Multiculturalism
235
POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES IN ACTION . . . CULTURAL APPROPRIATION
EVENTS: In January 2020, the Japanese fashion brand Comme des Garçons issued a ‘deep and sincere’ apology after sending white models wearing cornrow wigs – a protective hairstyle strongly linked to black culture – down the catwalk at Paris Fashion Week. Claiming to have drawn inspiration from the style of an ‘Egyptian prince’, the fashion brand was accused of ‘cultural appropriation’. In September 2019, Canada’s prime minister Justin Trudeau faced a storm of criticism, almost wrecking his chances of re- election, after images emerged of him wearing black make-up when he was in his late teens and early 20s. Other alleged examples of cultural appropriation include the sporting of Native American headdresses at festivals, the singing of the slave anthem ‘Swing Low, Sweet Chariot’ by England rugby fans and the widespread commercialization of yoga. SIGNIFICANCE: Cultural appropriation (or ‘cultural misappropriation’, to emphasize its negative character) refers to the adoption of the customs, practices or ideas of one culture by members of another and typically more dominant culture. This form of cultural borrowing is considered undesirable and offensive by various groups and individuals, including indigenous peoples and disadvantaged or minority cultures. The reason for this is that these marginalized cultures are harmed by stereotypical portrayals that demean, insult or trivialize aspects of their heritage, preserving ignorance and undermining self-esteem in the process. At the same time, more dominant cultures are encouraged to treat
less dominant ones as objects of amusement or a means of satisfying their appetite for the ‘exotic’. As such, cultural appropriation sustains and entrenches imbalances in power. The concept of cultural appropriation has also been the target of criticism, however. In the first place, it fails to recognize the extent to which cultures are not separate and discrete, but fluid, multifarious and overlapping entities. Second, cultural appropriation may be a positive, not always a negative thing. Thus whereas, at one extreme, adopting blackface is now almost universally considered to be blatantly insulting, other forms of cultural borrowing may be based on admiration for, and a sincere desire to learn from, other cultures. The fact of cultural borrowing may therefore be less important than the motive behind it – that is, whether or not it is done respectfully. Third, some argue that representations of other people’s culture, however insensitive or demeaning they may be, do not meaningfully constitute social harm, and so do not genuinely provide a basis for offence.
Finally, multiculturalists such as Kymlicka believe that indigenous peoples or national minorities are entitled to rights that go beyond those of groups that have formed as a result of immigration. This can be sustained on the grounds that indigenous peoples have been dispossessed and subordinated through a process of colonization and settlement. In no way did they choose to give up their culture or distinctive way of life; neither did they consent to the formation of a new state. In these circumstances, minority rights are, at least potentially, ‘national’ rights. In contrast, as migration involves some level of choice and voluntary action (even allowing for the possible impact of factors such as poverty and persecution), immigrant groups can be said to be under an obligation to accept the core values and governmental arrangements of their country of settlement. Migration and settlement can therefore be seen as a form of implicit consent.
Powered by FlippingBook