Mercurius
Legend
If I may, what I hear Sacrosanct saying is that the definition itself is not up for debate. What I hear BedrockGames saying is that the concept is up for debate. The two are not the same thing, and it may be that the lack of distinction between the two is muddying the waters a bit.
Now maybe Sacrosanct doesn't think the concept is up for debate, and maybe BG thinks the definition itself is up for debate - I don't know. But it is important to differentiate between definition and concept.
As I see it, it does seem logical that the definition of "cultural appropriation" has to be relatively defined by its very nature. There is a definition and that's what it means. But the validity and utility of the concept is debateable. In other words, to what degree the phenomena it refers to exists, and more so how valid and useful the concept itself is--both to describe said phenomena and as a praxis for transformation--must be debateable, otherwise we fall prey to a kind of fundamentalism. Thou Shalt Not Question the Hallowed Tenets of Academic Multiculturalism!
Here's what Google Dictionary offers as a definition:
The unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society by members of another and typically more dominant people or society.
So if we go with the assumption that this is a valid definition (there are others), what becomes a matter of discussion is parsing out the different elements of the definition, and whether the total concept is useful for transforming the problem it points at.
For instance, "unacknowledged" is pretty straigtht-forward, but what about "inappropriate?" That seems far more fuzzy. And who is the arbiter of what is and is not appropriate? If you're tapping into Japanese culture (e.g. katanas), will any Japanese person do? And won't there be a great deal of variance of how people of the "appropriated culture" might view what is and is not appropriate or offensive?
{As an aside, when I lived in India for about a year, I was struck by how tourists were more likely to use the Indian names for cities (e.g. Mumbai), while most Indians used the colonial English names (e.g. Bombay). Similarly, I have found that it is generally white liberals who prefer the term "Native American" while many Native Americans/American Indians call themselves "Indians." Similarly with "African American" vs. "Black." The point being, everyone is different. There's no one-sized fits all way to refer to anyone, whether as a group or as an individual. Sometimes--often, even--the most offended parties are not even those who are being appropriated or refered to}
Or do we need to consult a certain sub-set of academics who specialize in such things? Who major in social systems, intersectionality, multiculturalism, etc? But doesn't that become circular? Meaning, we refer back to the folks that come up with the concept to begin with?
There are other things to parse out: What does "more dominant people" mean and how useful is that framing? Is a poor white person more dominant than a rich black person? Was Rabbit appropriating Papa Doc? Etc.
Further: how do we draw the lines between cultures? Who "owns" customs, practices, and ideas, and at what point do they become essentially "public domain?"
Another line of questioning: If "cultural appropriation" is deemed to be more trouble than its worth as a concept, what are some other possible ways of approaching the same issue? In other words, how can we approach the exchange and usage of different cultural ideas in a way that is respectful and non-harmful?
The bottom line is that there are a lot of complexities and subtleties at play. I think it would be terribly reductionistic, and even harmful, to simmer everything down to a one-size fits all approach: this is how you do it, this is what must be done, this is the one and only proper and true way to view such things. In the end I find entrenchment in any specific way of seeing as being a major part of the problem - so maybe we are better served approaching such a discussion with a healthy dose of openness and cognitive flexibility.
Or as the great Zen teacher DT Suzuki said, "Right view means no particular view."
Now maybe Sacrosanct doesn't think the concept is up for debate, and maybe BG thinks the definition itself is up for debate - I don't know. But it is important to differentiate between definition and concept.
As I see it, it does seem logical that the definition of "cultural appropriation" has to be relatively defined by its very nature. There is a definition and that's what it means. But the validity and utility of the concept is debateable. In other words, to what degree the phenomena it refers to exists, and more so how valid and useful the concept itself is--both to describe said phenomena and as a praxis for transformation--must be debateable, otherwise we fall prey to a kind of fundamentalism. Thou Shalt Not Question the Hallowed Tenets of Academic Multiculturalism!
Here's what Google Dictionary offers as a definition:
The unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society by members of another and typically more dominant people or society.
So if we go with the assumption that this is a valid definition (there are others), what becomes a matter of discussion is parsing out the different elements of the definition, and whether the total concept is useful for transforming the problem it points at.
For instance, "unacknowledged" is pretty straigtht-forward, but what about "inappropriate?" That seems far more fuzzy. And who is the arbiter of what is and is not appropriate? If you're tapping into Japanese culture (e.g. katanas), will any Japanese person do? And won't there be a great deal of variance of how people of the "appropriated culture" might view what is and is not appropriate or offensive?
{As an aside, when I lived in India for about a year, I was struck by how tourists were more likely to use the Indian names for cities (e.g. Mumbai), while most Indians used the colonial English names (e.g. Bombay). Similarly, I have found that it is generally white liberals who prefer the term "Native American" while many Native Americans/American Indians call themselves "Indians." Similarly with "African American" vs. "Black." The point being, everyone is different. There's no one-sized fits all way to refer to anyone, whether as a group or as an individual. Sometimes--often, even--the most offended parties are not even those who are being appropriated or refered to}
Or do we need to consult a certain sub-set of academics who specialize in such things? Who major in social systems, intersectionality, multiculturalism, etc? But doesn't that become circular? Meaning, we refer back to the folks that come up with the concept to begin with?
There are other things to parse out: What does "more dominant people" mean and how useful is that framing? Is a poor white person more dominant than a rich black person? Was Rabbit appropriating Papa Doc? Etc.
Further: how do we draw the lines between cultures? Who "owns" customs, practices, and ideas, and at what point do they become essentially "public domain?"
Another line of questioning: If "cultural appropriation" is deemed to be more trouble than its worth as a concept, what are some other possible ways of approaching the same issue? In other words, how can we approach the exchange and usage of different cultural ideas in a way that is respectful and non-harmful?
The bottom line is that there are a lot of complexities and subtleties at play. I think it would be terribly reductionistic, and even harmful, to simmer everything down to a one-size fits all approach: this is how you do it, this is what must be done, this is the one and only proper and true way to view such things. In the end I find entrenchment in any specific way of seeing as being a major part of the problem - so maybe we are better served approaching such a discussion with a healthy dose of openness and cognitive flexibility.
Or as the great Zen teacher DT Suzuki said, "Right view means no particular view."
Last edited:
