[RD] Cultural Appropriation: The Solution?

[Kyriakos]

In the same vein, culture is more than just paintings and sculptures. And I am still wondering about your opposition to a system that actually puts money in Greek hands rather than the obverse. An EU initiative that strengthens Greek enterprises, supported by the Germans, of all things.

I am not opposing it. I am not even identifying it as the same thing with costumes at all. I just noted that the system is in place for economic reasons, and not so as to "protect local culture". Ie the tie to what is meant as "cultural appropriation" is really tenuous, imo.

 

[NovaKart]

Oho, do I get to see the proud Greek argue for the right of others to make knockoffs of genuine Greek products? This thread just got entertaining.

That's what official protections should help with, too. To properly define what needs to be recognized as culturally significant. And it is the members of the culture who should decide that.

On a related note, someone brought up a comparison to military medals. I looked up the Native American headdress concept, and it's apparently called a "war bonnet". Wearing these without tribal recognition is literally stolen valor. Or like me donning a Presidential Medal of Freedom because it looks cool. It's on a whole other level than wearing saris or qipaos.

I could see a comparison if we’re talking about a specific headdress here but it seems like the controversy here involves all Native American style headdresses so a bit like all vaguely military looking metals, not the presidential medal of freedom. And a lot of people take issue even with wearing just saris and qi paos

 

[Traitorfish]

@Traitorfish , likewise, R.L.Stevenson is more like scottish/scotch culture, than a whiskey, surely.

National culture isn't just high culture, though. It's the every day; indeed, the extent to which high culture becomes national culture is the extent to which it both penetrates and articulates the every day. Scots are traditionally whisky-drinkers, if not as much today as they used to be, and it's a strong historical presence in Scottish life. A single malt or a good blend is practically a shorthand for "special occasion"; even the dingiest dive-bar will have a few malts behind the bar, and almost any corner-shop will offer at least a half-dozen.

 

[Lexicus]

Isn't "high culture" just a way of saying "things traditionally enjoyed by the aristocracy" anyway?

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I think it tends to be universities that are SJW-ish, not high school, unless you were indeed talking about university.

I know the thread has moved on, but this is a terribly successful cultural misnomer. Most all of the data we have shows that free-speech has more support from college students and grads than otherwise, and political tolerance is higher among that population too.

Spoiler :

 

[NovaKart]

I know the thread has moved on, but this is a terribly successful cultural misnomer. Most all of the data we have shows that free-speech has more support from college students and grads than otherwise, and political tolerance is higher among that population too.

Spoiler :

SJW isn’t limited to free speech issues is it? Also I’m talking about in comparison with high schools and depends on what people mean by free speech as well. The picture won’t showing up for me and could just be an issue with my phone.

 

[Kyriakos]

Isn't "high culture" just a way of saying "things traditionally enjoyed by the aristocracy" anyway?

Maybe. But most celebrated creators weren't from the aristocracy; moreso by the 19th and later centuries.
Even in ancient times, at least in some cultures, you already had non-aristocratic important creators. Afaik even Hesiod (likely in the 8th century BC or thereabouts) wasn't from the aristocracy. Various philosophers also weren't, eg Socrates and Protagoras.

 

[innonimatu]

French and Italian governments hand out extensive subsidies to keep these cultural institutions competitive, and often enforce trade restrictions to prevent cheap American knock-offs from flooding local European markets. Partially it comes down to preserving a standard of quality and the genuine product, but part of it also is recognition that Alpine Cheeses like Swiss and Gruyère, or Italian aged cheeses like Parmiggiano-Reggiano, or traditional European alcoholic products like Rioja or Porto or Champagne or Scotch Whisky or whatever are cultural artifacts that are worth preserving in their traditional way, and the respective governments are happy to provide subsidies, tariffs, and product-restrictions that ensure both that the product is able to continue to exist and that the form in which that product continues to exist is consistent with traditional or historical practices.

It's not just the practice or the product. It's the entire ecosystem. Whole regions would be depopulated and abandoned were it not for the ability to distinguish their products from the industrially produced ones. In that sense there is a political dimension to both the government choice of protecting a product, and the consumer choice of buying the product. There is indeed an intent to protect a culture of production, in some cases an entire way of life.

However, as NovaKart said, this does not mean that imitations are forbidden. It just means that consumers must be offered an easy way of reliably distinguishing the regional product from the industrial imitation. You can do an entirely knock-off champagne, and you can call it a "champagne" in common talk without anyone being culturally offended. Though you may as well call it sparkling wind and be done with it unambiguously. You just cannot promote it, sell it as champagne where the original product gained that name protection.

I think that, culturally, people would be honored to have their techniques and products actually imitated in authentic methods by other people. The problem is that the industrial version is not an authentic imitation (in the cultural aspect, of production). It will be much cheaper, and it will undermine the cultures of the original producers. "Appropriation" there causes real harm.
Real imitation of a "culture of production" (usually) does not undermine a commercial product (and therefore its producers) much. Instead it may spread it! Then the consumer choice of buying the original will be a strictly regionalist choice. But industrial imitation does harm them severely (your example with cheese).

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I dont see regional product protection as a cultural thing but as a legal mechanism to keep economical structure of some rural zones and avoid further depopulation. Nothing stops individuals from other regions or countries and therefore with different cultural background of settling in the Rioja region and start producing true legally sanctioned Rioja wine made using local grapes and such. It is more about where is the product made than about who has made it. That is the reason it only applies to products with land related characteristics as wine, meat, fruit and cheese.

 

[luiz]

I dont see regional product protection as a cultural thing but as a legal mechanism to keep economical structure of some rural zones and avoid further depopulation. Nothing stops individuals from other regions or countries and therefore with different cultural background of settling in the Rioja region and start producing true legally sanctioned Rioja wine made using local grapes and such. It is more about where is the product made than about who has made it. That is the reason it only applies to products with land related characteristics as wine, meat, fruit and cheese.

Good point. One of the more sinister aspects of the radical approach to cultural appropriation is their insistence that only people from some "race" have the right to use / wear whatever. Appelation control has nothing to do with race or even culture. Anyone can move to Champagne and make champagne. They don't have to be ethnically or culturally linked to Champagne at all. Indeed there are Americans, Chinese and etc who live there and make champagne.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

More importantly/relevantly, anyone can drink Champagne.

 

[Senethro]

Not me. Gives me painful acid reflux.

 

[Archon_Wing]

There really is no solution. It comes down to an individual's intent and how it is perceived by others.

Culture is not owned by any individual. They cannot on their own dictate what is and not allowed. So even if you say "I have a friend that's x, and he's okay with it" that means nothing.

In the end, you can express yourself, and others will probably react in a certain way due to who they are. You'll just have to read the situation and even if you are legitimately trying to being respectful, this may not always work. Obviously, this excludes cases of unnecessary violence or other forms of aggression. But ideally, both parties will have to act in a considerate manner otherwise it doesn't matter what the solution is. Someone will get pissed.

Oh yea, don't get offended for other people, btw.

 

[Ryika]

To me, no. That is not the solution. That is not even a solution. From my perspective, this solution is actually a detrimental force towards actually solving the problem. By drawing lines in the sand, you prevent a marginalized culture from becoming, well, not marginalized. You're setting impassable boundaries that permanently segregate.

But that's exactly the point. Cultural appropriation is part of an ideology that is in favor of culturally segregation. Multiculturalism, yes, but not as a melting pot, because in a melting pot, the dominant culture always has the imperialistic upper hand and will make use of it. The ideal outcome is seen as culturally segregated pseudo-societies that have their own things just for themselves, all packed inside of a grant society in which the dominant culture does not touch the minority cultures, and minority cultures only take from the majority culture what they want, without having that culture be forced onto them. Thus, "marginalized" cultures are meant to stay "marginalized", Cultural Appropriation is just a tool to prevent the marginalized cultures from having to suffer the disadvantages that marginalized cultures traditionally face in a society where cultural exchange is unrestricted. The idea is that the people who see that culture as their own want to keep that culture for themselves, they do not want it to become popular or be integrated into the mainstream.

In any ideological framework that does not see culture mixing as a bad thing, Cultural Appropriation is simply not a valid concept.

 

[Traitorfish]

In any ideological framework that does not see culture mixing as a bad thing, Cultural Appropriation is simply not a valid concept.

"In any ideological framework that does not see commerce as a bad thing, theft is simply not a valid concept."

 

[Ryika]

That's not analogous, and I think the rest of my post already explained why. You simply cannot literally take away Culture by integrating elements of it into your own culture, the original culture always remains as it is. This does not mean that you can't cause damage by doing so, but any damage is caused by secondary effects.

Either because the people who are members of that Culture did not want it to spread and now see their culture as lesser than it was before just because it was spread to other cultures - these people are cultural segregationists and for them cultural appropriation is a valid concept. The way you "took away" their culture is that a part of what made their culture what is was for them is that you don't have it, and now that you have it, it is no longer the same thing for them. It's like a status symbol - if you have a Porsche, it's one thing, but if suddenly everybody else has a Porsche, too, that Porsche is no longer what it was before, even though the physical object that you own has not actually changed. I don't agree that we should handle cultures like that, but the concept is sound and a focus on cultural appropriation is the logical result.

Or because you were very disrespectful/negligent in the way you represented the culture. In that case, cultural appropriation is not a valid concept, because the mere fact that you implemented something of that culture into your own is not what caused the problem - it was the way you did it, which is why there is no permanent "solution" to this problem, the only way to handle these things is to continue what we're already doing, have an ongoing dialog in which we make our arguments and find out where our sensibilities lie.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's not analogous, and I think the rest of my post already explained why.

Not convincingly.

I understand what you're saying, that the exaggerated concern for cultural cross-contamination among some of the more performatively woke progressives smacks of a sort of roundabout segregation. But, you can't take the dumbest instance of a particular position and take that as representation of the whole thing. (I mean, when you say "heavy metal", people don't think of Five Finger Death Punch. They think of Iron Maiden.) And in the same way that commercial exchange does not exist without context, cultural exchange occurs against an historical background and often in the context of an imbalance of power, in which one party is better-positioned to take up part of the other's culture on its own terms. Sometimes the exchange of goods is theft, without indicating that all exchange is theft, sometimes cultural change is appropriation, without indicating that all cultural exchange is theft.

Because the thing is, a dominant culture taking up some aspect of a minority culture absolutely will change the meaning of that thing within the minority. Perhaps for the better, but quite possibly for the worse, and while we can't predict that in advance, we can at least make the members of that minority culture participants in the process. It's not a big ask.

What I wonder is, would this be so continuous if "minority" culture wasn't implicitly taken to mean "black and brown people". If we were talking about working class subcultures, regional cultures, counter-culture, would we accept that a mainstream taking up aspects of that culture without involving the original participants in that culture tends to lessen the original culture in some way? It seems like it would be, at least, less readily denounced as the wicked machinations of neo-segregationist commie-fascists.

 

[Ryika]

But, you can't take the dumbest instance of a particular position and take that as representation of the whole thing.

I responded to the context that was presented in the OP:

The offered argument was this: A dominant culture adopting from a marginalized culture is cultural appropriation and inappropriate. It should not happen. A marginalized culture's traditions and styles, even derivatives of them, should be restricted to their members and their members only. This is because the response to a dominant culture's adoption of a style is positive while the response to a marginalized culture's adoption of their style is negative.

Because the thing is, a dominant culture taking up some aspect of a minority culture absolutely will change the meaning of that thing within the minority. Perhaps for the better, but quite possibly for the worse, and while we can't predict that in advance, we can at least make the members of that minority culture participants in the process. It's not a big ask.

But what are we talking about here? Hollywood productions? The representation of those cultures in TV? Sure, for companies you can do that, but the large part of the process is just individual people living their daily lives, I don't see how you could possibly expect them to "make members of the minority culture participants in the process". They don't have the power to do that, they themselves are just fish in an endless ocean.

What I wonder is, would this be so continuous if "minority" culture wasn't implicitly taken to mean "black and brown people". If we were talking about working class subcultures, regional cultures, counter-culture, would we accept that a mainstream taking up aspects of that culture without involving the original participants in that culture tends to lessen the original culture in some way? It seems like it would be, at least, less readily denounced as the wicked machinations of neo-segregationist commie-fascists.

I actually thought about gaming culture. Should I have a say in how today's gaming culture evolves just because I was there at times when the C64 was still around? Should the people who entered gaming and changed it as it became more popular have asked for my permission to do what they did? I don't think so, even though I feel like their presence, and the fact that it has been dragged out of its nerdy origins and into the middle of society, has damaged traditional gaming culture.

Other people would obviously disagree with me, but that's again why dialog about those topics is the only way to get a somewhat up-to-date picture of what people in our society think about these topics.

 

[Traitorfish]

I responded to the context that was presented in the OP:

Synsensa explicitly describes this as an insufficient definition of "cultural appropriation". He doesn't take this definition as authoritative and universal, or that the issue is whether "cultural appropriation", so defined, is real or imagined. I took your usage to be a little more general.

But what are we talking about here? Hollywood productions? The representation of those cultures in TV? Sure, for companies you can do that, but the large part of the process is just individual people living their daily lives, I don't see how you could possibly expect them to "make members of the minority culture participants in the process". They don't have the power to do that, they themselves are just fish in an endless ocean.

I mean, if you're arguing that capitalism makes equity impossible, I'm not going to disagree.

I actually thought about gaming culture. Should I have a say in how today's gaming culture evolves just because I was there at times when the C64 was still around? Should the people who entered gaming and changed it as it became more popular have asked for my permission to do what they did? I don't think so, even though I feel like their presence, and the fact that it has been dragged out of its nerdy origins and into the middle of society, has damaged traditional gaming culture.

"Gaming culture" is something marketing teams invented to convince you that the next God of Assassin's Duty are cultural necessities rather than elaborate toys, so I don't there's a very strong analogy, there. (Do gaming cultures exist? Yes, they're scattered, esoteric things, built up around or a handful of games, especially around modding or multiplayer play- that is, among fundamentally player-driven processes. They distinguished above all else by their independence from an indifference to the shifting fortunes of the triple A studios and legacy franchises who are so often taken to represent "gamer culture".)

A better analogy would be something like punk rock, and, yeah, I would absolutely say that some tween who's been in the scene for all of six months has a stronger claim to the legacy of Black Flag or The Clash than some marketing exec, because that legacy is in practical terms constituted by people like him, at least to the extent that the legacy is a living scene and not just the hazy nostalgia of greying Gen Xers.