Introduction

Fashion is an integral part of everyday life, with individuals making choices about what clothing
and accessories to wear as an expression of their identities. This is due to our highly visual society
that places premium on the way things look, and makes impressions on the basis of one’s clothing
and appearance. Social media, in particular, through popular online platforms such as Instagram
and Facebook bombard its users with images of fashion bloggers’ and celebrities’ outfit of the day
or in social media terms, “#ootd”, which can drive the consumption of clothing by the social media
users to follow these fashion trends. Given this emphasis on self-presentation through fashion as
central to modern society and to the way in which identities are constituted, it is surprising that
relatively little has been written about fashion within sociology. Polhemus (1988) suggests that
dress has traditionally been viewed as a typically feminine pursuit that is irrational, trivial and
unworthy of serious sociological analysis. By associating fashion with triviality and frivolousness,
people fail to recognize the significant roles of fashion as a mechanism for social control, source
of discrimination, and in many instances in history, powerful tools of resistance and
empowerment among marginalized groups.

Much of the research on the subject is being done outside of sociology by scholars in the arts and
other disciplines in the social sciences such as psychology and anthropology. Moreover, there is
a dearth of literature on the sociology of fashion in the Philippine context. Thus, the researcher
aims to fill this gap by exploring fashion in the local context with particular focus on the Filipino
Hypebeasts or Haypbists, to explore why members of this group adopt their distinct fashion style,
and from a symbolic interactionist perspective, analyze the meanings they attribute to their
clothing and fashion.

Brief Background on the Filipino Hypebeasts

The “Hypebeasts” or Haypbists is a group composed of young adolescents belonging to

the lower stratum of society. They reside in urban areas that have markets selling counterfeit
branded clothing, which allows the Hypebeasts to dress up in a distinct streetwear fashion deemed
baduy and outdated by many Filipinos. The most characteristic features of their look are the fitted
pants or baggy shorts, imitation t-shirts with high-end brand logos (i.e. Louis Vuitton, Gucci,
Supreme), jacket, gold or silver necklaces, cap, glasses, high socks, and imitation sneakers of well-
known brands such as Nike, Adidas, & Yeezy. According to Hypebeasts members, they get their
inspiration from Western pop culture icons such as Justin Bieber, Travis Scott, Kylie Jenner, and
the Filipino music group Ex Battalion, who inspired the Hypebeasts’ national anthem “Hayaan Mo
Sila”. They also created their own way of street-based leisure that included “’hanging out’ on street
corners, and having photoshoots to showcase their fashion. (Ang Bagong Grupo ng mga
Kabataan—Hypebeast?, 2018).

The Hypebeasts are made of different subgroups all over the Philippines with each having
their own group name such as “Hypebeasts Savage x Jelly Juice Crew” & “Hypebeasts Gucci
Gang”. Every group has around 10-20 members where their head, who is usually the owner of the
group, is called “leader” or “master” for males, and “madam” for females. To be a member, one
has to simply message their group chat (GC) on Facebook and express their interest in joining the
group. The members stress the importance of being respectful towards the other member in these
GCs to avoid getting banned from the group. The leaders then arrange a Get Together (GT) to
meet up with the new members and hold photoshoots to showcase their style. The Hypebeasts are
aware that they are a subject of ridicule in social media, and it pains these kids to be called Kanser
ng Lipunan for their love of dressing up in Hypebeast fashion. Although they are aware that some
of their members have caused trouble in public spaces such as in parks and malls, they point out
that these members do not represent their group, in fact their tagline is “Fashion not War”.
According to the Hypebeasts, their membership in this group has become their way to feel a sense
of belonging, find friends whom they can identify as family, and feel good about themselves by
expressing their individualities through their Hypebeast fashion. (Hypebeast o Hype-bes?, 2018)

Related Literature

Fashion as Class Markers

Within capitalism, it becomes possible for both fashion and clothing to be used to construct
and signal differences within classes. For members belonging to the lower class, the idea of social
mobility is both desirable and possible, and it is through fashion and clothing that they are able to
achieve their desired upward social mobility (Barnard, 1996). One of the key works in the
sociology of fashion which established the relationship between fashion and class structure was
by George Simmel. In his article, Fashion, Simmel (1902) tries to understand how fashion came
to being in the society :
 Social forms, apparels, aesthetic judgement, the whole style of human expression are
constantly transformed by fashion in such a way, however, that fashion i.e., the latest
fashion affect only the upper class. Just as soon as the lower class begins to copy their style,
thereby crossing the line of demarcation the upper classes have drawn and destroying the
uniformity of their coherence, the upper classes turn away from this style and adopt a new
one, which in turn differentiates them from the masses; and thus the game goes merrily on.

Simmel believe that fashion of the upper class is usually different from that of the lower.
As the upper class see that their fashion is being adopted by the lower class, they tend to drop this
fashion. Thus, for Simmel, fashion is always about demarcating class distinctions or boundaries.
This is similar to Thorstein Veblen’s work “Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of
Institutions published in 1899, where he provides a critique of the upper classes’ lifestyle and
shows their conspicuous consumption and waste have become their symbols for social status and
wealth. According to Veblen, the upper class struggles for social distinction within, and whose
lifestyle is imitated by the lower classes. Thus, fashion develops on two levels: It emerges through
innovation within the upper classes who create new forms of apparel, ornament, and dress ever
more sophisticated and expensive in order to reaffirm the place they occupy within their own social
space. Fashion spreads through imitation as the lower classes start imitating the upper classes'
behavior. The typical theoretical perspective on this topic has to be the trickle-down theory, also
known as the trickle-down effect (Svendsen, 2010) where in the fashion always flows from up to
down. Both of these views support the idea that fashion reproduces and stabilizes the existing
social order. In this perspective,fashion acts as a medium or platform for a type of change under
elite control that eventually affirms and reproduces the existing social structure

The trickling down of fashion is especially evident in the Philippine context. For example,
before the Hypebeast fashion was associated with the youth from the lower class strata. This trend
had its roots from the upper class. In 2005, Kevin Ma, a fashion entrepreneur, founded an online
store and magazine called Hypebeast to feature high-end streetwear brands such as Gucci,
Supreme, and The Billionaire’s Club (Cadiz, 2018). In the Philippines, the hypebeast fashion was
initially worn by celebrities such as Vice Ganda and Alden Richards, who would post their OOTD
posts on Instagram and Facebook for their followers to see. I also have well-off friends from
Ateneo and La Salle who dress up in Hypebeast fashion, and spend so much time curating their
Instagram feed consisting of their Hypebeast OOTDs. However, since the desire to look
fashionable is not exclusive to the upper class, the trickle-down effect in fashion came into play,
and eventually Hypebeast fashion reached the masses. Imitations of the high-end branded clothings
associated with Hypebeast fashion were already being sold in the tiangge and palengke. Thus, the
youth from the lower class had the means to emulate the Hypebeast fashion, but in their case, it
has made them a subject of ridicule in social media. According to my well-off friends, they no
longer dress up in Hypebeast fashion because they do not want to look baduy or jej which shows
how fashion is a means to create distinctions among classes.

Although the trickledown effect of fashion can be observed in some instances, as with the
case of the Hypebeast, Simmel’s study has limitations. First, in today’s modern society
characterized by advancements in technology, and ease of access to information online, it is no
longer the wealthy elites who get to wear firsthand what is fashionable or not before it trickles
down to the lower classes. If for instance, a member of the elite fails to listen to fashion news or
use social media for a long time to see the current fashion trend, such person might be tending
towards having an outdated fashion style despite his elite status. This ease of access to knowledge
of fashion online is shown to bridge the gap between the upper and the lower class. This also shows
that fashion creates its own elite and not the other way round as Simmel assumes. Even if such
individual possesses a great amount of wealth but dresses in an unfashionable manner, such
individual is not seen as elite in the new fashion world. Even if an individual uses expensive
clothing but combines it wrongly, the person will be seen as unfashionable. Furthermore, the
existence of fashion blogs based in the US such as Cheap Chica’s Guide to Style and Frugal
Fashionista shows that despite one’s economic status, one can still be considered fashionable.
Another limitation of Simmel’s theory is that it projects the lower classes as having no agency and
capacity to interpret the meanings of the fashion that trickledown to them. In the Philippine
context, not all Filipinos belonging to the lower classes see the need to keep up with the latest
fashion perhaps due to financial constraints or simply, their lack of interest in fashion. Also, for
those who do keep up with the latest fashion among the lower classes, it cannot be assumed that
their interest in fashion is solely based on their desire for social mobility.

Fashion, Identity, and Symbolism

 Fashion is an instantaneous process of communication and expression that is largely
concerned with symbols and meanings (Barnard, 1996). It is a cultural phenomenon that makes
use of accessories and clothing to communicate statements about one’s identity. Fashion provides
an avenue to enable people to communicate who they are through such associations as preferred
social groups and styles. Despite fashion’s huge association with clothing, fashion can also be
attributed to types of hairstyles as well as other items that do not include clothing such as body
piercings, tattoo, etc. (Lewis, 2011). Therefore, it is not surprising that one’s fashion statements
can be invoked upon in identifying one’s inclination in the world and the social groupings that
they associate with. Furthermore an observation of their clothing accessories and hairstyles can
say a lot about a person’s origin. Fashion is therefore an extension of one’s self and their identity
and is one of the most accurate pointers of one’s social facts.

The relationship between fashion and symbols, and their role in communicating one’s
identity, is particularly evident when it comes to branding. According to Tan Tsu Wee & Chua
Han Ming (2003), marketers are engineering brand symbolism and personality that becomes part
of the consumers’ lives and creates in the consumers’ minds a continuous relationship between the
brand and themselves. As Carl Nightingale (1993) pointed out in his detailed ethnography of the
black underclass in Philadelphia, one of the main paradoxes of contemporary urban America is
that members of what he called the members of this underclass are “often in the same moment
both socially and economically excluded yet culturally and commercially included.” In other
words, while black youths in the areas studied by Nightingale experienced exclusion and alienation
from traditional employment as well as educational opportunities, they were at the same time also
overexposed to American mainstream culture through music, advertising, television, and other
forms of mass media that demand their participation. Nightingale described the
‘overcompensation’ with many of the symbols of American consumer culture – both mainstream
and subversive:

Already at five and six, many kids in the neighbourhood can recite the whole canon of
adult luxury – from Gucci, Evan Piccone, and Pierre Cardin, to Mercedes and BMW . . .
from the age of ten, kids become thoroughly engrossed in Nike’s and Reebok’s cult of the
sneaker . . .
 Another socially and excluded group with an obsession with fashion and branded clothing
are the “chavs” from the United Kingdom which have received attention in the academe. This
newly formed subculture’s central tenet is consumption and this group also uses fashion and
branded clothing symbols as visual markers of their identity, which distinguish the chavs from
other groups of youths. Track suits, large fake jewellery, Burberry design check, baseball cap and
certain designer brands are some of the symbols of being a chav (Hollingworth and Williams,
2009). Based on these studies, one can ask: What are the motivating factors underlying these overt
displays of brand names and other material among socially excluded groups? Why have certain
items become so desirable they are now importantly perceived as essential to individual identity?
In relation to the Hypebeast phenomena, members who belong to the Hypebeast groups who lack
in economic capital also tend to over- identify with high- end brands such as Gucci and Supreme.
Based on videos I have watched on the Filipino Hypebeasts, this over- identification with high-
end brands is their way to possess cultural capital to compensate for their lack of economic capital.
These young, poor Filipino children are deprived of many opportunities to escape poverty due to
structural inequalities, thus, they are unable to have access to resources to develop their capabilities
and fully participate in society. By using branded clothing, and expressing themselves in a distinct
fashion, these children find a way to feel a sense of belonging when they are able to identify with
other children who enjoy the similar interests as them, in this case, their love for Hypebeast
fashion.

Conclusion

This research review’s purpose is to present the existing body of literature on clothing and fashion
beyond their utilitarian uses. The limited literature showing why individuals particularly those
belonging to the lower class, and socially excluded groups adopt certain trends in fashion reveal
that the trickling down of fashion to the masses provides them the means to emulate the upper
class’ fashion, and that the symbols and meanings associated with certain clothing brands enhances
their perception of themselves. More research must be conducted on this topic thus, this study will
fill a gap in the limited literature on the sociology of fashion in the Philippine context by exploring
why members of the Hypebeasts adopt their distinct fashion style, and from a symbolic
interactionist perspective, analyze the meanings they attribute to their clothing and fashion. This
exploratory study on the Filipino Hypebeast fashion aims to answer the following questions: How
do Hypebeast members communicate their personal and collective identities through Hypebeast
fashion? How does their adoption of Hypebeast fashion shape their view of themselves? What are
the motivating factors underlying their adoption of the Hypebeast fashion?

Bibliography

Simmel, G. (1904): Fashion: International quarterly 10(1), October 1904, pp. 130-155

Piacentini, M. & Mailer, G. (2004). Symbolic Consumption in Teenagers Clothing Choices.

Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3(3), 251-262.

Barnard, M. (1996). Fashion as Communication. New York: Routledge.

Polhemus,T. (1988) Bodystyles. Luton: Lennard.

Svendsen, L. (2010). Fashion: a Philosophy. Translated by Li Man. Beijing: Peking University

Press.

Lewis T., Potter E. (eds.) (2011) Ethical Consumption: A Critical Introduction. London:
Routledge. pp 169-185

Tan-Tsu-Wee, T. & Chua-Han-Ming, M. (2003). Leveraging on Symbolic Values and Meanings

in Branding.

Brand Management, 10(3), 208-218.

Nightingale, C. (1993) On the Edge. New York: Basic Books.

Hollingworth, S. & Williams, K. (2009). Constructions of the working-class ‘Other’ among urban,
white,middle-class youth: ‘chavs’, subculture and the valuing of education. Journal of Youth
Studies, 12(5),467-482.
Veblen, T. (1899). Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions.

Ang bagong grupo ng mga kabataan-- Hypebeast?[Video file]. (2018, February 5). Retrieved
March 28, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuUNX8nrIr4&t=152s

IJuander: “Hypebeast” o “Hype-bes?”[Video file]. (2018, February 28). Retrieved March 28,
2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6JBWXMrVAs