Insight into the difference between Cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation

Fashion companies are increasingly being taken to task for selling expensive versions of traditional Indigenous dress. Gucci's kaftans came with a US$3,500 price tag, which is far more than the $10 that Indians pay for a very similar-looking traditional kurta. Louis Vuitton's $700 scarfs resembled the keiffyeh that is viewed as a symbol of Palestinian nationalism and sold in much of the Arab world at a far lower cost. Both fashion labels received criticism, but not only for the seemingly inflated prices. They were accused of appropriating Indigenous cultural artifacts for profit.

It is also an accusation that has been levelled against many celebrities. The American model Kendall Jenner was accused of "hijacking Mexican culture and wearing it as a costume" for her new Tequila 818 advertising campaign. And Canadian singer Justin Bieber is yet again being accused of cultural appropriation for sporting dreadlocks – a natural hairstyle for people of colour across many civilisations.

These are just a few examples of the increasing global phenomenon of people, organisations and businesses being held to account for appropriating cultures outside their own. Interestingly, though, the boundaries between ethical cultural sharing and exploitative cultural appropriation are not always clear. I am a scholar researching American race and ethnic relations, and students often ask me how they can differentiate between the two.

What is cultural appropriation?

In the halls of academia, discourse regarding cultural appropriation arose in the late 1970s, sparked by the publication of Edward Said's famous book "Orientalism". In this work, Said explored how, in the West, cultural notions of the "orient" invariably aided and abetted the material and cultural plundering of Asia.

ADVERTISEMENT

Advertise with NZME.

As research on the history of Western cultural exploitation of Indigenous peoples proliferated, the work and research of American historian and cultural theorist George Lipsitz came to be viewed as laying the foundation for today's debates regarding what is and what is not cultural appropriation.

Lipsitz, writing in the 1990s, argued that cultural appreciation becomes cultural appropriation "when an element of culture is adopted from a marginalised group without respect for its cultural meaning or significance or with the purpose of exploiting the culture for economic or social gain."

That being said, scholarly consensus regarding cultural appropriation has long accepted that the lines between cultural appreciation and appropriation may be difficult to clearly determine in real time, and especially within the contemporary social media-driven zeitgeist.

Thin line

There have been myriad cases of cultural appropriation of Indigenous and traditional cultures. However, some cases appear to be more clearly unethical and exploitative of culture than others.

The vast plundering of Indigenous cultural artifacts, treasures and traditions that occurred throughout the colonial era provides the clearest historical examples of unconscionable exploitation and appropriation of Indigenous cultures. And, for the most part, the treasures still have not been returned.

A more recent example of clearly unethical cultural appropriation and exploitation of Indigenous cultures for profit came to the fore in 2021 when the government of Mexico accused clothing companies Zara, Anthropologie and Patowl of appropriating and selling designs based on patterns and symbols derived from indigenous Mexican cultures and demanded recompense.

The Art of Life: how arts and culture affect our values

 

“We need new ideas, we need new ways of doing things and we need a whole new way of approaching each other with much more empathy and understanding. This means that the rest of society really needs to focus on the world of art and culture as a vital source for not only solutions, but also ways of finding solutions… and a whole knew concept of what a valuable life really means.” - Uffe Elbaek, former Danish Minister of Culture

Last year the Future Generation Art Prize was created to help younger artists participate in the cultural development of societies in global transition. On launching the Prize, founder Victor Pinchuk said, “I believe artists can show our world of tomorrow better than politicians and analysts”.

This month a group of philanthropists working to promote social justice and peace met with artists to work on their relationship with art and culture.

Next week an art school will open in East London with a new model as both a school and communal space emphasising cooperation and experimentation. It is being set up to facilitate the sharing of knowledge and skills between artists, local residents and neighbourhood organisations.

These few examples go beyond art for art’s sake, they make art for our sake. More and more people are coming to the realisation that we are reaching the limits of our planet's capacity to support us. Our wellbeing is declining and inequality is rising, which is fuelling conflict, mass migration, poverty and many other social problems. We need to act fast if we are to find new economic and social paradigms that recognise the limits of our finite planet and enable all people to flourish.

Can we transition the values of our society and economy within a generation? Well we need to give it our best shot, armed with insight into what makes a real difference. Our customs, behaviors, and values are byproducts of our culture. No one is born with greed, prejudice, bigotry and hatred; these are all learned behaviours. We need to find more and better ways to learn from and understand each other, disrupt vested interests and imagine and create more sustainable ways of living.

Art and culture's core practice is one of the most participative, dynamic and social forms of human behaviour. It has the capacity to trigger reflection, generate empathy, create dialogue and foster new ideas and relationships and offers a powerful and democratic way of expressing, sharing and shaping values. It can help us build new capabilities and understand how to imagine and rehearse a different way of being and relating. It can enable us to design useful and meaningful things and is increasingly the basis of livelihoods and enterprises that are motivated by much more than profit.

But to fully release this potential, we need to deepen our understanding of how arts impact on our values and rethink how and why we value art. Our values represent our guiding principles, our broadest motivations, influencing the attitudes we hold and how we act. They shape the way we look at and understand the world and the mental structures that order our ideas. They are the frame through which we construct the stories that we tell ourselves and others about what is important.

In The Art of Life, Tim Kasser, professor of psychology and co-author of Common Cause; The Case for Working with our Cultural Values, sets out the evidence base for the shaping of values and explores the potential of engagement with art and culture to affect our:

• self-acceptance,
• affiliation, and
• community feeling,

As well as values that are known to affect higher levels of personal, social, and ecological well-being such as:

• freedom,
• creativity,
• self-respect,
• equality and
• unity with nature.

A number of people have offered their responses to the ideas that Tim explores in his article, including an emergent artist, a playwright, a campaigner, a designer, a director of a cultural organisation, and two academics from different disciplines. Their generous contributions and critique are fascinating and sometimes fierce.

This report is the beginning of a dialogue about how art and culture impact on our values, what that might look like in practice, and how we might foster new collaborations between artists and cultural institutions and the third sector to create new ideas for development.