You may have heard of this concept before:that of cultural appropriation. This designates the fact by members of a culture of borrowing — or even “stealing” — characteristic elements of another culture, making the latter invisible or even outright exploiting it. However, it is sometimes a concept that goes a little over the heads of the older generations, much less sensitive to questions of identity and the problems that accompany them than the younger ones. These may even be skeptical of the arguments of their juniors, and therefore see no harm in cultural appropriation, or may not realize it. Here is what to find and untangle this concept.
The concept appeared in critical literature at the end of the last century, with authors who subscribed to the intersectional movement — that is, when several forms of domination (economic, sexual, racial, etc.) are taken into account and articulated together, rather than simply added up — with authors like bell hooks, figure of "Black Feminism" who left us in 2021. To put it simply, we will say for example that to understand the domination experienced by a black woman, it is not enough to "add" that experienced by a white woman and that by a black man, but to consider it as another category in its own right, the forms of domination overlapping and increasing tenfold when they accumulate.
In the context that interests us, this means that while cultural appropriation obviously has racial and sexual dimensions, since these are the very groups that are victims of it, these are articulated within a context of capitalist domination and exploitation. Indeed, the problem of cultural appropriation does not lie in the simple innocent borrowing or in the homage to a different culture, although it depends on how these manifest themselves, but rather in the accumulation of capital - economic first of all, when one makes a financial profit via this process, but also symbolic and cultural. For this accumulation takes place at the expense of the representatives of the original culture — which is ironic, not to say cynical, in a capitalist society based on patents. This is where the oppressive nature of this form of domination over only certain groups shines — groups that occupy a less privileged position and are already underrepresented in the media, culture, etc. — since the safeguards of capitalism are suddenly no longer in force to defend them.
The fashion industry finds itself, for example, often in the midst of controversy. This is particularly the case when she uses motifs "borrowed" from African or Amerindian tribes - which of course are neither remunerated nor even most often mentioned on occasion, even though the said collections do not exist. without their initial contribution (which sometimes goes back centuries and of course originally had no commercial vocation). On top of that, the cultural context in which these patterns developed (they may for example correspond to a script, or to another important cultural aspect of their culture of origin) is ignored and brushed aside, to the benefit only of its aesthetic interest for outside eyes - a little as if an entrepreneur enriched himself on the back of Christian culture (stained glass, iconography, etc.) without ever mentioning even its origin, passing over everything in silence its liabilities for the sole benefit of its aesthetics. This is of course impossible because of the cultural hegemony of the Church, but imagine that the roles are reversed, that the Catholic Church is only a small European cult forgotten by all... And that is not limited fashionable:Madonna's hit "Vogue" (a white singer, then already successful) surfed on a New York subculture of poor African and Latino gay and trans people, voguing . By allowing yourself to add:"it doesn't make a difference if you're black or white" — speak for yourself…
Are you starting to see the problem? It seems quite unfair that people who have no connection with the culture of origin that they exploit enrich themselves on the back of it, while the representatives of this culture remain neither recognized nor remunerated. . This is the very principle of intellectual rights, which companies guilty of cultural appropriation would undoubtedly be the first to seize in the event of plagiarism of one of their creations.
So much for the economic dimension of cultural appropriation. It is no exaggeration to say that in some cases, already subaltern groups are properly plundered by representatives of the dominant culture. This is nothing new and descends directly from colonization :just take a look at the collections of the Louvre or the British Museum to remember it. It can also be observed retroactively:the revolutionary aesthetic advances in European modern art that built Picasso's career seem, in retrospect, at least partly borrowed from African models of sculpture, the famous painter having also the reputation of having been a great lover of these so-called primitive arts.
But where do we draw the line? Can we borrow anything and everything, as long as we do not derive any benefit ourselves at the expense of members of the original culture? To take the example of the Church, which is the first to take offense when its iconography is misused in art, even though it certainly does not suffer from a position that can be described as subordinate in the West, is there nothing "sacred" (let us recall in this respect that diverting motifs borrowed from the hegemonic culture within a society cannot in any way be compared in terms of violence to the fact of diverting those of historically oppressed groups)? A pattern, a dance, a headdress, etc. that is steeped in history and context within a particular culture can it be borrowed in the name of its mere aesthetic qualities, moreover by someone who has never experienced the oppression associated with this historical context?
It is ultimately a question of respect, or at least decency, because it also has to do with the violence suffered by the representatives of the targeted culture. In the United States, for example, a typically African-American hairstyle may cost its holder a job interview – at least when the latter is himself African-American. This is perhaps less the case in France, but it is therefore understandable that a white person appropriating this aesthetic without suffering all the discrimination that accompanies it is enough to make people cringe. Especially since once again, the aestheticization of a culture makes all the power relations and domination that cross it invisible .
The limit is therefore more difficult to set here, some will see it as a manifestation of a "cancel culture" where one can "no longer do anything" and "no longer say anything". But think again:it is still not illegal to behave without the slightest respect for your peers. Cancel culture whistleblowers are not gagged or censored as they would like to believe. For the first time in their lives, they are simply contradicted by other voices who challenge them when they consider that they have exceeded the limits. In other words, it is always possible for a white person to wear a Native American headdress to disguise himself if he wishes. On the other hand, you should not be offended if you come to point out that this is inappropriate.
Be careful, the fear of appropriation must not come to harm cultural mixing either. It is the exchange between cultures that allows them to remain alive and to evolve:the example of Picasso aroused illustrates this perfectly. On the other hand, it is possible to do it in a "clean" way. A few principles should guide every creator inspired by foreign cultures in this regard.
First, they must make the effort to take an interest in and seek to understand the context in which the borrowed elements were shaped, in order to be able to reinterpret them themselves in a way that respects their culture of origin. But above all, the most important thing is to include the members of this culture themselves, so as not to otherwise reproduce this pattern where one enriches oneself at the expense of another group. For this, it is therefore essential to mention your sources and express your gratitude to these groups of origin , but that's not all. Ideally, these should be fully included in the creative process, as well as compensated. Because yes, we still live and still live in a pecuniary society, and if we can dream of a world that revolves around other values, as long as it does not exist, it is still, within the ours, financially that we will best reward the people who should be! This is how, instead of being guilty of looting, we participate in paying homage to a culture and its contributions.
