The Art of Cultural Appropriation
Every time I see a member of the mainstream culture accessorising with native headresses or sticking adorned chopsticks in their hair at contemporary festivals, I can’t help but think of all the potentially angry comments on their social media the next day. Are they appropriating a culture they aren’t a part of? Possibly. Do they mean to? Probably not. But despite all, the issue of cultural appropriation can shove our sociocultural evolution in a historically displeasing cannon and shoot it hundreds of years backwards.
While I wholeheartedly support cultural appreciation, appropriation can be a problem. And here’s why.
Cultural appropriation is not only white girls slapping bindis on their foreheads but a power dynamic between a privileged, dominant culture, and a culture oppressed by the dominant. Really, it’s the modern symptom of the Christopher Columbus syndrome, and this colonisation of cultural identities has become something of a transgressive art.
The hierarchy of social power is a rather straightforward one. When white people borrow cultural nuances which origins lay deep within the black culture, for instance, these ceremonial discoveries are hailed as “edgy” while those to whom these cultural elements have existed throughout history are denigrated for being “ghetto.”
Neigh, says the historic high horse of imperialism and exploitation.
Instances of cultural appropriation in the celebrity culture have included white women wearing cornrows. But what does something so seemingly insignificant as a specific hairstyle have to do with racial issues? While the right to express oneself through fashion choices is integral in modern society, the issue itself lies deeper than the surface realm of personal style.
Again, it’s a reflection of underlying white privilege in a Eurocentric world that simultaneously glamorises predominantly black features like big lips and derrieres on white women and dehumanises black women on whom these features exist by character. The problem is that features reminiscent of historical trauma are racially fetishised and, depending on your phenotype, something you are disparaged or idolised for having.
And so the issue of cultural cross-pollination falls on the rather frail ground of double standards. Even in a world currently riding on its fourth wave of feminism, cultural appropriation has landed us right back to the roots of systematic oppression which allows people – white or not – to assume every carefully selected and glorified detail from a certain culture. Well, everything but the social prejudice. That’s extra.
Now, an important emphasis to cultural appropriation is the notion that black women straightening their hair or opting for weaves does not equal to exploiting “white hairstyles.” There is no such thing. A marginalised culture simply cannot exploit the dominant, particularly when it’s spread upon them. Rather, it’s a question of cultural assimilation and it occurs out of mere conformity to westernised norms in order to socioeconomically survive in the Anglo-American world.
And the difference here is the freedom of choice, interwoven with historical heritage. Or the lack of it. Black women are forced to alter their appearance to avoid being penalised under social demands. Their natural hair may be deemed undesirable yet wearing cornrows or dreadlocks often suffers an unprofessional stigma. As a white woman, however, either of these hairstyles may crack you into the high end of urban fashion without further consequences of socially imposed burdens or ethnic discrimination. What makes it offensive is that people borrowing these cultural expressions can do so without suffering the prejudice associated with it.
To clarify, there is nothing wrong with cross-cultural influences. It’s about understanding the cultural significance of these influences. Some of the cultural components you see paraded on the high street may well be sacred deep within some traditional values, so the choice to accesorise them as a fashion statement out of pure hipsterdom is understandably obnoxious. The problem isn’t necessarily intent but ignorance.
What’s more, culturally appropriative elements only continue to reinforce the unapologetic stereotypes that don’t represent but marginalise the cultures they come from. They certainly shouldn’t be used as exotic imports for flavouring the mainstream, but with respect and a certain degree of political correctness. The Tumblresque aesthetic of cultural appropriation is frowned upon because it’s simply hyperbolic and exists to de-ethnicise cultures only to cherry-pick aspects of their heritage, especially while other customs of that culture may be ignored or regarded with contempt.
Now, before ripping the universe a new wind hole and claiming that my non-English 4pm tea is appropriating the monarchic lineage, lets kick back and sip our Earl Grey through a few points. Cultural appropriation follows the inevitable course of natural sociocultural evolution. One of the most global phenomena born in the streets of Bronx is hip-hop and I dare suggest that it serves to demonstrate that cultural elements merge and exchange due to a long shoulder to shoulder exposure. The juxtaposition of a certain cultural element and a non-representative member of that culture is not entirely black and white.
Even if some traditions don’t run in your bloodline, it doesn’t mean you’re not entitled to honour or appreciate their cultural importance. Similarly, cultural exchange does not diminish their unique cultural value. The commercialisation in terms of self-indulgent privilege may do. Even though the patterns of cultural appropriation and exchange are painfully blurred and caught in a continuous loop-de-loop, one thing is certain. An escapade into the multicolour sphere of cultural curiosity should always be a gesture of respect.
