The Progressive Case For Cultural Appropriation July 23, 2019 Category: American Culture Download as PDF [Author’s Note: The (28) endnotes have been appended to the last of the fourteen sections into which the present piece is divided. There are also two Postscripts.] “I am human. I think nothing human is alien to me.” — African writer, Publius Terentius of Carthage (a.k.a. “Terence”) Over the course of the past decade, a potpourri of buzz-terms has emerged in contemporary political vernacular. Some of these terms help us better understand the world in which we find ourselves. Others, however, reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject-matter to which they have been applied. The latter is the case with the shibboleth, “cultural appropriation” (Cul-Ap). Typically used pejoratively, the contentious term has become fashionable amongst aficionados of political correct-ness. Extracted from the sudsy depths of academic lingo by the most obstreperous p.c. aficionados, it is now commonplace in the argot of those smitten with “propriety”. The feckless leveling of this accusation has sewn needless discord, and has served to undermine the integrity of public discourse. As we shall see, using Cul-Ap as a gauntlet rather than as an invitation serves to exacerbate the very problem its enthusiasts purport to solve. Instead of effecting inter-cultural comity, scorn for Cul-Ap only stirs up acrimony. How so? The vilification of Cul-Ap (tacitly) prescribes a regimen of cultural segregation, thereby setting the stage for contrived pique directed across confabulated borderlines against an imagined OTHER. In other words: The anti-Cul-Ap crusade is diametrically opposed to the most vaunted ideals of cosmopolitanism. (For more on this point, see Kwame Anthony Appiah’s “Cosmopolitanism: Ethics In A World Of Strangers”; chapters 7 and 8.) So how did this term become a pejorative? As a neutral term, it simply points to the use of memes associated with cultures other than one’s own. The implication, though, is that such an act is impolitic. Appropriation is, after all, typically a bad thing, isn’t it? {26} I will argue that the act of “appropriating” an element of culture, while deemed ethically-questionable by Cul-Ap-phobes, has generally salutary repercussions. {1} Embracing Cul-Ap involves an endorsement of what historian Iriye Akira referred to as “cultural internationalism”, which–I hope to show–is integral to cosmopolitan ideals. First, a note on memes. Memetics is a way of thinking about epidemiology, whereby pieces of information are seen as the analogues of genomes, and thus subject to natural selection. Put another way: As replicators of information (that is: patterns of thought / behavior), memes are analogous to genes (that is: biological replicators). A meme can be anything from a belief in the flying spaghetti monster to grandma’s recipe for chicken pot pie. Memes might be names, catch-phrases, tunes, dance routines, superstitions, sacred rituals, or countless other things that humans think and do. The successful memes tend to be the ones that are both sticky (memorable) and catchy (contagious). For the present purposes, we are concerned with memes insofar as they are widely-recognized elements of a particular culture–especially when they are recognized to be UNIQUE to and INTEGRAL to that culture. While the laws of biology and ecology dictate which anatomical mutations succeed; social psychology is the primary determining factor in meme-proliferation. Original essay at: https://www.masonscott.org/the-progressive-case-for-cultural-appropriation Page 1 of 87 Generated at: 2021-09-25 20:32:58 {17} But what else is at play when it comes to an aversion to “Cul-Ap”? As a term of opprobrium, this shibboleth tends to be invoked by those who subscribe to a divisive form of “identity politics”, a topic I explore at length elswhere. For in order to be cast as an ethical transgression, Cul-Ap must be conceptualized in terms of people’s membership in a demographic category. In its pejorative incarnation, it pertains to how said designation relates to a (dubious) regime of cultural demarcation. That the ham- fisted use of this term (to wit: “cultural appropriation” as a pejorative) has wormed its way into the catechism of “identity politics” is testament to how misguided otherwise well-meaning expositors have become. The supposition that we should all come together without engaging in any cross-cultural memetic exchange–while spurning trans-cultural fertilization–is untenable. For it assumes distinct cultural boundaries where no such boundaries exist. It should be uncontroversial to note that one does not have to be Mexican to eat fajitas any more than one has to be Swiss to eat Emmentaler cheese. (Non-Belgians who enjoy eating Belgian waffles are on notice!) When people of different cultures interact with one another, one culture invariably blends into another culture; and this is usually a felicitous development. Indeed, the phenomenon is ubiquitous. Cul-Ap is happening all around us every day; and occurs without notice in the most anodyne ways. Little are anti-Cul-Ap crusaders aware: They are THEMSELVES engaging in Cul-Ap countless times a day with virtually everything they do and say. Each of us lives within a memetic microcosm that has no clearly-defined boundaries. Our locus of memes is perpetually shifting, changing. This metamorphosis is based–in part–on external memes that happen to be impinging upon us at any given time. Understanding this, it is plain to see that the compartmentalization of cultures is not only inimical to pluralism, it is antithetical to the most fundamental principles of cosmopolitanism. What proponents of “identity politics” cannot seem to understand is that, though it is perhaps a quick fix for some, such an approach does nobody any good in the long run. Granted, discursive segregation can be done along demographic lines–per the regime of “identity politics”. Yet an elementary fact seems to be lost on Cul-Ap-phobes: A melting-pot is not merely about the co- existence of disparate cultures; it is about the (discretional) MELDING of cultures. This is even the case when it comes to the most insular cultures. For even as parochial enclaves are themselves not melting pots (insofar as they have impermeable boundaries), they are effectively petrified melding pots (haven been frozen in time by Reactionary forces that treat the CURRENT version as some pre-ordained final destination). Put another way: While a pluralistic society is comparable to a salad, its culture is an ALLOY. Even as people may maintain their distinct ethnic identities, the cultural milieu in which they live is a fluid amalgamation of ethnic components. Thus: Even when cultures are segregated, they can’t help but be the products of Cul-Ap. A society that has been systematically partitioned into discretely-defined collective identities cannot truly be said to be pluralistic. For it is a society that has not come to terms with the Cul-Ap that brought it to where it currently is. Cultural boundaries blur into each other because cultures INEVITABLY meld whenever they interact. This process is more a matter of fusion than it is of superposition. Such intermixture can happen any number of ways for any number of reasons. One way: A culturally exogenous population that has recently arrived in a new land assimilates (wittingly or un-) elements of the indigenous culture. Another way: The native culture adopts elements of other cultures; thought the latter is sometimes coerced into doing so due to the power asymmetry typically involved in colonialist scenarios. Cul-Ap is bi-directional. Original essay at: https://www.masonscott.org/the-progressive-case-for-cultural-appropriation Page 2 of 87 Generated at: 2021-09-25 20:32:58 Bottom line: ANY culture is–invariably–an alloy of other cultures, which themselves are alloys of other cultures, and so on, going back to time immemorial. This is a good thing; as the alternative is insularity and stagnation. In spite of all this, anti-Cul-Ap crusaders insist that trans-cultural fertilization is somehow deleterious to civil society. The only solution to this (purported) injustice, we are led to believe, is a regimen of meme- sequestration carried out along cultural lines. In other words, the prescription for respecting other cultures is cultural segregation: separate but equal. (This should sound eerily familiar.) In their eagerness to doll out memetic injunctions, these self-appointed arbiters of cultural exchange fail to realize that cultures cannot be “purified” any more than communities of people can be purified. We might recall that part of cultural purification is exclusivity: Believers in a pristinely-maintained culture want to prevent things from leaking out as much as from leaking in. That is: They insist on some kind of memetic quarantine so as to preserve the (purported) integrity of each culture. But what, exactly, are we seeking to preserve with our memetic quarantines? Calls for cultural segregation are a reminder that parochialism typically accompanies Reactionary thinking. This is where things get confusing. Cul-Ap-phobes are conservatives masquerading as “liberals”. As it turns out, they are not advocates of pluralism; they are cultural segregationists who see any transference of memes across cultural lines as a ploy–by the adopters–to exploit those of the source- culture. Any incidence of domination / exploitation that DOES exist is thus attributed–at least in part–to whatever Cul-Ap can be identified. But here’s the thing: Cultural integration (what the sociologist, Max Weber dubbed “sinnzusammenhaung”) involves some sort of memetic co-optation; which is simply to say that the formation of a given culture is the result of incorporating elements from other cultures. Such memetic transference constitutes the warp and woof of ALL cultural life.