Dreadlocks, mascots, and even halloween costumes have come under scrutiny with recent critiques of cultural appropriation. In this essay, I will argue that cultural appropriation can be distasteful although not morally objectionable, as cultural appropriation is neutral containing both positive and negative connotations. To illustrate this I will present the values that are in conflict in this situation, and present a solution to the issue using a multiple ethical approaches and address an objection.
The definition of cultural appropriation is often debated, between a neutral definition and an intrinsically negative definition. When I refer to cultural appropriation, I will be referring to the representation of cultural practices or experience by cultural “outsiders”, the use of artistic styles distinctive of cultural groups by non-members, and the procurement or continued possession of cultural objects by non-members or culturally distant institutions. The first option refers to cultural appropriation in a neutral way, neither positive nor negative. This takes the ethical approach of rights, explaining that one should have the right to adopt other cultures and use them insofar as they do not harm others in the process. Distinctions often are made between cultural appropriation, appreciation, and cultural exchange. Interpreting cultural appropriation neutrally necessitates that distinctions between appropriation and appreciation need not stand as the two are not mutually exclusive, rather can be used in conjunction with each other. With a neutral definition one is more accepting that cultural exchange and cultural appropriation are very similar, in viewing exchange as a productive process, whether a dominant culture takes from a minority culture or vice versa. While viewing cultural appropriation as an intrinsically negative, forces a separation of cultures and restricts free flowing cultural exchange. This can be shown when looked at through a Justice/Fairness ethical approach, viewing harm’s through the exploitation of the power dynamics.
Cultural appropriation is not intrinsically negative, rather it allows cultures and people to exchange information that they otherwise would not have been able to exchange. Adoption of others cultural practices is something that has been going on for centuries and all of a sudden has come under contention. From a rights perspective, one should have the freedom and right to exchange and use the culture without being placed in a morally reprehensible position. Moreover, a utilitarian ethical view can also be taken. By calculating the net utility cultural appropriation through a thought experiment and/or empirical observation, one can hypothesize and observe that through a cultural exchange of ideas and practices there will be increased cooperation causing a positive outcome for society. As is the case in many multicultural societies including the Canada, people share their cultures with each other, bounce ideas off each other and make new discoveries to help push society forwards. In this case both utilitarianism and deontology (Rights/Kantian ethical approach) are in agreement, when often they are in contention in relation to moral issues or dilemmas, further showing that cultural appropriation is not an intrinsic moral issue. Although, one cannot neglect the fact that there are at times where cultural theft occurs, which often leads to defamation, and disappreciation. These negative occurrences must be distinguished from cultural appropriation as something separate. Which returns to the neutral definition of cultural appropriation as stated before, there does not seem to be a clear reason other than a subverted need to seperate ones culture from others that a negative label is being placed on cultural appropriation.
Objectors explain that there is an injustice being done by accepting cultural appropriation as a non moral issue. In relation to the Justice/Fairness ethical approach there seems to be unfairness and inequality in the power dynamic between cultures which implies a moral issue. Europeans came from Europe to North America and impose a hegemonic cultural structure onto the Native’s who were already in place beforehand, and begin culturally appropriating aspects of the minority Native culture. For example, the NFL team the Washington Redskins, the name is seemingly harmless although when one looks deeper into the meaning issues arise. Redskin comes from the time when companies and governments paid white Europeans to kill Natives and used their flesh to prove that they were indian kills aka redskins. Allowing cultural appropriation seemingly allows adoption’s of offensive and harmful names such as Redskins to arise, which does not benefit the minority culture in any way rather exploits the present power dynamic.
Whether one views cultural appropriation as either positive or neutral, they can find that there is an immoral aspect to the naming of the Washington NFL team. And can be viewed as something negatively appropriated. Although, that does not necessitate that cultural appropriation is intrinsically harmful, rather it means that at times there are negative misrepresentations that can be by products of cultural appropriation when used in an egoistic manner. A major issue that arises when presenting cultural appropriation as harmful, is that one must subscribe to the notion of cultural essentialism. Necessarily categorizing groups of people within a culture, or from other cultures, according to essential qualities. Causing concrete division between culture and restricting one's freedom on the basis of their culture. Which leads to the issue of how one gains membership to a culture. Are the qualities attainable or are they ascribed at birth and unchanging? Opposers of cultural appropriation make the distinction between a dominant culture and a minority culture and draw lines that cannot be crossed by people from the dominant culture, while people from the minority culture need not be morally punished for crossing the line. This idea implies an unavoidable double standard based on arbitrary attributes that are currently used to ascribe people to a culture, which to me cannot be separated from discrimination and possibly racism. For the harm that is done, as aforementioned in the case of the Washington Redskins, the dominant culture should not be held accountable for the misrepresentation and disrespect of native culture, rather it should be those individuals who instituted the ignorant depiction of Native culture for their benefit. “White people” and “White culture” may have done injustice to minorities in the past. While, there is a new generation that is completely disconnected from the past and should not be given the burden of being a part of the dominant culture, which places a moral blockade on adopting other cultures as they are supposedly aiding in the immoral exploitation of a power dynamic.
A solution to the possible harmful byproducts of cultural appropriation is to adopt a rights based Kantian view: One must treat others as an end in themselves and not just as a mere means, this moral idea was stated in relation to the relationships between people although it can be extended to culture as well. The phrase is emphasizing to not just use objects of moral significance just as mere tools but also as an ends in themself, meaning that there is a history and respect that must be put into play when utilizing something such as an aspect of another person's culture. Cultural appropriation can be made into something positive when there is a mutual respect and understanding between cultures of an the value of a practice or object. With mutual respect and understanding, harm is absent allowing for the flourishing of ideas and innovation which is a goal of a multicultural society.
In conclusion, there is undeniable link between cultural essentialism and cultural appropriation, and the notion that cultural appropriation alone robs one of their collective identity is absurd. A look towards multiple ethical approaches has shown that cultural appropriation really is a non issue, and must be treated in a neutral sense as a tool that can be used for positive or negative purposes.