Multiculturalism vs. Cultural Appropriation - say what??

[Sunstone]

Even the question of 'ownership' of cultural artefacts is highly problematic...

I agree, Augustus. I think this is an issue, along with the perhaps more important question of whether significant harm can be done to someone by "appropriating" artifacts and/or traits from their culture. Although the term, "cultural appropriation" might be meant to be neutral in regard to harm -- that is, to allow for the possibility that any particular act of cultural appropriation can be injurious, benign, or non-injurious -- they very fact that it raises the question is important.

Ultimately, the harm or injury given here seems to be an injury to the ego or psychological self, except in certain cases, such as the physical theft of artifacts. As a matter of injury or harm to the psychological self, I would point to an imperfect analogy. That of speech. It is clear that speech can offend someone's sense of who they are, and it is clear that at least some cases of cultural appropriation can offend someone's sense of who they are. Should we then treat these offenses as more or less the same in terms of seriousness?

As for the notion of ownership, the term "appropriation" might be seen as implying that ownership is possible even though strong arguments could be made against that.

Those are my preliminary thoughts. There's no guarantee they will be my conclusions -- should I ever arrive at some.

 

[Augustus]

No, it doesn't. It simply means appropriation of elements of a minority culture - it doesn't necessarily define itself by terms of offence.

The term appropriate means to take something without consent. It is not a neutral term in this context, but an accusation

There is ample evidence that language influences thought, and that the linguistic framing of issues influences response to them.

Which should all be ideass taken into consideration with regards to the issues of cultural appropriation.

Which is what I am doing when I find the term itself problematic because it assumes ownership

This is also false. The term does not prescribe offense nor tell people how to respond to it. It merely gives a name to a particular phenomenon which can be seen as problematic.

Then why use a term with negative connotations if it is not intrinsically negative?

Only if you have a reactionary approach to appropriate terminology being used.

In this thread alone we have educated people from different cultures and from differing political persuasions who find the term problematic and provide reasoned argument to support their POV.

To insist the terminology is appropriate and those who disagree are merely being churlish and 'reactionary' is somewhat shallow imo.

 

[Stevicus]

University warns ‘non-Mexican’ students against ‘cultural appropriation’ on Cinco de Mayo

“This is a relatively minor holiday in Mexico,” the email continued, “however, in the United States Cinco de Mayo has evolved into a commemoration of Mexican culture and heritage, particularly in areas with large Mexican-American populations.”

“Unfortunately, the celebrations have become less about the appreciation of Mexican heritage, and instead has become more about drinking and partying especially by non-Mexican individuals,” the message continued. “Because of this, there are many instances when Cinco de Mayo becomes a holiday that is full of cultural appropriation.

Well, other significant events happened on May 5, such as in 1821, Napoleon died. On May 5, 1865, the Confederate government was officially dissolved. And on May 5, 1912, Pravda began publication.

 

[suncowiam]

I'm not divorcing the people from the people who write or the people who consume media. It's all people. I think the relationship between people and their media can and does feed into aforementioned vicious cycle of extremes and extreme pandering. So I think both media creators and media consumers are responsible for that atmosphere and behavior.

Yes, I think you are correct that both the creators and consumers play a role in continuing this cycle of exxagerated news.

 

[columbus]

University warns ‘non-Mexican’ students against ‘cultural appropriation’ on Cinco de Mayo



Well, other significant events happened on May 5, such as in 1821, Napoleon died. On May 5, 1865, the Confederate government was officially dissolved. And on May 5, 1912, Pravda began publication.

You forgot my dog!
She was born 13 years ago today.

How could you!?!?
Tom

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The term appropriate means to take something without consent. It is not a neutral term in this context, but an accusation

I disagree. If I talk about, for example, a piece of literature appropriating the narrative structure of Beowulf, it is neither implying some sort of legal theft nor a negative value judgement. It's a neutral statement describing a common trend in writing.

I see cultural appropriation as an inevitable part of cultural evolution for both the good and the bad. And context largely determines which I view to be which.

To insist the terminology is appropriate and those who disagree are merely being churlish and 'reactionary' is somewhat shallow imo

Wouldn't the opposite also be true? Because there's an awful lot of people accusing people who think that cultural appropriation can be damaging are just 'churlish or reactionary.'

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Ultimately, the harm or injury given here seems to be an injury to the ego or psychological self, except in certain cases, such as the physical theft of artifacts. As a matter of injury or harm to the psychological self, I would point to an imperfect analogy. That of speech. It is clear that speech can offend someone's sense of who they are, and it is clear that at least some cases of cultural appropriation can offend someone's sense of who they are. Should we then treat these offenses as more or less the same in terms of seriousness?

Don't we already? As in, culturally we have a mixed bag of opinions and behaviors related to how to respond to speech that is perceived by some as offensive. Sometimes it involves call for clarification. Sometimes it involves social moderation. Sometimes it calls policy into question. Sometimes it's just a raised question of offense that has no further consequence.

 

[Augustus]

I disagree. If I talk about, for example, a piece of literature appropriating the narrative structure of Beowulf, it is neither implying some sort of legal theft nor a negative value judgement. It's a neutral statement describing a common trend in writing.

Can't speak for literary criticism, but it is generally a negative term. Borrow would be neutral, appropriate is clearly a stronger and more negative term imo.

Can you give me an example of when cultural appropriation has been used in a neutral or positive context? I've honestly never seen one.

Wouldn't the opposite also be true? Because there's an awful lot of people accusing people who think that cultural appropriation can be damaging are just 'churlish or reactionary.'

I would consider it shallow if someone argued that there were no possible situations that misuse of cultural artefacts could legitimately be seen as being problematic.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Can you give me an example of when cultural appropriation has been used in a neutral or positive context? I've honestly never seen one.

The video I mentioned before uses examples like Bollywood films with strong American themes or traditional German theming and instruments in Mexican music as examples of neutral cultural appropriation. Arguing that it doesn't carry the baggage of power disputes where the appropriating are current or historical oppressors of the appropriated. She still calls it appropriative but in a neutral fashion, though.

Edit: as an additional thought I wouldn't use borrowing because that, to me, implies that you can give it back after use somehow?

 

[Augustus]

The video I mentioned before uses examples like Bollywood films with strong American themes or traditional German theming and instruments in Mexican music as examples of neutral cultural appropriation. Arguing that it doesn't carry the baggage of power disputes where the appropriating are current or historical oppressors of the appropriated. She still calls it appropriative but in a neutral fashion, though.

I'm not sure that relates to the concept as it is used in common parlance though.

Cultural appropriation is a concept in sociology dealing with the adoption of the elements of a minority culture by members of the dominant culture.[1][2][3] It is distinguished from equal cultural exchange due to the presence of a colonial element and imbalance of power.[4][3] Cultural appropriation is often portrayed as harmful in contemporary cultures, and is claimed to be a violation of the collective intellectual property rights of the originating, minority cultures, notably indigenous cultures and those living under colonial rule.[2][5][6] Often unavoidable when multiple cultures come together, cultural appropriation can include using other cultures' cultural and religious traditions, fashion, symbols, language, and songs.[7][8][9]

According to critics of the practice, cultural appropriation differs from acculturation, assimilation, or cultural exchange in that this appropriation is a form of colonialism: cultural elements are copied from a minority culture by members of a dominant culture, and these elements are used outside of their original cultural context—sometimes even against the expressly stated wishes of members of the originating culture.[3][10][11][12][13][14]

Cultural appropriation - Wikipedia

 

[Stevicus]

You forgot my dog!
She was born 13 years ago today.

How could you!?!?
Tom

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm not sure that relates to the concept as it is used in common parlance though.

Cultural appropriation is a concept in sociology dealing with the adoption of the elements of a minority culture by members of the dominant culture.[1][2][3] It is distinguished from equal cultural exchange due to the presence of a colonial element and imbalance of power.[4][3] Cultural appropriation is often portrayed as harmful in contemporary cultures, and is claimed to be a violation of the collective intellectual property rights of the originating, minority cultures, notably indigenous cultures and those living under colonial rule.[2][5][6] Often unavoidable when multiple cultures come together, cultural appropriation can include using other cultures' cultural and religious traditions, fashion, symbols, language, and songs.[7][8][9]

According to critics of the practice, cultural appropriation differs from acculturation, assimilation, or cultural exchange in that this appropriation is a form of colonialism: cultural elements are copied from a minority culture by members of a dominant culture, and these elements are used outside of their original cultural context—sometimes even against the expressly stated wishes of members of the originating culture.[3][10][11][12][13][14]

Cultural appropriation - Wikipedia

Sure, that is one view. Not the only one though. James Young, who literally wrote the book on 'The Ethics of Cultural Appropriation' (still the most extensive philosophy writer on the subject to date and I highly recommend that book) wrote that

"some content and subject appropriation can be a sort of assault on the members of a culture. Such appropriation is wrong. While this must be acknowledged, a great deal of content and subject appropriation is completely benign. Most cultural appropriation neither sets back the interests of individual members of cultures nor damages cultures.”

It's hardly a new or selective interpretation of the word.
..actually I feel like I should add it to the Wiki even.

 

[Augustus]

"some content and subject appropriation can be a sort of assault on the members of a culture. Such appropriation is wrong. While this must be acknowledged, a great deal of content and subject appropriation is completely benign. Most cultural appropriation neither sets back the interests of individual members of cultures nor damages cultures.”

Even with this though, you still have the problems with the term 'appropriation'. While it is saying it isn't necessarily harmful, it still implies a concept of ownership, and still carries negative connotations.

In an academic text nuances can be explained, but in popular, politicised discourse such things rarely exist. My feeling is that it tends to create a pre-packaged thought which is more likely to be an impediment to clarity rather than an aid.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Even with this though, you still have the problems with the term 'appropriation'. While it is saying it isn't necessarily harmful, it still implies a concept of ownership, and still carries negative connotations.

In an academic text nuances can be explained, but in popular, politicised discourse such things rarely exist. My feeling is that it tends to create a pre-packaged thought which is more likely to be an impediment to clarity rather than an aid.

I can see why some would see it that way and I wonder if that has to do less with the word choice and more with the tendency towards popular discourse only handling terms like this when it becomes a problem.

Like, I talk about racial coding in fiction when it's bad and not bad. It's neutral, even positive, in films like District 9 (or to a lesser extemt Bright). But the term pops up more in relation to talking about something like Avatar or Lord of the Rings, where the racial coding was negative, even intentionally so in Lord of the Rings.

And I feel the same way about cultural appropriation.

I'm told, and I have to take it on my source's word since I'm not part of that study, that appropriation is also a common and neutral term in the music industry. All inspiration, satire, even homages are appropriations of someone's music style. And far from that being seen as bad, it's encouraged. (This is also true in the arts, but to a different degree in commercial art to fine art.)