The charge of 'cultural appropriation' stops us celebrating other cultures

The argument

The objection holds that the charge of cultural appropriation, whatever its intentions, operates as a rule confining people to their own inherited traditions. Proponents of this view argue that it forces everyone to stay in their cultural lanes: clothing, language, hairstyles and body art originating elsewhere cannot be taken up without facing intense criticism and scrutiny, and the criticism attaches to the act of participation itself rather than to any mockery or misuse. Taken at face value, they argue, the principle produces conclusions few of its advocates would defend in the abstract. It would prevent Americans or Europeans from practising yoga on the grounds that they do not have cultural roots in India or a full understanding of the practice's significance in Indian culture. The example is offered to show the rule generalising: if the test is ancestral connection plus complete comprehension, then almost every borrowing fails it, including the ones now so widely assimilated that no one thinks to question them. The underlying disagreement is about what originating a practice entitles a community to. The argument accepts that a design, look or practice was developed within a particular culture, and denies that development confers exclusive licence. Just because one culture originated something does not mean its members are the only people permitted to engage in it, any more than the origin of a language or a cuisine restricts who may learn or cook it. The concluding claim is about cost. Cultures have always changed by contact, and the things a society takes up from elsewhere are reworked in the taking. Enforcing a rule of cultural exclusivity would limit societal growth and artistic progress, because it would foreclose exactly the exchange through which both ordinarily happen. On this reading the charge does not protect cultures so much as seal them off, and what it actually stops is the celebration of other cultures by people outside them.

Context

Cultural appropriation prevents us from enjoying other cultures. It restricts our clothing and cooking choices and forces us to stay in our “cultural lane”.

Premises

Counter-arguments

We are still allowed to enjoy other cultures. We can enjoy them through travel, through cooking classes, through reading books and consuming other cultures’ artwork. If we are invited to wear another culture’s clothes, at a wedding or other event where the culture we are borrowing from is represented and can give its consent, we can enjoy and appreciate another culture in that way. However, we cannot exploit another culture for financial gain or borrow from that culture without their consent or input.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] We can still enjoy other cultures, we just can't steal from them or exploit them.