Cultural appropriation isn't the act but the how

The argument

The complaint here is not that cultural borrowing is never harmful but that the term used to police it has stopped distinguishing between cases. There is a clear difference between appropriating a culture to mock it and cause offence, and borrowing from a culture to pay homage and respect. A single phrase is currently asked to cover both, and in covering both it describes neither well. Two episodes illustrate the distance the term is being stretched across. In 2017 Dana Schutz, a white artist, painted a picture of Emmett Till, an African American victim of a lynch mob in 1955. She was quickly accused of cultural appropriation for exploiting black suffering for 'profit and fun'. Whatever one concludes about the painting, its subject was an atrocity rather than an entertainment. Set that beside a group of university students hosting a 'Raj-themed' birthday party. It is clear from the context that the two do not belong in the same category, and that Schutz should not be hounded by the same accusation as the partygoers. When one term is applied to both alike, it loses the ability to do the work it was coined for. The accusation stops carrying information about what was done and why, and becomes a signal that someone has crossed a boundary of some unspecified kind. The genuinely damaging cases are diluted by association with the trivial ones, and respectful cultural exchange is chilled by the risk of being treated as mockery. On this view the concept needs to focus on the how rather than the act, so that it can call out damaging behaviour without vilifying respectful exchange. As presently used, 'cultural appropriation' is a near-meaningless term.

Context

Cultural appropriation as a term defines the act. But the offence isn’t in the act itself but the ‘how’ it is done.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Dana Shultz is still engaging in cultural appropriation because she made a profit off of black suffering. If she had opted to donate all the proceeds of her artwork to a charity that promoted equality and sought to end racism, then she would have been borrowing from African American culture. The fact that she made a profit from the painting means she exploited black suffering for personal profit, making her no better than the university students who exploited Indian culture for a laugh. Her intentions do not change the fact that she engaged in an act of cultural appropriation and must be called out for her behaviour.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The how does not matter. The act of cultural appropriation is offensive in and of itself.