The misappropriation of cultural appropriation
For some reason lately, social media seems to be bombarded by some faction of a literary elite, with seemingly good intentions, having almost comically appropriated the anthropological term “cultural appropriation”, as a morally loaded, specific form of trivializing another culture. This is in contrast to “mutual exchange” which supposedly occurs on an even playing field. I feel I must point out this patently hypocritical perspective, and unknowing process of appropriating the term, to critique a specific type of appropriation, has not only misinterpreted what is an essential process to human interaction, but exhibits a lack of understanding of the cultural processes and historicity which encompass all forms of cultural exchange and fluidity. What makes cultural appropriation trivializing or respectful is dependent on the underlying power structure. There is an element of commodification in appropriation of cultural artifacts as theft. How can someone “steal” a culture unless someone else already owns it, or can make profit from it.
White musicians stealing black music for financial gain, as well as the Global South appropriating English as a second language are both forms of appropriation, with very different moral and ethical implications, related to the socioeconomic realities of the peoples involved. Although the appropriation of core languages is in part an act of agency on the part of the individual, it is also a result of cultural imperialism, and colonial histories. But it is also appropriation when a marginalized group in Rojava uses consensus based democratic organizational techniques to resist oppression and violence. These are clearly not the same thing, but are all emblematic of cultural processes of appropriation and reappropriation.
Don't get me wrong, I am in no way defending the trivialization of things that have real meaning for people, or hegemonic relationship between those who have the ability and choice to adopt and manipulate cultural technologies for their own gain, and the people who can't afford the luxury. I'm simply pointing out that human history is a constant process of re-appropriation and re-authentication. People constructing and deconstructing their own identities reflexively with technological diffusion and exchange. The real issue here is who is doing the appropriating.....the power(Foucauldian) dynamic between the appropriator and the appropriatee.
The danger in the embodiment of value judgments such as these anti-imperialist ideals into the process of methodological analysis of, in this case, human behavior, is the loss in flexibility in the process as positive or negative, detrimental to our understanding of complex cultural processes and structures. It actually strips the word of it's functionality. Although promoters feel like they are protecting cultural diversity and resisting a cultural hierarchy, they, in fact, have hijacked the word with the opposite effect, restricting cultural exchange, stripping the word of it's real meaning, masking and simplifying the structural inequality of the global hegemony, embodying that which they are so desperately trying to resist; the never ending accumulation of culture and wealth of the (mostly)white dominant class, restrictive of all forms of interaction except their own.
