4 ms·

Culture is a way for humans to identify themselves in groups and, on a societal level, agree on how to exist. Without some sort of mutual ground in which to mee

Culture is a way for humans to identify themselves in groups and, on a societal level, agree on how to exist. Without some sort of mutual ground in which to meet, it would be difficult to build a society. Cultural appropriation occurs when one culture has taken aspects of another culture without citing their sources, and often occurs in context of the second culture being treated as a lesser culture by the first. This is one of the ways multiple cultures can conflict with each other. There's nothing wrong with adding your own spin to cultural artifacts so long as there's respect for the people it came from. The lack of respect is where appropriation comes in. That is to say, there's no truth in culture; it's not a lie, either. It's completely on a different paradigm than can be assumed as objectively true or false. Therefore the negotiations between cultures also function on different paradigms. This black and white thinking is too narrow to appropriately incorporate the nuances of human social dynamics.

fit2rule 8y ago
I really don't agree with you, and I think the nature of this disagreement between us is a significant cause of trouble in the world. There are some who are fine with living a lie; there are many who think their lies are the only truths. I believe cultural appropriation to be positive, because its a means by which the falsehood of cultural identity can persist. In the big, wide universe, there really isn't any such thing as "America" or "Sweden" - these are creative inventions of humans, the only living things in the universe known so far, to lie to themselves in such a fashion. Cultures don't exist unless the lie is perpetuated by those who have a self-interest in the identity. Where I do agree with you, is that people need to have respect for each others lies. Without that, we end up with conditions whereby nobodies lies persist - i.e. war. I just happen to think that its possible that appropriation is a form of respect.
- mkingston 8y ago
  Not addressing your point directly (I thought it was interesting). I would recommend you simply replace the word "lies" with "stories," or "fictions". You might find people more willing to engage you constructively, and less willing to downvote you.
  - fit2rule 8y ago
    Thanks for the feedback. I think 'lie' is the appropriate word, and the reason is because it really is a lie - a non-truth - which must be continually told in order to persist through time. There is no such thing as culture, until we say "this behaviour/activity/ideal is culture" - it's not a part of the natural world, but rather an invention of a human mind, creating something in order to entertain/amuse/protect itself. Perhaps 'fallacy' could be used just as well, but I feel that people don't understand the word well enough. "Here is an empty space. I shall call it 'Golliginamipopo'". It is un-true that the space is 'Golligaginamipopo' - unless I can get at least a few others to agree to call it that. At that point, it becomes a "collective truth", but nevertheless: this isn't really what the space is. Perhaps someone else has a name for it. Perhaps there is no name at all (the default state of every point in the universe). The downvotes actually help prove the point and are useful in this case. People don't agree with my lie. :)
    - mkingston 8y ago
      I wonder, did you develop this idea yourself? I ask because it sounds similar to the central idea in the book Sapiens, and if you haven't read that I expect you'd appreciate it. At least for the sense of satisfaction you might get at your idea having broader recognition, but also because it's an interesting book. Sapiens discusses that countries are lies, money is a lie, every human organisation is a lie. (I use your terminology here, IIRC the author uses the term "collective fiction"). I found your comment interesting because you consider culture as a collective fiction, but I think you might be right that there's a difference between a self-identifying culture; and a non-self-identifying culture. Which, for me, raises the question: is the latter type an unspoken collective fiction, but a collective fiction nonetheless? And what are the practical differences between the two. Especially: does one type persecute outsiders more than the other? Should we try to avoid self identifying cultures as a rule? If so, when should we make an exception? Anyway, perhaps I ought to turn my armchair sociology into a reading list.
      - fit2rule 8y ago
        Thanks for the book recommendation - I'll definitely read it. To be honest I feel like this idea is a natural law, so I didn't develop it - just made the personal observation as a consequence of abandoning my own born-culture, adopting another, abandoning it, adopting another, etc. as I've moved around the world to live. >Which, for me, raises the question: is the latter type an unspoken collective fiction, but a collective fiction nonetheless? I would say, yes. Because its a natural law - there is no such thing as human culture, unless we perpetuate it in the telling - and this is why I chose the word, quite carefully, lie. Lies have to be re-told in order to persist. Collective fiction is a great phrase, and I will integrate that into my thinking. :) >And what are the practical differences between the two. Especially: does one type persecute outsiders more than the other? I think the human mind identifies, associates, and differentiates - and that each of these activities can either support perpetuating collective fiction, or deny it. To the extent that the individual recognises that they are indeed perpetuating a fiction, determines the 'detriment' to other individuals who are also capable of the same feat, albeit within their own identified cultures. >I ought to turn my armchair sociology into a reading list. Likewise, and thanks for the insight.
- wnkrshm 8y ago
  There also is only an arbitrary artificial border between a branch and a leaf or the tree and the ground it grows from. You're right that in ultimo, all these distinctions are artificial and determined by humans - but they have use in our interactions and survival. Culture is significant in those interactions, if you met a random person somewhere in the wilderness and your survival is dependent on not offending this single person, culture suddenly becomes a very real thing to you (despite that person probably being pretty friendly and hospitable in reality). For most of us, in highly specialized and commoditized societies with lots of intercultural communication, these boundaries have blurred somewhat but it doesn't mean the concept is entirely inapplicable.

fit2rule 8y ago

I really don't agree with you, and I think the nature of this disagreement between us is a significant cause of trouble in the world. There are some who are fine with living a lie; there are many who think their lies are the only truths. I believe cultural appropriation to be positive, because its a means by which the falsehood of cultural identity can persist. In the big, wide universe, there really isn't any such thing as "America" or "Sweden" - these are creative inventions of humans, the only living things in the universe known so far, to lie to themselves in such a fashion. Cultures don't exist unless the lie is perpetuated by those who have a self-interest in the identity. Where I do agree with you, is that people need to have respect for each others lies. Without that, we end up with conditions whereby nobodies lies persist - i.e. war. I just happen to think that its possible that appropriation is a form of respect.

mkingston 8y ago
Not addressing your point directly (I thought it was interesting). I would recommend you simply replace the word "lies" with "stories," or "fictions". You might find people more willing to engage you constructively, and less willing to downvote you.
- fit2rule 8y ago
  Thanks for the feedback. I think 'lie' is the appropriate word, and the reason is because it really is a lie - a non-truth - which must be continually told in order to persist through time. There is no such thing as culture, until we say "this behaviour/activity/ideal is culture" - it's not a part of the natural world, but rather an invention of a human mind, creating something in order to entertain/amuse/protect itself. Perhaps 'fallacy' could be used just as well, but I feel that people don't understand the word well enough. "Here is an empty space. I shall call it 'Golliginamipopo'". It is un-true that the space is 'Golligaginamipopo' - unless I can get at least a few others to agree to call it that. At that point, it becomes a "collective truth", but nevertheless: this isn't really what the space is. Perhaps someone else has a name for it. Perhaps there is no name at all (the default state of every point in the universe). The downvotes actually help prove the point and are useful in this case. People don't agree with my lie. :)
  - mkingston 8y ago
    I wonder, did you develop this idea yourself? I ask because it sounds similar to the central idea in the book Sapiens, and if you haven't read that I expect you'd appreciate it. At least for the sense of satisfaction you might get at your idea having broader recognition, but also because it's an interesting book. Sapiens discusses that countries are lies, money is a lie, every human organisation is a lie. (I use your terminology here, IIRC the author uses the term "collective fiction"). I found your comment interesting because you consider culture as a collective fiction, but I think you might be right that there's a difference between a self-identifying culture; and a non-self-identifying culture. Which, for me, raises the question: is the latter type an unspoken collective fiction, but a collective fiction nonetheless? And what are the practical differences between the two. Especially: does one type persecute outsiders more than the other? Should we try to avoid self identifying cultures as a rule? If so, when should we make an exception? Anyway, perhaps I ought to turn my armchair sociology into a reading list.
    - fit2rule 8y ago
      Thanks for the book recommendation - I'll definitely read it. To be honest I feel like this idea is a natural law, so I didn't develop it - just made the personal observation as a consequence of abandoning my own born-culture, adopting another, abandoning it, adopting another, etc. as I've moved around the world to live. >Which, for me, raises the question: is the latter type an unspoken collective fiction, but a collective fiction nonetheless? I would say, yes. Because its a natural law - there is no such thing as human culture, unless we perpetuate it in the telling - and this is why I chose the word, quite carefully, lie. Lies have to be re-told in order to persist. Collective fiction is a great phrase, and I will integrate that into my thinking. :) >And what are the practical differences between the two. Especially: does one type persecute outsiders more than the other? I think the human mind identifies, associates, and differentiates - and that each of these activities can either support perpetuating collective fiction, or deny it. To the extent that the individual recognises that they are indeed perpetuating a fiction, determines the 'detriment' to other individuals who are also capable of the same feat, albeit within their own identified cultures. >I ought to turn my armchair sociology into a reading list. Likewise, and thanks for the insight.
wnkrshm 8y ago
There also is only an arbitrary artificial border between a branch and a leaf or the tree and the ground it grows from. You're right that in ultimo, all these distinctions are artificial and determined by humans - but they have use in our interactions and survival. Culture is significant in those interactions, if you met a random person somewhere in the wilderness and your survival is dependent on not offending this single person, culture suddenly becomes a very real thing to you (despite that person probably being pretty friendly and hospitable in reality). For most of us, in highly specialized and commoditized societies with lots of intercultural communication, these boundaries have blurred somewhat but it doesn't mean the concept is entirely inapplicable.