Cultural Appropriation

What is cultural appropriation?

The Wikipedia definition of cultural appropriation states that it is the adoption of an element or elements of a culture or identity by members of another culture or identity in a manner perceived as inappropriate or unacknowledged. It also states that it usually becomes an issue when members of a dominant culture borrow from minority cultures, which is the case for almost all instances of cultural appropriation. A minority culture borrowing from a majority culture is usually not an issue at all, even in cases where it technically would be considered cultural appropriation.

The above definition is quite vague, and it is not easy to really understand what it truly entails. What actions are considered cultural appropriation, and what aren't? It's difficult to tell, so we are not going to use the Wikipedia definition. We will use something else instead, which will be revealed later.

A difficult concept for the majority

Cultural appropriation is generally a difficult concept to fully grasp, especially for most individuals who are part of the majority culture. They are the people who are considered to be culturally appropriating after all. Furthermore, there are many instances where people are accusing others of appropriating a particular culture when they are not part of that particular culture. In some cases, people of that particular culture are totally fine with the use of their culture, which makes the accusation absolutely ridiculous. After all, how can one accuse another of culturally appropriating a culture that they aren't even a part of without event asking for their opinion on the matter?

In the past, people on social media have accused pretty much anything that is even vaguely related to a minority culture of cultural appropriation, greatly diminishing the impact and severity of cultural appropriation accusations. Such accusations are probably not as common nowadays, but were absolutely everywhere around 2018 and 2019. Hence, it is understandable if the phrase cultural appropriation means little to most, or has little to no impact, as anything could be construed, or rather, misconstrued as cultural appropriation.

Most people, who will inextricably be part of the majority culture, are unlikely to be on the receiving end of cultural appropriation. With baseless cultural appropriation accusations on social media, some may even think cultural appropriation is a nonsensical, made-up issue with no actual effect on the victims of cultural appropriation. Most don't have a clear idea of what exactly cultural appropriation is and what it entails, so it's just a vague and fuzzy concept that a lot of people used to accuse someone else of something they didn't like. It became somewhat of a universal accusation that could be lobbed at anyone doing anything vaguely related to a minority culture, and hence has lost its meaning.

"Nothing about us, without us."

The sentence above is the key to properly understanding cultural appropriation, as it fully captures what is and isn't appropriation of another culture. Anything that is about another culture, without involving people of the culture, is cultural appropriation.

"About us"

We need to first understand what the phrase "about us" means in the sentence, and what it includes. Otherwise, we will end up including essentially everything vaguely related to a minority culture, which causes the term "cultural appropriation" to lose its meaning, as discussed earlier.

Intuitively, something that is "about" an item is usually descriptive or representative of that item, an adjective. Hence, the phrase "about us" refers to anything that represents or identifies a culture, or is sacred to a culture. Some examples include:

  • Art forms developed by the culture, like music, dance, poetry and theatre.
  • Traditional clothing worn by the culture.
  • Language used by the culture.
  • Food created by the culture.
  • Sacred objects or symbols used by the culture.

Caveat

Most of the time, the "consumption" of a culture is not usually considered cultural appropriation. Some examples are:

  • Eating the food created by the culture.

  • Using the culture's language to communicate.

  • Watching performances of the culture's art forms.

  • Incorporating small aspects of the culture's art form into another art form.

    However, do note that the aspects incorporated cannot represent or identify the culture. An example would be wearing the culture's traditional clothing during the performance of the derivative art form.

The "consumption" of a culture is usually considered appreciation of the culture, rather than cultural appropriation.

However, note that sacred objects or symbols cannot be "consumed" or used in a similar manner, as such items usually represent or identify a culture. They have to be "consumed" or used in the correct cultural contexts to preserve their sacredness and cultural significance. Otherwise, their sacredness and cultural significance will be lost, and the "consumption" or use of such items will be considered cultural appropriation.

"Without us"

This should be mostly self-explanatory. It means excluding people of the culture. Taking the contrapositive of "nothing about us, without us", it also means that literally anything is fine, as long as you include people of the culture.

Examples

Let's look at a few examples to solidify our understanding of cultural appropriation.

Example 1

Is wearing another culture's traditional clothing during Racial Harmony Day considered cultural appropriation?

Another culture's traditional clothing being worn during Racial Harmony Day is indeed about that culture, as traditional clothing is representative of the culture. However, they are also involved in Racial Harmony Day, and most have expressed that it is fine for other cultures to wear their traditional clothing during Racial Harmony Day, so it isn't cultural appropriation.

Example 2

Is wearing another culture's traditional clothing to a Halloween party cultural appropriation?

Another culture's traditional clothing being worn during Racial Harmony Day is indeed about that culture, as traditional clothing is representative of the culture, but does not involve them. Hence, it is considered cultural appropriation. It is best to involve people of that culture by asking them if it is appropriate for you to wear their traditional clothing to a Halloween party. Usually, it is fine as long as the clothing is not offensive, but it is best to ask a person of the culture before wearing traditional clothing.

Example 3

Is using a culture's language to communicate with your friends cultural appropriation?

Using a culture's language to communicate with your friends is considered "consumption" of the culture. Most cultures are fine with people of other cultures using their language for communication, so it isn't cultural appropriation.

Why does cultural appropriation matter?

Misrepresentation

One of biggest issues with cultural appropriation is the misrepresentation of the culture. When a cultural element is appropriated, the appropriating party is usually not part of the culture, and does not fully understand the nuance and significance of the cultural element. Hence, the cultural element is usually taken out of its context when appropriated, and its nuance and significance is lost, as context is required for its nuance and significance.

Cultural erasure and reinforcement of stereotypes

As mentioned above, the misrepresentation of the culture by the appropriating party causes the appropriated cultural element to lose its nuance and significance, reducing it to a one-dimensional element stripped of its cultural significance.

When a significant number of cultural elements is appropriated, the rich, diverse culture with complex history, language and social structure is erased by being flattened into a one-dimensional caricature with no depth and significance.

This reduction to a one-dimensional caricature also makes it easier for the dominant culture to generalise and stereotype, since the caricature removes all the humanity and diversity from the people of the culture.

Reinforcement of existing power structures and oppression

The cultural elements that might get a person of a marginalised culture bullied, fired, or even physically harmed is now celebrated when the elements are appropriated by a person part of the dominant culture. Hence, cultural appropriation upholds a dynamic where the dominant culture acts as the arbiter of what is cool or acceptable, and makes it such that the marginalised culture is only valuable or acceptable when it is appropriated by the dominant culture. It mocks and invalidates the lived experience of the marginalised culture.

This is the main issue with cultural appropriation, and why minorities are so sensitive about cultural appropriation. It is the double standard of people in the dominant culture pretending to be minorities receiving praise, acceptance and even celebration, while actual minorities and people of marginalised cultures are shunned and discriminated against.

In the context of Deaf culture

In Deaf culture, the signed language is considered sacred to the culture. As a result, Deaf art forms are mostly mainstream art forms that have the signed language incorporated into them, instead of speech.

Some examples include:

  • Song signing
  • Deaf poetry
  • Deaf theatre

This means hearing people cannot perform these art forms without the inclusion of the Deaf community, as the signed language is an integral part of the art form and cannot be removed from them. Performing these art forms as hearing people without the inclusion of the Deaf community would be considered cultural appropriation.

Song signing

Popularity of song signing among hearing people

Song signing is particularly popular among hearing people who have learnt sign language. Hence, this Deaf art form is the one that is most often appropriated by hearing people. Other art forms like Deaf poetry and theatre aren't nearly as popular, and hence are rarely appropriated.

This is likely due to song signing being seen as more accessible, as songs are repetitive, have simple vocabulary and have less emphasis on facial expressions. Hearing people also regularly enjoy song, so most think it would be great to bring that enjoyment to Deaf people, as Deaf people, who can't hear, can't enjoy music.

Deaf people's interest in song signing

However, the truth is that a significant number of Deaf people are simply uninterested in song signing. Deaf people who have significant hearing loss from a very young age, or from birth, tend to have almost no appreciation for music, and much prefer other Deaf art forms, like Deaf poetry and Deaf theatre, which have original sources that are accessible to the Deaf, as these sources are written. In contrast, the original sources for song signing, the music and song, is not accessible to the Deaf at all, so it's understandable if they aren't interested in it at all.

As deafness is a spectrum, there are definitely quite a number of Deaf people who used to be hearing, then lost their hearing later in life due to degenerative diseases or accidents. These people are more likely to be interested in song signing, as they used to be hearing, and thus would usually enjoy music and song. Most of the time, they will continue to enjoy music and song, even when they are Deaf, usually by feeling the vibrations of the speaker, or by making use of technology like hearing aids and cochlear implants.

Cultural appropriation

Regardless of the Deaf people's interest in song signing, hearing people partaking in song signing without the inclusion of the Deaf community is cultural appropriation. Hearing people are not helping the Deaf community by "interpreting" songs for them. The Deaf community have interpreters for that purpose, who are sometimes hired for concerts, music festivals and events. For obvious reasons, an interpreter song signing for their Deaf client is not cultural appropriation because the Deaf person hired them for that purpose, which means the Deaf community is included in the song signing. The song signing is also for a Deaf audience, instead of being a representation of Deaf culture and language.

It may be difficult for hearing people to wrap their heads around how song signing would be cultural appropriation, as most think that song signing is making music and song accessible to the Deaf community, and thus "helping" them. Most also do not really understand that Deaf culture is a completely separate and independent culture that needs to be treated with respect, like every other culture, rather than something amorphous.

However, when thinking about song signing as an art form that represents the Deaf community, which is especially the case when using song signing to raise awareness for the Deaf community, substituting song signing with a dance from another culture makes the cultural appropriation obvious.

For example, by substituting song signing with Indian dance, and hence substituting Deaf people with Indian people, and substituting hearing people with Chinese people, it is essentially like Chinese people performing Indian dance without the involving the Indian community. Most would agree that such a situation is completely unacceptable, and is a clear form of cultural appropriation. Thus, the same applies to hearing people song signing.

Sources and references

This article was written after extensive discussions with the Deaf community in Singapore.

Do also read this fantastic HandSpeak article on cultural appropriation, as well as the related posts at the bottom of the article.

References used: