12 ms·

> Regardless, the concept of "cultural appropriation" is absurd and dangerously ignorant. I share your sense that "cultural appropriation" is an absurd notion.

> Regardless, the concept of "cultural appropriation" is absurd and dangerously ignorant. I share your sense that "cultural appropriation" is an absurd notion. But I'm unable to provide any objective reasons for (or against) my views on this. Does anyone know of a good, principled way to debate questions like "Is 'cultural appropriation' a concept that belongs in our ethical systems?"

kaitai 6y ago
As a mathematician, I have to say that a good definition comes first :) I don't know if my definition is good, but I have a working definition of 'cultural appropriation' that says something can only be 'cultural appropriation' if it falls in the confluence of 1) erasure of the origins/failure to cite sources and 2) money being made, with additional penalties if it involves co-optation of a religious symbol or practice for the purpose of making money for people outside that culture. So for me, a white person running a generic sweat lodge for $2000 a visit would fit my definition. Generic yoga gets in there; Alison Roman's 'stew' would fit. Here's how I look at it: I can write a calculus textbook and sell it for money, but I can't claim I invented it and fail to give credit to Newton or Leibniz. For instance, I don't think Korean tacos fit my definition of cultural appropriation because they do not 1) erase the contribution of the cultures involved (the very name 'cites the sources' and if you want to go learn more about Korean food or tacos, you can follow that culinary history back!). The definition comes before you can debate whether the question belongs in our ethical systems. From there, how do you debate whether "Murder is wrong" belongs in our ethical systems? I would think you could follow the same path.
aspenmayer 6y ago
I think this is a very pertinent question. Here’s an essay for you which explores this topic and how it relates to other issues. SLAVOJ ZIZEK MULTICULTURALISM, OR, THE CULTURAL LOGIC OF MULTINATIONAL CAPITALISM (1997) https://newleftreview.org/issues/I225/articles/slavoj-zizek-multiculturalism-or-the-cultural-logic-of-multinational-capitalism https://newleftreview.org/issues/I225/articles/slavoj-zizek-... The intro paragraph: ‘Those who still remember the good old days of Socialist Realism, are well aware of the key role played by the notion of the ‘typical’: truly progressive literature should depict ‘typical heroes in typical situations.’ Writers who presented a bleak picture of Soviet reality were not simply accused of lying; the accusation was rather that they provided a distorted reflection of social reality by depicting the remainders of the decadent past, instead of focusing on the phenomena which were ‘typical’ in the sense of expressing the underlying historical tendency of the progress towards Communism. Ridiculous as this notion may sound, its grain of truth resides in the fact that each universal ideological notion is always hegemonized by some particular content which colours its very universality and accounts for its efficiency[.]’
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  I found the whole essay via Google Scholar; apologies for not including it before, but thought the original source was best. Žižek, Slavoj. Multiculturalism, or, the cultural logic of multinational capitalism. New Left Review, 1997. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:58909765 https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:58909765 http://clarkbuckner.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/www.Zizek_MultiCulturalism.org_.pdf http://clarkbuckner.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/www.Zizek...
rsync 6y ago
"I share your sense that "cultural appropriation" is an absurd notion. But I'm unable to provide any objective reasons for (or against) my views on this." If it were true that there is no such thing as non appropriated culture, that would be a good starting point. I don't know if that is the case but I suspect that it is ...
Nasrudith 6y ago
Personally my objections are that the notions are self-defeating and xenophobic, that culture is something to be owned instead of shared. It is fundamentally a "permission culture" framework. Not to mention culture is a ship of Theseus period. Norwegian ancestors from the viking era would be appaled at the conversion to Christianity and their devout descendants would be appalled at the prevailing secularism and athiesm. Looking at it from a free culture perspective the notion is an absurdity worse than even overreaching copyright although thankfully lacking its legal force. That something thousands of years old is still "under protection"? By those who don't even have a bill of sales or inheritance? It just compounds. That said it is still possible that even if the framework is invalid that an objected action is still being dickish period.

kaitai 6y ago

As a mathematician, I have to say that a good definition comes first :) I don't know if my definition is good, but I have a working definition of 'cultural appropriation' that says something can only be 'cultural appropriation' if it falls in the confluence of 1) erasure of the origins/failure to cite sources and 2) money being made, with additional penalties if it involves co-optation of a religious symbol or practice for the purpose of making money for people outside that culture. So for me, a white person running a generic sweat lodge for $2000 a visit would fit my definition. Generic yoga gets in there; Alison Roman's 'stew' would fit. Here's how I look at it: I can write a calculus textbook and sell it for money, but I can't claim I invented it and fail to give credit to Newton or Leibniz. For instance, I don't think Korean tacos fit my definition of cultural appropriation because they do not 1) erase the contribution of the cultures involved (the very name 'cites the sources' and if you want to go learn more about Korean food or tacos, you can follow that culinary history back!). The definition comes before you can debate whether the question belongs in our ethical systems. From there, how do you debate whether "Murder is wrong" belongs in our ethical systems? I would think you could follow the same path.

aspenmayer 6y ago

I think this is a very pertinent question. Here’s an essay for you which explores this topic and how it relates to other issues. SLAVOJ ZIZEK MULTICULTURALISM, OR, THE CULTURAL LOGIC OF MULTINATIONAL CAPITALISM (1997) https://newleftreview.org/issues/I225/articles/slavoj-zizek-multiculturalism-or-the-cultural-logic-of-multinational-capitalism https://newleftreview.org/issues/I225/articles/slavoj-zizek-... The intro paragraph: ‘Those who still remember the good old days of Socialist Realism, are well aware of the key role played by the notion of the ‘typical’: truly progressive literature should depict ‘typical heroes in typical situations.’ Writers who presented a bleak picture of Soviet reality were not simply accused of lying; the accusation was rather that they provided a distorted reflection of social reality by depicting the remainders of the decadent past, instead of focusing on the phenomena which were ‘typical’ in the sense of expressing the underlying historical tendency of the progress towards Communism. Ridiculous as this notion may sound, its grain of truth resides in the fact that each universal ideological notion is always hegemonized by some particular content which colours its very universality and accounts for its efficiency[.]’

aspenmayer 6y ago
I found the whole essay via Google Scholar; apologies for not including it before, but thought the original source was best. Žižek, Slavoj. Multiculturalism, or, the cultural logic of multinational capitalism. New Left Review, 1997. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:58909765 https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:58909765 http://clarkbuckner.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/www.Zizek_MultiCulturalism.org_.pdf http://clarkbuckner.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/www.Zizek...

rsync 6y ago

"I share your sense that "cultural appropriation" is an absurd notion. But I'm unable to provide any objective reasons for (or against) my views on this." If it were true that there is no such thing as non appropriated culture, that would be a good starting point. I don't know if that is the case but I suspect that it is ...

Nasrudith 6y ago

Personally my objections are that the notions are self-defeating and xenophobic, that culture is something to be owned instead of shared. It is fundamentally a "permission culture" framework. Not to mention culture is a ship of Theseus period. Norwegian ancestors from the viking era would be appaled at the conversion to Christianity and their devout descendants would be appalled at the prevailing secularism and athiesm. Looking at it from a free culture perspective the notion is an absurdity worse than even overreaching copyright although thankfully lacking its legal force. That something thousands of years old is still "under protection"? By those who don't even have a bill of sales or inheritance? It just compounds. That said it is still possible that even if the framework is invalid that an objected action is still being dickish period.