One of the most popular counters in streetwear to when a well-loved brand releases a crap piece (lets work with Supreme for now) is “You will all still buy it anyway just because its Supreme”. Similarly, when an ugly piece is released by some other brand a popular response is “If they slapped “Supreme” on it you’d all be going crazy for it.” And in many of these cases I agree entirely that a piece will sell and be popular simply because of branding. But I think the specific effects of branding are more complicated than people just liking a brand or wanting to flex.

The reason I think it’s more complex is because the desire to flex doesn’t explain the hatred shown towards brands like Hollister, Superdry, Abercrombie etc., which I will be calling Non-Streetwear brands. Firstly, based on what we can observe in terms of clothing ownership, no-one who is into streetwear ever considers openly wearing non-streetwear brands. They are fine with buying basics from places like h&m or Asos but wouldn’t be okay with wearing a Superdry t-shirt openly. Therefore, from the point of view of someone who is “in” the streetwear group, anyone who wears non-streetwear brands MUST not be in the group. In turn, one can declare themselves as being in the group by wearing a brand that can’t be acquired by accident, something exclusive like Supreme or Palace.

Therefore the little logo on a piece of clothing says a huge amount about how you’ve lived your life and what your interests are because it insists on a particular position that denies a whole group of brands and clothes and which guarantees you are knowledgeable of the Streetwear group, not just because popularity is a group consensus- you MUST be in the group, because you know specifically what is cool. I don’t think that the desire to be in this group via branding is at all the only thing going on, as I’ve mentioned brand love, the promise of quality (aren’t Supreme items always nicely made?) and the desire to flex (which is a subconscious display of power and presence) are also big influences towards brand obsession. People even think about their own collections as a kind of hobby that puts them in the group. Whether or not we are wearing the clothes at the moment, I’m sure we all like thinking about what we own, looking at other people’s collections and relishing the knowledge and inclusivity we have when we evaluate clothes, fits and sale posts.

The joy that comes along with being inside the streetwear hobby is a larger discussion that has something to do with self-love and the complex thrill of having something which you covet, which is all really important to capitalism and the capitalism of streetwear. The declaration of being in a group that doesn’t wear Hollister also inspires a hatred against people who do because they “don’t get it”. There’s a frustration, which some people feel strongly- “Does your Mum buy your clothes for you?”- about there being so much to explain about clothes which clearly isn’t understood or valued by the target. It makes the person within the group feel smarter and more in the know, and the desire to express that is another complex frustration that rears its often-ugly head within Streetwear, but which can’t be explained easily.