Cultural appropriation
Cultural appropriation is the adoption of an element or elements of culture or identity by members of another culture or identity in a manner perceived as inappropriate or unacknowledged. Charges of cultural appropriation typically arise when members of a dominant culture borrow from minority cultures. Cultural appropriation can include the adoption of another culture's religious and cultural traditions, customs, dance steps, fashion, symbols, language, history and music.
Indigenous peoples working for cultural preservation, advocates of collective intellectual property rights of the originating cultures, and some who have lived or are living under colonial rule have all criticized cultural appropriation. According to American anthropologist Jason Jackson, cultural appropriation differs from other modes of cultural change such as acculturation, assimilation, or diffusion. Jackson describes cultural appropriation as something that is thought of as focused outward and done to a certain party. According to Jackson, cultural appropriations can be sources of pain and can bring about feelings of loss or violation for the community affected.
Opponents of cultural appropriation see cultural appropriation as an exploitative means in which cultural elements are lost or distorted as they are removed from their originating cultural contexts. Cultural elements that may have deep meaning in the original culture may be reduced to "exotic" fashion or toys by those from the dominant culture.
The concept of cultural appropriation has also been subject to heavy criticism, debate, and nuance. Critics note that the concept is often misunderstood or misapplied in popular and academic discourse. Others state that the act of cultural appropriation, usually defined, does not meaningfully constitute social harm or that the term lacks conceptual coherence. Critics also say that the concept sets arbitrary limits on intellectual freedom and artists' self-expression, reinforces group divisions, and promotes enmity or grievance rather than liberation.
Overview
Cultural appropriation can involve the use of ideas, symbols, artifacts, or other aspects of human-made visual or non-visual culture. As a concept that is controversial in its applications, the propriety of cultural appropriation has been the subject of much debate. Opponents of cultural appropriation view many instances as wrongful appropriation when the subject culture is a minority culture or is subordinated in social, political, economic, or military status to the dominant culture or when there are other issues involved, such as a history of ethnic or racial conflict. Linda Martín Alcoff writes that this is often seen in cultural outsiders' use of an oppressed culture's symbols or other cultural elements, such as music, dance, spiritual ceremonies, modes of dress, speech, and social behaviour, when these elements are trivialised and used for fashion, rather than respected within their original cultural context. Opponents view the issues of colonialism, context, and the difference between appropriation and mutual exchange as central to analysing cultural appropriation. They argue that mutual exchange happens on an "even playing field", whereas appropriation involves pieces of an oppressed culture being taken out of context by a people who have historically oppressed those they are taking from and who lack the cultural context to properly understand, respect, or utilise these elements.Academic discourse
The Oxford English Dictionarys earliest citation for the phrase was a 1945 essay by Arthur E. Christy, which discussed Orientalism. The term became widespread in the 1980s in discussions of post-colonial critiques of Western expansionism, though the concept of "cultural colonialism" had been explored earlier, such as in "Some General Observations on the Problems of Cultural Colonialism" by Kenneth Coutts‐Smith in 1976.Cultural and racial theorist George Lipsitz has used the term "strategic anti-essentialism" to refer to the calculated use of a cultural form outside of one's own to define oneself or one's group. Strategic anti-essentialism can be seen in both minority and majority cultures and is not confined only to the use of the other. However, Lipsitz argues that when the majority culture attempts to strategically anti-essentialize itself by appropriating a minority culture, it must take great care to recognize the specific socio-historical circumstances and significance of these cultural forms so as not to perpetuate the already existing majority vs. minority unequal power relations.
Historically, some of the most hotly debated cases of cultural appropriation have occurred in places where cultural exchange is the highest, such as along the trade routes in southwestern Asia and southeastern Europe. Some scholars of the Ottoman Empire and ancient Egypt argue that Ottoman and Egyptian architectural traditions have long been falsely claimed and praised as Persian or Arab.
Among critics, the misuse and misrepresentation of indigenous cultures are seen as an exploitative form of colonialism and one step in the destruction of indigenous cultures.
The results of this appropriation of indigenous knowledge have led some tribes and the United Nations General Assembly to issue several declarations on the subject. The Declaration of War Against Exploiters of Lakota Spirituality includes the passage:
In writing about indigenous intellectual property for the Native American Rights Fund, board member Professor Rebecca Tsosie stresses the importance of these property rights being held collectively, not by individuals:
In 2017, Mehgan Gallagher spoke about what exactly the debate concerning cultural appropriation entails within the modern age, specifically within the United States. She used contemporary examples of cultural appropriation to highlight cases of controversy. In particular, the Washington Redskins of the National Football League provided an example that led into a broader conversation regarding the representation of Native Americans when it came to sports mascots.
In 2021, Jason Baird Jackson, attempted to create a model by which instances of cultural appropriation could be understood systematically. He argues that understanding the modes of cultural change most similar to cultural appropriation is key to discussing the outcomes and implications of instances of appropriation as their meaning are often used interchangeably. Jackson offers his definition of appropriation as the "structural inversion of assimilation", being that it is an instance in which "a powerful group takes aspects of the culture of a subordinated group, making them its own."
In 2023, Jonas R. Kunst, Katharina Lefringhausen, and Hanna Zagefka set about to determine what were the differences between cultural appropriation and genuine cultural change. They detailed what they determined as the "dilemma of cultural ownership", a concept that challenges the idea that "cultures are discrete entities owned by specific groups" and therefore do not have the ability to be stolen or appropriated, and instead offers the rationale that the "impact of power disparities" is too large to ignore in cases of cultural appropriation.
In 2024, Angela Gracia B Cruz, Yuri Seo, and Daiane Scaraboto released the results of a study that went about determining strategies consumers used to "self-authorize" how they consumed media that could be considered to be culturally appropriated. They performed a six-yearlong study on international K-Pop fans concerning how they felt when it came to determining what was cultural appreciation vs appropriation. One comment they chose to highlight from redditor named Sam said "Based on my experience, I've observed both. It depends on the context. As an Asian-American, K-Pop fans in America is more appreciation, as opposed to Koreaboos who just use Korean names for comedy are appropriating."
Examples
Art, literature, iconography, and adornment
A common example of cultural appropriation is the adoption of the iconography of another culture and its use for purposes that are unintended by the original culture or even offensive to that culture's mores.For example, the use of Native American tribal names or images as mascots. Author Kevin Bruyneel writes that the presence of these symbols causes harm to indigenous communities, as they often reinforce colonial dynamics and perpetuate stereotypical Euro-American perspectives. Other examples include non-Native Americans wearing jewelry or fashion that incorporates Native American religious symbols, such as the medicine wheel, or wearing items of deep cultural significance and status that traditionally must be earned, such as a war bonnet, without having earned the right.
Copying iconography from another culture's history, such as Polynesian tribal tattoos, Chinese characters, or Celtic art, and wearing them without regard to their original cultural significance may also be considered appropriation. Critics of the practice of cultural appropriation contend that divorcing iconography from its cultural context or treating it as kitsch risks offending people who venerate and wish to preserve their cultural traditions. A term among Irish people for someone who imitates or misrepresents Irish culture is Plastic Paddy.
During the 1920s the works of artists like Frances Derham, Allan Lowe, Olive Nock appropriated Aboriginal Australian motifs. In 1930, Margaret Preston advocated the use of Indigenous Australian motifs in contemporary art. In 2017, Canadian visual artist Sue Coleman garnered negative attention for appropriating and amalgamating styles of indigenous art into her work. Coleman, who has been accused of "copying and selling indigenous-style artwork," has described herself as a "translator" of indigenous art forms, which drew further criticism. In an open letter to Coleman, Kwakwak'awakw/Coast Salish artist Carey Newman wrote that artists being accountable to indigenous communities is the antidote to appropriation. In Australia, Aboriginal artists have discussed an "authenticity brand" to ensure consumers are aware of artworks claiming false Aboriginal significance. The movement for such a measure gained momentum after the 1999 conviction of John O'Loughlin for selling paintings that he falsely described as the work of Aboriginal artist Clifford Possum Tjapaltjarri.