You may find "cultural appropriation" a toxic term, but it's the appropriate one. The fact that you think that it's toxic as a term is ridiculous and demonstrates a lack of understanding of its usage. It's about like complaining about the term "toxic masculinity" and then saying that "masculinity" is fine, when the point is how the term exists in usage as a unit: i.e., toxic masculinity.
I mean, if the term you use to describe a phenomenon is
actively offensive to people who aren't familiar with the details of that concept, you should probably change the term. We don't use generic terms like "policemen" or "congressmen" or "firemen" anymore because people found them offensive. We stopped using gendered terms because of the negative associations with them. Is it really useful to insist on using terms like "toxic masculinity" and "patriarchy" when you could use a term like "toxic gender-associated stereotypes" or "systemic injustice of the establishment"? After all, doesn't "toxic masculinity" oppress men and women? Doesn't "patriarch" oppress men and women?
When the early 20th century medical categories for intelligence, namely "idiot", "moron", and "imbecile" first became common knowledge and then later became common English terms, the medical community recognized that the terms were now offensive
and therefore inappropriate. So they switched to "mental retardation," and that had similar results. "Mentally handicapped"? Yeah, "handicapped," once a term to replace "crippled" hass now also got negative associations. And how do you think "special" got it's negative connotations? Today we're on terms as sterile as "cognitive impairment" and "severe multiple impairment". It has always been the burden of the area of study to present itself to laypeople as professional, rigorous, and without the biases of popular culture.
If
the term itself alienates the very audience you're trying to convince, then you're dooming yourself. The term itself becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. You need to convince people you're not trying to harm them to convince them that your ideas have merit, but then you immediately use a term that's offensive to them. Communication is a two way street, and if you're constantly finding yourself in a position of immediately having to explain why your term isn't offensive over and over again, then the problem is probably not with your audience. Like it or not, it's a
bad term, and it's not pop culture that's going to change. That's like a cup of water asking to change the direction of the river. It's got to be the sociologists and anthropologists who adopt better terms, and
then the layperson will listen to your arguments.
Think of it this way. If you dismiss their feelings of being offended by the terms you used, why shouldn't they dismiss your feelings of being offended? Isn't that just a bit hypocritical? You're really doing exactly what you're condemning people for. "Well this is what the term is so we're going to keep using it," is reinforcing your own status quo while insisting on changing the status quo of others. It's just like them saying, "hey, I got past the offensive parts of Unearthed Arcana so why can't you?" It's saying, "my offense is important, but yours is irrelevant". You're
never going to win people over arguing like that.
After all, if language really is so important that it's critical that we use terms like "firefighter" over "firemen" or "police officer" over "policemen" then what does that suggest about pervasive use of gendered terms in sociology? Isn't that precisely why the general terms we use are "racism" instead of "white nationalism" or "sexism" instead of "male chauvinism" or "misogyny"?
It's like the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" from the abortion debate. Both terms come pre-loaded with natural antonyms that are clearly offensive in the West: "anti-choice" and "anti-life". Those terms make it very clear that people involved in these debates are not interested in compromise or half-measures. It's either 100% agree with them, or 100% disagree with them. There is an intentional denial of diplomacy and compromise on the subject.
However, if you are looking for something more neutral about the ebb and flow of culture, ideologies, etc., then the term you are looking for is "cultural diffusion" or sometimes "trans-cultural diffusion." Cultural diffusion =! cultural appropriation.
Yeah, but the difference between appropriation and diffusion isn't based on what the individual is doing. It's based on the historical and cultural context of who the person is and whose cultural elements they're using and how they're using them. Just because you're taking or using something from a foreign culture doesn't mean it's offensive. In a general sense, the whole point of culture is to adopt the ideas -- fashion, music, etc. -- that are desirable and to discard those that are not. Information transfer is a core element of culture, and all cultures adopt foreign ideas and incorporate them.
The best explanation of how muddy this topic actually gets that I've seen is
this video from Rare Earth. It's only 8 minutes long, but I think it covers a lot of the conceptual problems around both actual harmful cultural appropriation and the problem of calling something out as cultural appropriation.
It begins to retread the ideas of
cultural authenticity in art (link to make it clear what I'm talking about) and whether that means anything at all.
Matt Colville's Future of This Hobby recent stream (link to start of actual stream, not start of useful context; also that stream will probably disappear forever in a week or two) kind of touches on this when he's talking about Jethro Tull changing from playing American blues -- a black American style of music -- to playing prog rock in the form of music inspired by and played on instruments from British folk history. They changed because they didn't feel like their music was authentic playing the blues. This is kind of a tangential topic to what Matt was discussing, but here I think it circles back to the issue in some way and that stream has been rattling around my head for awhile.
What is authenticity? What value does it add? Why, or when, is it important? And who is responsible for answering these questions?
Appropriation and diffusion are both
inauthentic in terms of what they're doing, but only one of them is
inappropriate. Quite honestly, in actual use I think the only difference between the two is that diffusion becomes appropriation when the cultural context makes it offensive. However, that's a circular definition. It might be that "
I know it when I see it" is the only useful operating definition of cultural appropriation, but it's certainly not objective or scientific. That makes it inherently contentious and, well, not a convincing argument in and of itself. It means that when you say, "It's offensive because it's cultural appropriation," you're really just saying, "It's offensive because it's offensive." That might be the best way to describe something! But it's as difficult to defend as a definition of obscenity. The only thing you can do is stop and provide all the context for
why it's offensive, and then you've got to rely on consensus. That's a very rough position to be in, especially when you've got to be convincing in 280 characters or less. The alternative seems to be one side shouting "that's offensive" and the other side shouting "not to me" or "so what". This only works when you can generate an
apparent consensus, especially online. Usually all that gets you is a half-measure. Actually changing people's minds is a lot more difficult.
It's down to consensus. Everybody knows that. That's why you get
immediate pushback on any calls for change. Some people want the status quo, and that doesn't mean they're wrong. The status quo for abortion is very different than the status quo for Confederate flags or the status quo for discrimination in the workplace or the status quo for voting rights, etc.
All I'm saying is, "this is offensive to some people," is not very convincing. Being offended is a very low bar, and being offended in and of itself is not harmful. You've got to be specific not about just what's offensive, but what's
harmful. And if it's actual harm that causes actual, tangible damage, then you're much, much more likely to convince people. Unfortunately, cultural appropriation is primarily used for when usage is
offensive and not only when usage is
harmful. It's often used by people who are
not the harmed party and they're offended by proxy, which is often not a particularly convincing position. That's just the reality of how the term is used, like it or not. Arguing that it's only True Cultural Appropriation when it causes actual harm is just running into no true Scotsman. You're stuck with the
de facto use of the term. The term as it's actually used, not as you'd like it to be used.
There are definitely cases where appropriation rises to the level of offense, and beyond that to the level of actual harm. The racial stereotypes of the names and iconography of certain sports teams, for example. But convincing people is often going to involve conveying the context that you know. That sucks because it's hard, but
that's how you change minds.
