin with dimmed lights and a fireplace where you can rest before departing on a further adventure. This natural world is not idealized in the way we have seen with trends like cottage-core, where an entire aesthetic was built around a city-dweller’s pastoral idea of village life — linen dresses, strawberry picking and star-gazing with your loved one before going to bed. The imaginary of whimsy reaches further — towards the registers of the fantastical, borrowing from realms we normally associate with the unreal. This is the logic’s quiet demand: not a return to nature, but a step toward a world that doesn’t yet exist, but towards which we can begin to depart.
The realm of fairy tale, magic and imagination has historically served as a space of possibility for subverting the familiar forms of social organization.[5] What might become useful here is Henry Corbin’s distinction between the imaginary and the imaginal based on Sufi texts. The imaginary refers to fantasy as escapism, but the imaginal — names a form of imagination capable of producing new worlds.[6] If the cottage-core imagination of village life was a withdrawing fantasy, Whimsy Girl’s pull towards the landscape of the fairy-tales is rather an orientation toward the imaginal: a search for forms of life that do not yet exist within the coordinates of contemporary social reality, but which urgently needs to arise.
Yet this capacity for playful alteration is not limited just to the relation to one’s body or surroundings. If dilly-dallying is the bodily refusal of linear advancement or fantasy a refusal of current spatial organization, humor could be understood as its mental equivalent. Just as the Marxist butterfly which evades steady forward flight, humor becomes a tool in producing discourses which can challenge consensus reality. We can observe this on the example of the strategic placement of the word whimsy within visibly un-whimsy scenarios — such as a “dead-end” jobs in retail or hospitality.
The contrast between the symbolic weight of that word and the conditions to which it applies does not merely produce irony, but enacts a form of playful subversion: the promise of whimsy clashes violently with the deadening logic of this labor. The joke works because the viewer already feels that something is wrong, that the reality is somewhat miserable and alienating. It works because the audience themselves have worked at the grill of the Doublemeat Palace. In laughing, they become not just passive observers but unwitting comrades.
The same relational playfulness is extended through self-infantilization. Drawing from the figure of the child the Whimsy Girl creates a playful contrast which reveals to us the absurdity of the outside world and its’ unjust structures. The Whimsy Girl reminds us: consider who is being asked to submit to forty hours of weekly labour: not a rational economic agent, not a productive unit, but me — a tiny bunny. Wide-eyed, big-eared, gazing into the river with an expression caught somewhere between hope and oblivion. By rendering herself as something so incongruously small and soft, she exposes the violence of the demand placed upon her.
The Silly Girl Walked, so that the Whimsy Girl Could Frolic
Mela Miekus and Mita Medri have already described self-infantilization as a tactic of online girlhood with their Silly Girl theory: notoriously disorganized, slightly delusional and convincingly cute AF. In their essay The Silly Girl Theory: Scrolling the Digital Playgrounds they describe her through these words:
She learned from the weaponized incompetence of her boyfriends and uses her own tactical passivity to essentially reap the benefits of patriarchal assumptions of her weakness and vulnerability. If she’s so incapable, if she’s so clueless, then we should really just give her a break already. […] Silly Girl milks this assumption that she is incompetent, to lower expectations, and get others to cut her some slack when she turns a little devious. She’s too cute to understand, so how can she really be held accountable for her actions? [7]
There is something adjacent here to logic of whimsy: a tactical use of lightness, of non-seriousness, within a system that demands constant productivity and self-optimization. Those behind the whimsymaxxing hashtag on TikTok — just like the Silly Girl — don’t want to adjust to the rules of the game created by big corporate boys, as they were born to be forest fairies in a world that forces them to work. But the Whimsy Girl does no longer feel the need to relate to her femininity, her girlhood, in the way the Silly Girl had to — her way of communicating with the world is not based on inciting desire.
The Silly Girl was a jestress, a trickstress — and very much a coquette. In her methods of survival and emancipation, she put on cloaks and deceived, bended boundaries and realities. The Whimsy Girls however has freed herself from the expectations that still applied to her predecessor — she functions not as an object of desire, but perhaps as an expression of something pre-sexual and much more gender-fluid: like auras or balls of energy.
Where the Silly Girl dealt the cards through her flirt and wit, the Whimsy Girl just leaves the table.
Exiting the (Girl) Cave
Perhaps she’s naive but the Whimsy Girl doesn’t want to live inside of the (girl) cave anymore — she has grown up there, watching generations of girls before her doom-scrolling, mistaking shadow projections for what’s real. The Whimsy Girl wants to step outside and face the reality in its fullness — she needs to lie on the forest floor and be absorbed back into the earth.
Those who are currently whimsymaxxing — mostly girls in their teenage years and twenties — are the generation raised in the midst of the pandemic of the Beige Girl: slick bun on her head, monochromatic sweatpants set, an “aesthetic” journaling corner, pantry shelves manically reorganized every weekend so that every spice jar has its own label, a 12-step skincare routine, a 12-3-30 treadmill workout, and a 9-to-5 at a corporate job. The life of these girls was a life of exhaustion, numbered rules, and a hyper-organized approach to reality — the Beige Girl was an episode of glorified OCD dressed in the most mundane of colors. Memories of such forms of girlhood stick to the skin of the Whimsy Girl like a spider web, making her paranoid and claustrophobic, craving to see what life has to offer beyond the shadow play.
The urge toward the outside world arrives as a natural reaction after years spent on the inside: inside the web, inside the house during the pandemic, and — perhaps most importantly — inside oneself. The years of enforced interiority produced their own dominant discourse: the psychologizing turn, which equipped us, for better and for worse, with a linguistic toolkit for discussing our inner traumas between a cigarette and a latte. One of its ruling approaches was the reconnection with your inner child — a TikTok-inflected reading of Jungian philosophy that became, for a time, almost inescapable. The child within us was hugged, her hair brushed, put to bed under pink and fluffy sheets, smooched on the forehead for a goodnight. The adult self gave her everything her parents couldn’t — often by creating the economic conditions to take the girl within herself for fun and treats, filling every childhood wound with self-love and careful attention.
Yet the nurtured inner child, once safely contained as an object of introspective care, begins to exceed the boundaries of private repair. She is no longer within us — she becomes us, devours us, this time in a disruptive Dionysian sense. She has escaped the interior and now exists in the world. The problem is that the world’s structures are not to her liking. She was promised beautiful sunsets, barefoot walks through the forests and afternoons playing with her peers — hope, joy and the possibility of play.
What she meets on the other side is a laptop, a pile of bills, and the Double Meat palace.
In return, the Whimsy Girl becomes the externalized Inner Child who no longer seeks comfort within the self but demands a world capable of sustaining non-instrumental life. She is born where the Inner Child reaches her limits, where she gets pushed out of the womb, this time healed and demanding a world compatible with her existence. The Inner Child had designated days and activities which were supposed to create an environment for her to heal, but the logic of whimsy seems to requests something different. She shows us that the primary problem is not that the adult must comfort the child, but that the child introduces desires incompatible with the current form of social organization to which all of the adults seem to conform.
The Whimsy Girl and a Bunch of Old Neurotics
Carl Jung recognized, alongside the Inner Child, a distinct and older archetype: the Divine Child. Where the Inner Child is biographical — formed through the particularity of one’s own childhood, shaped by specific wounds and losses — the Divine Child is atemporal and universal, belonging to no one in particular and therefore, in equal measure, to everyone. It emerges at moments of historical rupture, when old systems have exhausted themselves and something not yet nameable is pressing to be born. It does not look backward toward lost innocence but forward toward a form of life that does not yet exist, though its outline is already felt as an absence.
The Divine Child is fragile. Jung was clear about this: the newborn is always endangered — especially from within. In the Christian mythological structure, this danger appears as Herod — the force that seeks to kill the new before it can grow and, as Jung reminds us, that “…Herod, the one who wants to keep things as they are, no matter how bad, lives within us”.[8] In psychological terms, Jung named this force neurosis: the compulsive repetition of exhausted patterns, the inability to tolerate the uncertainty of becoming something other than what one already is. Here the genealogy of digital girlhood becomes legible as a sequence of neurotic figures. The Sad Girl, the Girl Boss, the Beige Girl — each, in her own way, a Herod figure.
The danger in this story might not be just the Hydra, but that the Whimsy Girl will give away to the force of her inner Herod: that the imaginary will devour the potential of the imaginal.
My mother once told me that during my early teenage years, she found me crying on the bathroom floor, entering some weird level of existential psychosis and suffering because, as I told her, “I couldn’t understand whether I’m an adult or a child”. I don’t remember much of it, just the faint emotional residues of that transformation — but some instinct tells me the Whimsy Girl suffers from a similar confusion. She exists suspended between two pulls.
The first one is the pull of the Inner Child: imaginary, force of the internal, the sphere of private suffering.
The second one is the pull of the Divine Child: imaginal, force of the external, the sphere of the collective suffering, which becomes the push towards the world that doesn’t yet exist.
The Whimsy Girl lives at the unstable threshold between these two states. Her attraction toward play contains genuine imaginal potential. Yet “play is rarely about results” and perhaps, because of this, its’ transformation into historical force can be quite demanding. In 2013, when describing the failure of counterculture of the 60s and the 70s, Mark Fisher argued that “… story of how the counterculture was co-opted by the neoliberal Right is now a familiar one, but the other side of this narrative is the Left’s incapacity to transform itself in the face of the new forms of desire to which the counterculture gave voice”.[9]
Today we meet the Whimsy Girl at similar crossroads.
⢀⣠⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡴⠛⢦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⠏⠁⠉⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡾⠀⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⠟⠁⠀⠘⣦⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣄⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢦⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⠇⠀⠀⠀⠈⢧⡀⠀⣠⠴⠊⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⣴⠖⠲⢬⣳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⢀⡾⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢉⣷⠚⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⡇⠀⠀⢰⠃⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⢿⡂⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⣰⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢼⠉⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⡎⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣇⠀⠀⡾⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣰⠟⠦⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⡼⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⡄⢳⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠞⠀⢀⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣶⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⡞⠁⠀⠀⠘⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⢧⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢳⣸⡇⠀⠀⠀⣴⣏⡴⠚⠉⠙⠃⠀⠀⠀⣀⡀⠙⠦⣄⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⢠⡇⠀⠀⢠⠜⠁⠀⢀⣀⣠⣼⣃⣀⡀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠉⢙⣲⣤⣤⡤⠤⢤⡀⠀⢳⣧⠀⣠⢞⡷⢋⡴⠖⠙⣷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠻⢇⣀⡀⠈⠙⢦⡀⠀⣷⢸⠇⠀⡴⢃⣠⠖⣺⡭⠛⠁⠀⠀⠈⠉⠳⡄
⢠⡶⠊⠉⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠙⠃⠀⠈⣿⣶⣱⣿⠟⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠙⠲⢼⣦⣽⢷⢠⣾⢟⣫⠴⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⡗
⠸⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣿⣟⠛⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣟⣏⣁⣀⣀⣀⡠⠤⠴⢒⣒⣷⠆⠀⢠⠇
⠀⠈⠙⠲⠤⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣾⠳⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠉⢻⡛⢦⡛⠳⠭⣍⣉⠉⠉⠀⠀⢀⣠⠏⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠳⢤⣀⣀⡴⠋⣇⣴⠃⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⢦⡙⢦⠀⠀⠉⠉⠒⠒⠒⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠳⣬⡖⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
Bio
Helena Łomnicka is a researcher and writer with a background in Cultural Analysis and an MA in the History of Esotericism. Her research most often meets at the intersection of pop-culture, critical theory and modern esoteric discourse. She’s currently based in Warsaw, Poland.
Notes
[1] Merrifield, Andy, Magical Marxism: Subversive Politics and the Imagination, London: Pluto Press, 2011, p. 42
[2] Madsen, Dag Øivind, Containment Failure and the Diffusion of Fringe Masculinity: The Case of Clavicular, SSRN Working Paper, 2026, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6504320, p.3
[3] Merrifield, Andy, Magical Marxism: Subversive Politics and the Imagination, London: Pluto Press, 2011, p. 185
[4] Eichberg, Henning, ‘Play against alienation?’, in Wendy Russell, Emily Ryall and Malcolm MacLean (eds) The Philosophy of Play as Life, London: Routledge, 2018, p. 218
[5] Zipes, Jack, ‘Breaking the Magic Spell: Politics and the Fairy Tale’, New German Critique 6 (Autumn 1975), pp. 116–135, p.133. http://www.jstor.org/stable/487657
[6] Janion, Maria, ‘Towards a Phantasmatic Criticism’, in Knowledge in the Shadow of Catastrophe: Key Thinkers of Polish Humanities in the Post-War Era, Brill | Schöningh, 2024, https://brill.com/display/book/9783657793952/BP000020.xml, p. 207
[7] Miekus, Mela and Medri, Mita, ‘The Silly Girl Theory: Scrolling the Digital Playgrounds’, Institute of Network Cultures, 2024. https://networkcultures.org/longform/2024/01/22/the-silly-girl-theory-scrolling-the-digital-playgrounds/.
[8] Wesley, Deborah, ‘The Divine Child’, Psychological Perspectives 62:4, 2019, p. 259
[9] Fisher, Mark, ‘“A social and psychic revolution of almost inconceivable magnitude”: Popular Culture’s Interrupted Accelerationist Dreams’, e-flux journal 46, June 2013. https://www.e-flux.com/journal/46/60084/a-social-and-psychic-revolution-of-almost-inconceivable-magnitude-popular-culture-s-interrupted-accelerationist-dreams/.
References
Bloch, Ernst, The Principle of Hope, trans. N. Plaice, S. Plaice and P. Knight, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1986 .
Cole, Letty, ‘Chaotic Good: Is Whimsy the Vibe Shift That Can Save Us?’, Polyester, 28 May 2024. https://www.polyesterzine.com/features/chaotic-good-is-whimsy-the-vibe-shift-that-can-save-us
Eichberg, Henning, ‘Play against alienation?’, in Wendy Russell, Emily Ryall and Malcolm MacLean (eds) The Philosophy of Play as Life, London: Routledge, 2018, pp. 211–226.
Fisher, Mark, Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?, Winchester: Zero Books, 2009.
Fisher, Mark, ‘“A social and psychic revolution of almost inconceivable magnitude”: Popular Culture’s Interrupted Accelerationist Dreams’, e-flux journal 46, June 2013. https://www.e-flux.com/journal/46/60084/a-social-and-psychic-revolution-of-almost-inconceivable-magnitude-popular-culture-s-interrupted-accelerationist-dreams/.
Maria Janion, ‘Towards a Phantasmatic Criticism’, in Katarzyna Bojarska, Ewa Domańska, Piotr Filipkowski, Jacek Małczyński and Luiza Nader (eds), Knowledge in the Shadow of Catastrophe: Key Thinkers of Polish Humanities in the Post-War Era, Paderborn: Brill | Schöningh, 2024, pp. 207–232.
Madsen, Dag Øivind, ‘Containment Failure and the Diffusion of Fringe Masculinity: The Case of Clavicular’, unpublished draft, 9 April 2026.
Marcuse, Herbert, Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, London: Routledge, 1998
Merrifield, Andy, Magical Marxism: Subversive Politics and the Imagination, London: Pluto Press, 2011.
Miekus, Mela and Medri, Mita, ‘The Silly Girl Theory: Scrolling the Digital Playgrounds’, Institute of Network Cultures, 2024. https://networkcultures.org/longform/2024/01/22/the-silly-girl-theory-scrolling-the-digital-playgrounds/.
O’Luanaigh, Robin, ‘Co-opting Cottagecore: Pastoral Aesthetics in Reactionary and Extremist Movements’, GNET, 19 May 2023. https://gnet-research.org/2023/05/19/co-opting-cottagecore-pastoral-aesthetics-in-reactionary-and-extremist-movements/.
Wesley, Deborah, ‘The Divine Child’, Psychological Perspectives 62:4, 2019, pp. 446–454.
Relevant TikTok videos (impossible to embed):