Karlie Kloss on the catwalk for Victoria's Secret in 2012:
So wrong, its right ...?
So wrong, its right ...?
Cultural appropriation refers to the adoption or use of elements of one culture by members of another culture. These elements range from fashions, hairstyles and dance moves, to spiritual beliefs and religious practices.
It is seen by its opponents as almost always illegitimate, particularly when elements of a minority, marginalised, or subordinate culture are appropriated by members of a dominant mainstream society outside of their original context of meaning in an inauthentic and insensitive manner.
When this occurs, say the critics, then cultural appropriation reveals itself as a disrespectful and aggressive form of colonialism - often inherently racist in character - in which native peoples are robbed of their essential self-hood and intellectual property rights, or reduced to the humiliated status of exotic other.
Now, it just so happens that I'm not entirely unsympathetic to these arguments. Indeed, as a youthful reader of Nietzsche, I used to subscribe to a form of cultural puritanism (and cultural pessimism) myself.
Having said that, such views increasingly strike me as not only untenable philosophically, but politically pernicious. Push comes to shove, I think I prefer modern barbarism with its chaos of styles and superficial artifice; I like the ironic use of symbols and a sacrilegious refusal to take anything too seriously.
For unlike those who fetishize the notion of culture as something that has to be revered and preserved in its pure form - particularly if it happens to be ancient and non-Western in origin - I don't regard it as a sacred quality possessed by a people which developed organically from within the conditions of their existence and shaped their unique identity. Rather, I think it's basically a form of masquerade.
Members of the culture cult regard modern civilization as the coldest of all cold monsters; something fundamentally antagonistic to genuine cultures rooted in blood and soil; something that sucks the very soul out of indigenous peoples the world over and transforms Geist into that which can be commodified and made kitsch. They desire a world in which everybody keeps it real.
But I'm quite happy for people to fake it and cheerfully borrow or steal ideas and looks. Quite frankly, I'd rather live in a world of fashion models wearing feathered headdresses on the catwalk than Indian braves solemnly preparing for war.
Note: those interested in reading another couple of perspectives on this topic might like to see:
'In Praise of Cultural Appropriation', by the sociologist and cultural commentator Frank Furedi (Spiked, 15 Feb 2016)
'Victoria's Secret's Racist Garbage Is Just Asking for a Boycott', by the writer and columnist for Indian Country Today Media Network Ruth Hopkins (Jezebel, 11/12/12)
I have some sympathy with this, the more so with time - the sentimental approach to aboriginal peoples often elides from a justifiable horror and resistance to their bullying, expropriation and extermination to an over-valuation of their ignorance, out-of-time relationship to assets they 'hog' and do not permit to be used more effectively, an often spurious ecologism and a refusal to admit that their historic practices (shorn of the colourful feathers) can be brutal to their own vulnerable and go on to restrict their ability to develop as human beings to their uttermost.
ReplyDeletePart of the skill here lies in allowing those who desire traditional ways in a non-oppressive way the space to preserve their traditions with, as good will, the transfer of resources from the dominant culture to permit them to do this - the best at this was Joseph Stalin who really did (with exceptions for security reasons like the Crimean Tatars) encourage the non-political maintenance of traditional ways. The American Indians would probably have done well under American Communism (which is not a defence of communism by any means but only of one aspect of its rule).
But the dominant culture is the dominant culture because it brings better organisation of resources, healthcare, science, advanced education and so is dominant for a reason. Part of its power lies in its ability to appropriate, hybridise and cross-fertilise ideas from many different sources which are used to self-criticise in a way never permitted in traditional societies - the maladaptiveness even of the mighty Catholic Church is in proportion to its reversion to authoritarian traditionalism.
Appropriating cultural forms in the larger public sphere is simply what the dominant power does to stay dominant and so it should continue to do so. A rather ridiculous appropriation of Amerindian religion was instrumental for example in softening American capitalism's brutal assault on eco-sustainability in a way that did not happen in the Soviet bloc because the traditions were preserved in aspect and over-honoured. The point here is to stop direct incursions by the dominant culture into the private space of smaller cultures - whether Hasidic Jews or Guarani or Bushmen - and only act against barbaric personal harms against persons (such as female circumcision) and, equally, ensure the opportunity for escape from oppression for children, women and the vulnerable. to be trivial, is it not a denial of their rights for teenagers to be forced to go to Church by their parents!
If a minority culture cannot treat its vulnerable or women well (and many do), then it should be on the watch list - but we should be watching for harms against people and not accept the passive-aggressive attempt to restrict our freedom of thought because of alleged harms to 'ideas' or 'traditions'. Of course pusillanimous Western liberals will sell the pass on this as they always do.