“Sneakerheads” vs. “Hype-Beasts”: Tracing Sentiments of Value

Sneakers are shoes that are regarded as a mere item of clothing that resembles a particular sporty, street-type aesthetic and this form of identification serves to represent and inform a variety of cultures. This type of shoe has existed since the late 18th century, initially referred to as “plimsolls” and later “Keds” and their designs had been geared towards practicality and comfort through the rubber soles of the shoe. By the 20th century, sneakers gained popularity to a point where it gained sub-culture status. In 1917, Marquis Converse created the Converse All-Star, a sneaker designed for the basketball court. This was an important shift in the ways in which these shoes had become used and internalised by it potential consumers because it adopted a different marketing approach (celebrity endorsements who were professional basketball players). This marketing model succeeded and gained the popularity of other competing sneaker outlets. Sneakers began to shift away from the ways in which it had been principled on comfort and practicality towards a shoe that carried with it a symbol of success, an aesthetic that had been successfully carried out by basketball players such as, Chuck Taylor and Michael Jordan. Basketball culture was highly compatible with hip-hop culture, as they both fall under the broader category of street culture, something that had been cultivated by African Americans. Thus, all in all, the evolution of sneaker culture brought about an interesting cultural shift within African American spaces, given how it had successfully merged basketball culture with hip hop culture, to a point where rap stars such as had Run DMC also begun to endorse sneaker products. At this point in time sneaker culture that attached with it a street style-type aesthetic had become a popularised social phenomenon that had infiltrated the entertainment industry. A YouTube documentary titled “How sneaker culture went from a Sub-culture to Mainstream” explains how “kicks [had] transitioned from the playground all the way to the runway” which articulates this practicality – aesthetic shift perfectly.

This research paper intends to trace, as well as interrogate, individual and collective sentiments of value placed onto sneakers that may inform one’s sense of agency in processes of acquiring the shoes. The ways in which sneakers had been popularised speaks directly to the western capitalistic ideology of commodification and this idea will be approached from a critical point of view given the extent to which it is responsible for the current state of sneaker culture.

Commodity fetishism, as introduced by Karl Marx (1867), is the reconstruction of how people perceive and internalise what is seen as valuable, essentially affecting individual and collective processes of consumption. The idea here is that; western ideology had introduced a method of consumption that had reduced commodities to a monitory figure. It’s effects brought about a drastic shift in the ways in which societies had engaged in processes of exchange because of the shift in how value had been understood in a way that focused less on the labor processes responsible for the manufacturing of the product the product itself and more on the commoditised value of the product. Marx takes this idea further by affirming the extent to which processes of commodification re-shaped the state of social relations given that interactions had existed within this newly entrenched capitalistic ideological framework (premised on money), where societies by default, became the perpetuators of this broader global system.

In my opinion, this notion of commodity fetishism speaks directly to the evolution of sneaker culture, particularly in relation to how sentiments of value (that served to inform individual agency in acquiring the shoe) shifted from a tangible and practical type of motive to one that had been informed by artificial, manufactured conceptions of value in the light of capitalistic ideology. This consequence came as a result of the commodification of sneakers, which had been aggravated by an inseparable relationship between the culture of basketball, rap and entertainment. At this point, one can begin to understand the ways in which value transformed in meaning, which had furthermore been socialised into mainstream societies on a global scale. Thus, the notion of value exists within a cycle of economic production (indirectly) where definitions that serve to inform agency has literally evolved to a point where it has become lost in translation, leaving individuals oblivious to the ways in which they have become catalysts for embedded capitalistic ideology.

I had conducted a series of interviews with acquaintances who regard themselves as “sneakerheads”. “A sneakerhead is a person who collects, trades or admires sneakers as a hobby.” A sneakerhead may also be highly experienced in distinguishing between real and fake replica sneakers.” (google definition).

Something that came up often in my interviews was this notion of a “hype-beast”, which is a person who falsely claims the “sneakerhead” status, as a means of distinguishing themselves from regular sneaker consumer. These are people who, again, will purchase a pair of Kanye West sneakers owing to the success of media driven hype. Although I still struggle to fully understand the difference between the two, this tug of war between “sneakerheads” and “hype-beasts” literally reflects the disconnect between true value and manufactured value (capitalistic ideology).

The above ideas serve as a point of departure in the ways in which I have understood processes of consumption, particularly in relation to conceptions of value being lost in translation through time and space. Jonathan Friedman (1994) offers alternative ways of understanding individual agency that informs the consumption of commoditised objects linking it directly to ideas of self-maintenance and self-definition. According to Friedman (1994) individual and collective consumption is generated by a system of social values, individual and collective preference, as well as the useful purpose of commodity. He claims that the above informants (self-maintenance and self-definition) are external variants that have been imposed onto the social structure of negotiated identities, bringing into question the extent to which one consciously exercises free-will in the act of consumption. Friedman (1994) objectifies systems that are traditionally understood as subjective through the emphasis of the fact that desire is created and practiced through the agency of consumption. This is very interesting given the current existing disconnect between the true value of commoditised objects (like the sneaker) and it’s commoditised value. He refers to the concept of “cultural determinism”, which is the process socialisation in the light of cultural contexts, which is said to determine emotional and behavioural levels of the social. As previously mentioned, the evolution of sneaker culture shifted from a purely cultural and practical principle of value, to one that premised an objectified “ideal” image, which had been manipulated and perpetuated by capitalism. Thus, “consumption [of sneakers are] a material realisation of the image of the good life, a strategy of self-fulfilment” (Freidman, 1994) that has replaced its authentic cultural backing with one that is literally mathematical. This is why you get people who will pay thousands of Rands for a Kanye West sneaker without any knowledge of basketball, old-school rap and African America culture. This dramatic disconnect demonstrates the extent to which, deeply entrenched colonial ideologies have re-shaped how value is understood that essentially drives one’s agency.

I had engaged in a discussion-type interview in the UCT food court with my “cool kid” friends who always dress well. Dressing “well” simply alludes to the standard of a contemporary cultural global aesthetic, where good sneakers are a common feature in these types of “looks”. These young men, even in their love for clothing and shoes, felt that they had not earned the true label of being a sneakerhead and they referred me to another young man on the campus food court who was regarded as a true sneakerhead. This young man that they referred me to also appeared to dress well but not as well as the men that referred me to him. The reason why I am mentioning this is because a sneakerhead is not fashion oriented from head to toe but their shoes are always “clean” and “fresh” with a prime “silhouette design”, all characteristics expressed by this “sneakerhead”. I asked him what motivated his agency in the process of consuming sneakers and over and above the previously mentioned sneaker traits, exclusivity is a key goal for him when sourcing his shoes. He affirmed that this is not the defining factor but it plays a large role in the decision-making behind purchasing a sneaker. This resonates with the notion of “cultural determinism” almost completely because he had successfully (and intentionally) distinguished himself from “basic” sneaker lovers and “hype-beasts”, earning him the true prestige of the label “sneakerhead”. Something else I managed to extrapolate, as a means of understanding the difference between “hype-beast” and a “sneakerhead” is that a “hype-beast” often flaunts his/her knowledge of particular brands, the contemporary socialised value attached to it following extensive media-hype and celebrity endorsements. In the (preciously mentioned) interview discussion most of those young men knew more about affluent sneaker brands (Nike, Addidas, New Balance) outside of the specifics of their aesthetic designs. This is not to say they didn’t pay attention to the designs but rather that their attention placed more emphasis on the brand and the contemporary trends that they are always up to date with. The “sneakerhead” individual I had been referred to on the other hand, made very little reference to the brand of the sneaker, as he placed more emphasis on the materials, textures, colour combinations, outfit match potentials (colour coordination), size availability, shoe accessibility (often sourcing them online) and the silhouette design of the broader shoe aesthetic. He affirmed that he does not regard collecting shoes an overt passion but as a hobby-type passion.

I would like to briefly draw on a resource that drew my attention on Youtube. It was a video titled “Secrets of The Superbrands” by Alex Riley (2013). The short documentary researches the art of branding through the ways in which corporate agencies successfully gain the popularity of its consumers. Although the documentary explores of a variety of interesting ideas behind the secrets that drive and perpetuate individual consumption, I would like to focus on the psychology behind these processes that have been manipulated to exploit middle-class potential consumers. A common branding strategy that surfaced in the documentary was a Pyramid analogy “that [manages to successfully] tap into an emotion that is central to our lives” (Riley, 2013). The top of the pyramid is where the image of the brand is built. These are the limited edition products that are beautifully made and highly exclusive to celebrities (on the red carpet for example). The rest of the pyramid is where the image at the top is exploited into cash for the middle and lower classes to consume. The irony here is that most of money generated comes from the lower levels of the pyramid and this speaks directly to the capitalistic ideology of economic wealth.

A brand is regarded a brand because it is expensive and consumers fail to make these links, often falling a victim to exploitation thus. This makes makes sense if one were to consider the sentiments of “hype-beasts”, Burberry/Chanel Louis Vuitton fanatics because their purchases are motivated by the socialised symbol of value rather than the true value of respective items. Again, indicating how the notion of value has become lost in translation through the exploitative tendencies of the capitalistic system.

In conclusion the escalation of the dominance of western ideology and ideals through commodification proves how people fail to be rational in how they understand value and for this reason, we’re not free agents of consumption. We are puppeteers of the “free-market” which, in reality, is far from free.

Reference List:

BBC Three: Secrets of the Superbrands (Fashion) – Ken Blu, 1 February 2013, viewed: 26 October 2016, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd7lfcnlb9c >- Beyond the Sole: Documentary – Content is King, video, 2 November 2015, viewed: 25 October 2016, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjUb7uQc6C8> Friedman, J. (1994). The Political Economy of Elegance: An African Cult of Beauty. Consumption and Identity. Harwood Academic Publishers. pp 167-187 Marx, K. (1867). The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Moscow, USSR. pp 47-60 What's a Sneakerhead and Hypebeast? Discussion - SneakerTalk, video, 22 August 2016, viewed: 29 October 2016, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMsprybg- mM>

Written x Bonolo Thomas

Photography x Anthony Bila

Podcast/Video

Hosted x Kenny Morifi-Winslow Ft. Dane Maharaj

Sound x Barney Tchivase-Mthembu + Mpumi Phewa

Filming + Editing x Anthony Bila

on sneaks