3

Disclaimer: Cultural appropriation is an emotionally charged topic and is criticized by a number of intellectuals, and my intent is to determine the philosophical grounding of the topic through vetted publications. Any objection to my phrasing will be answered with a good-faith effort to create more neutral language as my agenda is to cure my philosophical ignorance, and not push a position. From WP:

The concept of cultural appropriation has also been subject to heavy criticism and debate.[25][26][27] Critics note that the concept is often misunderstood or misapplied by the general public, and that charges of "cultural appropriation" are at times misapplied to situations such as trying food from a different culture or learning about different cultures.[28][29] Others state that the act of cultural appropriation as it is usually defined does not meaningfully constitute social harm, or the term lacks conceptual coherence.[30][31] Additionally, the term can set arbitrary limits on intellectual freedom, artists' self-expression, reinforce group divisions, or promote a feeling of enmity or grievance rather than of liberation.[31][32][33][34][26]

Background

Pursuant to answering the question Can a subculture be appropriated? (PhilSE), some discussion ensued to my response drawing into question my skepticism of the conceptual coherence of the term 'cultural appropriation'. As appropriation appears to reduce to the notion of theft, the existence of such a phenomenon as cultural appropriation clearly has ethical and political implications. When raising the question, how can imitating others be theft, the argument apparently boils down to harm. While using the example of US bluesmen having their music and style imitated and not benefiting economically from it (loudersound.com), I can see the general outline of a case made for the coherence of cultural appropriation, however, at the same time, it seems like harm in most instances is made in the guise of "emotional harm". Given the subjectivity of emotions and feelings, this tends to lead to emotionally charged controversy about cultural appropriation as anyone who has any feelings or emotion vaguely uncomfortable can claim harm without objective and consensual measure. In fact, there is discussion on the Internet on exactly what constitutes 'cultural appropriation' in non-philosophical discourse given it's abstract characterization, such as this article.

Question

Is there literature on 'cultural appropriation' that provides a coherent explanation of what it is, and if so what is the summary?

Clarifications and Edits

I make no claims as the 'reality' of the subjective. I'll accept the Meinongian jungle if it makes sense in the context of the literature in question. I include here only because it raises questions of objective verification or falsification as an epistemological strategy.

The question of what is 'cultural appropriation' has political implications, and is itself related to political philosophy because it revolves around power dynamics, and I have updated the tags to modify it, but that is distinct from the question serving a political agenda. As a pluralist, I am looking for a variety of sources with a variety of interpretations.

I have recently reformed the claim about the term being "widely abused" to noting it is both an "emotionally charged" and "controversial topic". I have also cited one (of many articles) that show that the term is widely misunderstood and requires clarification given the abstractness. There are obviously large segments of the general public who skeptical, and the best course of action is tempered dialog, not cancelation of opposing views by extremists in any political conflicts surrounding the topic.

J D
  • 26,214
  • 3
  • 23
  • 98
  • 3
    Re your "Given the subjectivity of emotions and feelings", subjectivity doesn't mean it's not real. For example, most people's subjective pain could be readily observed objectively via their expressions by their surrounding people, even through online linguistic communication. And pleasure and pain are the main factors for moral utilitarians and consequentialists' consideration... – Double Knot Oct 01 '23 at 17:57
  • @DoubleKnot I make no claims as the 'reality' of the subjective. I'll accept the Meinongian jungle if it makes sense in the context of the response. I include here only because it raises questions of objective verification or falsification as an epistemological strategy. – J D Oct 01 '23 at 18:02
  • 2
    @DoubleKnot, the subjective is real, but until recently, it was accepted in Western society that one cannot be held responsible for the unintended emotional responses of others. You could be held responsible for deliberately harassing people or for "fighting words", but not for someone's response to an action that was not directed at them. As we have seen recently, when causing subjective distress is censurable, people with power use it to lord it over others, using alleged emotional distress of convenient victim classes as an excuse to punish people who have done nothing objectively wrong. – David Gudeman Oct 01 '23 at 22:44
  • 3
    If there existed such literature, it would probably be written in English, a language that appropriated pretty much the whole French lexicon during the 13th and 14th centuries. The French, of course, had stolen their own language from the Romans, who stole everything from the Greeks, who themselves plundered the Egyptian culture. – Olivier5 Oct 01 '23 at 22:52
  • @Olivier5 lol Clever. – J D Oct 02 '23 at 01:26
  • 1
    PBS has a .pdf about this topic here, I haven't looked through it yet for pros and cons in the framing/reasoning. – Kristian Berry Oct 02 '23 at 01:39
  • @KristianBerry Interesting. "Cultural diffusion was coined by cultural anthropologist, Edward Tylor, in the late 19th century and describes the human process of transferring elements of culture between societies." That's a lead! – J D Oct 02 '23 at 01:43
  • @KristianBerry Interestingly, there's no mention of it in his WP article. – J D Oct 02 '23 at 01:50
  • 5
    Here's a good SEP article on the topic, though you might be familiar with it: The Ethics of Cultural Heritage. Section 4 specifically covers the appropriation question. – Kristian Berry Oct 02 '23 at 01:58
  • I’m voting to close this question because it's trying to spread a political agenda, rather than having all that much to do with philosophy. – NotThatGuy Oct 02 '23 at 10:13
  • 1
    "appropriation means theft" - not quite, no. "Given the subjectivity of emotions and feelings" - by the same reasoning, someone could dismiss claims of domestic abuse, harassment, bullying, and anything else which can fall under "the guise of emotional harm". So are we going to dismiss all emotions as just being subjective, or are we going to stop cherry-picking? If nothing else, "wide abuse of the claims of cultural appropriation" is in dire need of references to back it up, but ironically by the same means by which you judge "cultural appropriation", others can judge your claim of "abuse". – NotThatGuy Oct 02 '23 at 10:39
  • @NotThatGuy Not remotely. Kristian Berry found the exact answer to the question in the SEP. And the article disagrees with your conceptualization, but Ill strengthen my article to avoid cancelation. – J D Oct 02 '23 at 15:37
  • @NotThatGuy I have emended the language to try to answer your misconceived objection I am attempting to politicize it, which is an odd claim since it's essence is both an object of political philosophy (as any critical theory would obviously regard it) and that question is a reference request. Obviously you believe yourself to have a mastery of the topic, so given my ignorance on the topic, you would be better off responding to the reference request with guidance on my attempts to determine what the literature says than trying to silence me. That being said, a preliminary scan... – J D Oct 02 '23 at 15:59
  • of the SEP clearly indicates that many thinkers tie cultural appropriation to the notion of the theft of the controversial ontological primitive of cultural property, which makes sense since 'appropriation' is defined as 'the action of taking something for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission.' Appropriation is a softer form of theft in plain English. Now, given that you are an expert in this matter by your own reckoning, perhaps you could muster the pedagogical will to provide reference beyond SEP instead of merely trying to shut down an important, abstract topic... – J D Oct 02 '23 at 16:03
  • Surely you'd concede the cure to my ignorance is your expertise and not a dismissive wag of the finger. Since you have such great insight on the topic formed by study, enlighten me with the published base from which you draw your conclusions! :D – J D Oct 02 '23 at 16:04
  • 1
    Is a dictionary insufficient? AFAIK all the controversy is over whether or not "cultural" and "appropriation" in their common use are useful terms to describe the incorporation, by members of a set of people which does not traditionally do things a certain way, of a certain way of doing things in the manner done by another set of people. That such a phenomena happens is uncontroversial. – g s Oct 02 '23 at 21:06
  • "... trying food from a different culture ..." If God had wanted people to have food from different cultures, He would have made Chinese Restaurants! Is this one of those issues where the people making accusations unavoidably do the very things they condemn? He who is without sin... – Scott Rowe Oct 03 '23 at 00:02

0 Answers0