Different Together
The distance between being recognisable and being known
This essay was developed through original research and analysis with AI assistance in the research, drafting and editorial process.
“People want to feel special and belong to something,” Nude Project co-founder Bruno Casanovas said in 2025 — translated here from Spanish.
The sentence contains two promises:
Feel special.
Belong to something.
They should not fit together so easily.
One invites us to become more singular; the other, to become part of something larger. One says: do not be like everyone else. The other: find your people.
Fashion has always lived off that tension. It tells us that what we wear can help us become more ourselves, then offers millions of people the same objects, silhouettes and references through which to do so.
The usual reading is that this is the trick. Fashion promises individuality but manufactures sameness. It sells rebellion, then turns it into a product category. It lets us differentiate ourselves, as long as we do not stray too far from what other people can recognise.
But that reading assumes similarity can only be a defeat: what remains when individuality has not gone far enough.
A completely private identity can be unique. It can also be impossible to read. For a choice to say something, it has to draw on signs that never belong to us entirely. Like any language, fashion requires something shared.
Perhaps the question is not why we end up looking alike, but what social work that resemblance performs.
What resemblance is for
Crocs offers an unexpectedly clear answer.
The perforated clog is already recognisable before its wearer does anything to it. Then come the Jibbitz: letters, foods, characters, zodiac signs, teams, fandoms, private jokes. On an industrially identical base, a combination appears that may never be repeated in exactly the same way.
Personalisation works precisely because we know the object that precedes it. We can see which part has been chosen, exaggerated or altered. If everyone started from a completely different base, the difference might be greater, but less legible.
The same form that constrains expression gives it somewhere to appear.
This does not turn Crocs wearers into a community. They may never meet or need anything from one another. Someone may choose the charms for fun, comfort, collecting or private pleasure. The product does not need to produce relationships to fulfil its promise.
What it produces is a grammar: the possibility of being different in a way that other people can still understand.
In 1991, social psychologist Marilynn Brewer formulated the theory of optimal distinctiveness: social identities could reconcile two opposing needs, assimilation and differentiation. The tension is not new. What seems contemporary is the efficiency with which products and platforms turn it into something configurable, visible and marketable.
But not all shared codes do the same work.
Corteiz is less interested in how you will customise the object. It asks whether you know where to find it. Drops, passwords, unexpected locations, scarcity and public events turn access into part of the product. The garment carries one code; acquiring it carries another.
With Crocs, people distinguish themselves within a shared base. With Corteiz, the group distinguishes itself from those left outside. Its members do not need to look particularly different from one another if, together, they preserve a clear boundary between themselves and everyone else.
We do not always want to be distinct within the right group. Sometimes we want to be distinct as the right group.
That boundary can produce a “we” with extraordinary speed. Sharing information, recognising the right logo or having attended a limited-access event can be enough to identify insiders. The intensity may also come from scarcity, FOMO, resale or the status of having arrived first. A crowd gathered around a drop demonstrates attention and co-presence. It does not demonstrate continuity.
Adam Arvidsson and Alessandro Caliandro used the term brand public to describe formations organised around shared attention and affect, but without the sustained interaction we associate with community. Corteiz partly resembles a ritualised public: people able to recognise one another as insiders without ever coming to know one another.
Crocs makes a variation visible. Corteiz makes a boundary visible. The question is no longer only how much of our individuality remains, but what we are asking the shared part to do.
A shared world is not yet a shared life
Nude Project shifts that tension from the object to the world around it. Content, conversations, events, collaborations and physical spaces gather around the product. Its founders have become visible protagonists in the story.
The garment can function as an entry point into a cultural imaginary: creativity, ambition, irreverence and a certain idea of not fitting in. Its figure of the misfit turns the experience of feeling out of place into a recognisable identity.
Here lies an especially fertile paradox. Misfits also need to resemble one another enough to find each other.
Buying Nude Project may mean acquiring a garment, but it can also mean positioning oneself close to certain references, displaying cultural competence or rehearsing a version of oneself. The brand offers a world someone can imagine themselves living in.
That affiliation is not false because it takes place partly in the imagination. A cultural universe provides language, orientation and the intuition that strangers exist who would understand something about us. Someone can feel they belong before forming a single relationship.
But felt belonging and relational community do not describe the same condition.
From the outside, we can observe the aesthetic, the content, the crowds and the language of community. It is much harder to know whether participants recognise one another personally, meet again or develop any responsibility towards one another. A common world can give us somewhere to locate ourselves without yet giving us people we can count on.
This is one of the most productive ambiguities of contemporary brand culture. The same word — community — can name an audience, a sensibility, a customer base, a fandom, a subjective experience of belonging or a network of relationships. The word draws socially different experiences close enough to make them look interchangeable.
Get Roger Federico Rybak’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
The difference begins to emerge when the code no longer organises appearance alone and starts to organise time.
What changes when we come back
Rapha also begins with a recognisable aesthetic. Its clothing, imagery and stories turn cycling into more than exercise or transport. But the Rapha Cycling Club adds another infrastructure: local chapters, clubhouses, routes, scheduled rides, ride leaders and reasons to return.
The jersey can identify the cyclist. The weekly ride allows cyclists to identify one another.
Returning changes the nature of the experience. Familiar faces appear, along with stories, reputations and expectations. Someone stops being just another person wearing the same brand. They become the person who knows the route, waits for the rider who fell behind or turns up for every ride.
The brand does not merely distribute symbols. It reduces the effort required for the same people to meet again.
That infrastructure is not neutral. Rapha introduces a material barrier and a culturally marked aesthetic. Participation requires equipment, time, skill and confidence. Cycling already gives people reasons to gather; the brand organises and captures a form of sociality it did not create from scratch. Yet a relationship does not become less real because a company built some of the infrastructure that made it possible. The question is not whether a commercial community is authentic or inauthentic, but what participation it enables, who can access it and how much value the relationships acquire beyond the transaction.
Rapha asks whether you will come back.
parkrun shows what repetition adds when there is almost no product left to buy. Each week, people who may have little else in common arrive at the same park, at the same time, to cover the same five kilometres. There is a briefing, a start, a course, finish tokens, barcodes to scan, volunteer vests and, often, a conversation afterwards.
The relevant similarity is no longer aesthetic. It is temporal and organisational.
That repetition makes the encounter predictable. No one needs to reinvent when, where or how to meet. At first, someone simply takes part. If they return, they begin to recognise faces. Some of those faces begin to recognise them. If they later take on a volunteer role, their presence begins to have consequences: it helps make everyone else’s experience possible.
There are signs of this mechanism, not a universal law. In a UK cross-sectional survey that received 60,680 responses, 83.5 per cent of the 681 volunteer-only participants said parkrun had improved their sense of belonging to a community, while 85.2 per cent said it had helped them meet more people.
In a later qualitative study — 39 middle-aged men in Ireland, a far narrower sample — participants described ties that evolved through repeated participation. Friendships, when they emerge, are not already waiting at the starting line. They are made possible by returning.
But belonging is not guaranteed. Among 680,255 people who registered in the United Kingdom, Australia and Ireland between 2017 and 2019, 43 per cent never participated and another 22 per cent did so only once. Start times, injuries, childcare, lack of time and feeling insufficiently fit continued to operate as barriers. Free participation opens a door; it does not decide who manages to cross it.
Nor does everyone seek deep ties. Some prefer a light-touch sociability: being among others without the obligation to become friends. Even so, parkrun introduces something the other cases contain only partially. Participation can become contribution. The strongest signal of belonging is no longer being seen with the right thing. It is being counted on.
Everything we compress into the word community
Crocs, Corteiz, Nude Project, Rapha and parkrun do not form a scale from superficiality to authenticity. What changes is the work performed by the shared part: making a variation visible, drawing a boundary, offering affiliation, organising the return or turning presence into contribution. Across this sequence, relational density increases; the value of the experience does not necessarily increase with it. No case fits entirely within a single category.
A code produces legibility: others understand the identity we are signalling.
A narrative produces affiliation: we recognise ourselves in the orbit of a cultural universe.
Repetition produces familiarity: we stop being interchangeable strangers.
Contribution opens a more relational form of community: our presence begins to have consequences for others.
The difference can be summarised without turning it into a formula:
> The code makes us legible.
> The shared story gives us a place.
> Repetition makes us familiar.
> Contribution makes our presence matter.
Brands create codes and shared worlds with relative ease. Some also organise places, schedules and practices that encourage people to return. What they cannot do is declare a community and, through that declaration, produce relationships between its members.
None of these categories is pure. Not everyone wants to be read: getting dressed also responds to comfort, habit, price, function or private pleasure. Status can resemble belonging when the value lies in separating those inside from those left out.
Communities are not simply “chosen” either. Money, time, location, gender, safety, physical ability and cultural competence shape which worlds are accessible.
Nor do we need to attribute this tension to a new generational psychology. Earlier subcultures already combined imitation, hierarchies, media and consumption. What seems contemporary lies less in what we desire than in the conditions under which desire circulates: greater exposure, more options and less time between the emergence of a code, its naming, its commercialisation and its saturation.
Different, together
Feel special.
Belong to something.
The two promises no longer seem incompatible.
A shared language gives individuality a visible form. It allows us to recognise a reference, a taste or a possible affinity in another person. Sameness is not always the failure of difference. Sometimes it is what makes difference intelligible.
But a considerable distance remains between being understood and being known.
A clog provides a grammar. A drop produces a crowd. A brand builds a cultural universe. A club gives people a reason to return. A recurring ritual allows one person to matter to the experience of another.
These are not equivalent ways of being together. Nor do they need to be.
Sometimes we want an object to make us different. Sometimes we want it to make us intelligible. Sometimes we hope it will help us recognise those who might understand us. And sometimes, the object is only the beginning.
Perhaps some brands are no longer selling only stand apart. They may be offering stand out within: preserving a version of ourselves inside a language that others can read.
Fashion can make us recognisable to one another. A community begins to take shape when that recognition acquires continuity and consequences: when our presence changes something for others and our absence begins to be noticed.
— -
Methodological note: This essay offers a cultural interpretation based on secondary research and cases selected for their diagnostic value. It does not estimate the prevalence of these motivations, attribute a homogeneous psychology to a generation or treat brands’ use of the word “community” as sufficient evidence of communal relationships.
Visual note: All images are AI-generated conceptual illustrations created for this essay. They do not depict actual participants or events, nor do they directly document the organisations discussed.
