Cultural appropriation and individualism

[sqbr]

Two related topics I have strongly held opinions about which I can't quite put into words are cultural appropriation and the flaws in an overly individual focussed point of view.

But as it happens posts on both have come up in racism_101 in the last few days which deal with them reasonably well, so here they are, plus some attempts to express myself:

First: A link to, and discussion of, the video "yellow apparel: when the coolie becomes cool", about american appropriation of asian culture (while american and australian attitudes to race and culture differ in some ways, I think the history and treatment of people of asian descent is pretty similar)

It doesn't spoonfeed it's ideas, it's more a series of images and interviews which add up to a pretty compelling experience if you watch it all the way through (thus I included the discussion, for those who can't be bothered. There's also Cultural Appropriation 101, and more cultural appropriation links at my delicious)

Second: Individualism as enabler for racism about the way treating everyone as an "individual" allows people with unfair advantages to avoid taking responsibility for the inequalities of society.

And now a disconnected ramble about individuality, and how it relates to my POV as a white ex-protestant left wing atheist. Do not search for a point, there isn't one :)

I have a rather conflicted view of individuality, and always have, and I think this conflict is fairly core to my sort of counterculture left-wing WASP(ish) background. On the one hand (my upbringing says), we all need to pull together and form a cooperative collective, and should bond with the Everyday Little Guy etc. On the other, since most people aren't counterculture and left-wing, the Everyday Little Guy is wrong and we need to stick to our internal sense of right and not be sucked into the beliefs of the culture around us. This conflict is less extreme in left-wing-ish places like Australia than it is in say America (where afaict most left wing types simultaneously despise the poor as mindless republican drones and put them on a pedestal as helpless victims of a cruel system), but I think it still exists.

Anyway, starting from that point my POV has gotten even more complicated. I've been learning about history, and reading POVs outside the WASP paradigm, and am slowly realising how much of my "individuality" (and most of materialist humanist thought) is just a manifestation of the same WASP society I am "rising above", and truly transcending it and seeing the real truth (or at least something less false and limited) requires getting my head around the attitudes of other, often less individualistic societies (though I may just be misinterpreting them because they don't fit into my neat little mental boxes).

Yet being less individualistic means diving back into the same society I am reacting against, or something at least superficially similar (eg I am deeply uncomfortable opening my mind to any opinion with even a whiff of religious assumptions, and this makes it hard to engage with a lot of aboriginal writings) and so I feel, well conflicted. Still, one of the tenets of being a "rational individual" is being willing to face hard facts and stretch my brain, so I do it anyway. Hopefully at some point it will coalesce into a less flaily POV.

Comments

[tevriel.livejournal.com]

I can see where lack of openness to religious concepts would cause problems with engaging with other cultures, since religion/religious heritage tends to be fairly integrated with culture.

I'm pretty confident I won't alienate you or hurt you, as a friend who likes to grow in these areas, in pointing out that this is probably a part of that whole WASPish upbringing thing, in that you're been willing to embrace and internalise (http://alias-sqbr.livejournal.com/225452.html#cutid1) Christian teachings/concepts where they fit your preconceptions. Accepting the religiously-influenced moral assumptions of your own culture, while being uncomfortable with those of others is, arguably, problematic in ways that don't reflect on your atheist credentials so much as your multicultural open-mindedness.

Engaging fully with understanding and appreciating (not appropriating) other cultures requires accepting the ways in which they're influenced by religious background, I think, because religion influences cultural mores, polite behaviour, traditions, etc, in ways that aren't inherently based on religious faith. If, for example, a given Japanese person (to take a culture about which I am less ignorant than many others) doesn't follow Shinto, even if they're part of the tiny Christian minority, their cultural background will still be influenced by the Shinto tradition - in much the way that you, my atheist friend, are still influenced by Christian tradition.

Christianity is widespread in Africa, but older spiritual traditions still have cultural influences. Etc. Cultural appreciation is a good and wonderful thing, in my view, but does need to take that into account...

... There's more I kind of need to say but I have stuff I have to do today. Gah.

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

"truly transcending it and seeing the real truth"

Hahaha. How truthy.

[alias_sqbr]

Oh yes, it's amazing hypocritical and inconsistent, and I'm aware of that. Christianity is so familiar and comforting it doesn't usually ping as "oppressively religious" unless it actually is. Unfortunately whenever I try to counter this inconsistency, instead of getting more accepting of religious tinges from other cultures and religions I just get less accepting of it in christian/protestant culture, which I'm not sure really counts as an improvement :/

Also, one reason I'm so comfortable with christianity is that for the most part I explored and learned about it while being christian, which I would say has made it more a part of my worldview than that of someone in a similar situation to me who was always an atheist.

[danamaree.livejournal.com]

I don't know, that's what I say to most things. When I think I know, I have to remind myself I don't know anything.

But I really want to travel 1,000 years in the future and see where humans are, and see how they have written our period of time, and how they interpret that period of time. It would be fascinating.

[alias_sqbr]

Yeah, yeah, more proof I'm still stuck in a pseudo-religious-enlightenment-esque thingy :P

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

Nah, just teasing. FWIW I think you might enjoy this book I recently read (http://is.gd/paK3) which contains a lot of talk about truth in relation to human interaction. Foucault in particular is the original authority on how language and cultural artefacts and discourse shape power in history and in social institutions. Chomsky's just Chomsky, and therefore quite lucid and penetrating. I am going to try to hunt down more Foucault if and when I can.

[alias_sqbr]

Yeah, I don't know either. But I hate not knowing so I bang my head against the ideas in the vain hope they'll permeate my brain :)

Heh. I spend an embarrassing amount of time thinking about how cool it would be to have a time machine :D

[alias_sqbr]

Yes, I saw (and appreciated) your post but was Not Feeling Smart that day so didn't comment. I have a feeling they're both a bit heavy for me, though Chomsky sounds more like my style (nice mathsy axioms and all that :))

Something which made my Phd extra annoying is that I'm quite remarkably bad at reading dense prose, even if I'd be fine with the ideas written in a more digestible style. Given that even people who like dense philosophy are scared off by Foucault I do not relish the idea of reading him myself! I mean to try digging through some of these at some point, hopefully get at similar ideas in a more me-friendly way.

[danamaree.livejournal.com]

I remember my modern history teacher in school said that in the future they will see our period time as the 'industrial dark ages' because of the rise of nation states and almost constant warring using more and more advanced technological weaponry.

And they will all think were were so ignorant and a slave to the war machine.

[alias_sqbr]

Oh, I think people in the future seeing us as ignorant is a given :)

[zharradan.livejournal.com]

it must be hard to simultaneously worry about cultural appropriation and about failing to engage with other cultures

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

On the one hand (my upbringing says), we all need to pull together and form a cooperative collective, and should bond with the Everyday Little Guy etc. On the other, since most people aren't counter-culture and left-wing, the Everyday Little Guy is wrong and we need to stick to our internal sense of right and not be sucked into the beliefs of the culture around us.

Thanks for explaining that so clearly! It explains a lot of stuff I have never understood about left wing peeps.

slowly realising how much of my "individuality" (and most of materialist humanist thought) is just a manifestation of the same WASP society

Oh gosh yes, whole university departments have devoted their energies to exploring the roots of individualism in Protestant thought and early-industrial systems.

I am deeply uncomfortable opening my mind to any opinion with even a whiff of religious assumptions, and this makes it hard to engage with a lot of aboriginal writings

Hmm. It might (and I stress the might) help if you took some time to understand your own culture in terms of cultural assumptions. A lot of the stuff we take for granted is in fact just as rooted in mystical beliefs and values as it is in any other culture, but being insiders we are oblivious to this. The classic example I always use is maps. We think of Western maps as an 'accurate' representation of the earth as it really is, and thus completely different from something like an aboriginal painting. But if you stop and think about what we show on our maps, and what we don't, what we name, what we give prominence to - it is telling you just as much about our society and world view as any other piece of art. And in that way it is actually very similar to an aboriginal artwork. I found once I had been taught to see all cultural output as influenced by society, the output of other people's cultures, even their religions, felt far less obscure.


In answer to your general point, I think balancing the needs of individuals with the shorthand convenience of groups is something we all struggle with.

[penchaft.livejournal.com]

less boring thinky, more Circle of Stars!

[grahame.livejournal.com]

Isn't the problem just that people make assumptions about a person's culture from their appearance? I don't understand how "cultural appropriation" is a problem, it's just something that has gone on for all history.

The close link between ethnicity and culture that often causes people to assume Asian-looking Australians speak a language other than English, or know about "eastern" things is just a historical artefact that I assume will go away at some point?

[grahame.livejournal.com]

I guess what I'm saying is that culture is a commodity, that we live in a time when exchange of culture is quicker and easier than any other time, and I don't see why people are so het up about it. They hang it all off this entitlement / appropriation framework which seems exactly the same as the idea of privilege; casting people in minority cultures as victims who can't draw from more 'powerful' cultures.

Seems like nonsense; Australia and the US are not monocultural, there's definitely some cultures that are more successfu within the societies; personally I find it logical to talk about successful cultures because some of them will be more successful. A culture as a collection of mores and strategies for its own propagation is in competition.

Apparently that point of view is invalid just because I'm from a winning culture, but there's nothing stopping someone from a less successful culture labelling mine; I just probably won't care. But why would they care what I think of their culture either?

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

why would they care what I think of their culture either?

I've wondered that.

The idea that I currently have is that although most of these 'racist' things are unimportant by themselves, cumulatively they add up to what can be a very severe feeling of exclusion from main stream society. So although each one thing taken by itself probably is trivial and could be brushed off, it becomes harder to brush the whole lot off as each one is added on top of another, until even the small things start to really grate. Under those circumstances, the parts of ones culture that come from outside the mainstream 'oppressive' culture will achieve even greater importance. They become a refuge, a bulwark, something that is 'mine' not 'theirs'. So if 'they' then start to adopt aspects of 'my' culture it can seem like the worst sort of intrusion. And if 'they', on top of that, misrepresent the culture in some way, it becomes unbearable.

I think this is why the matter becomes so important for a lot of people and why tempers flare so high.

And please don't ask me to suggest what I think should be done about it because I haven't worked that part out yet :oD

I agree with you that culture as a construct is permanently in flux, and that cultures that do not adapt and expand will inevitably fade away and wither compared to those that do. One of the reasons the 'Western' culture is so successful is because of its ability to take what it finds useful from other cultures and adapt those things as required.

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

Came back because I've been thinking some more about this:

On the one hand (my upbringing says), we all need to pull together and form a cooperative collective, and should bond with the Everyday Little Guy etc. On the other, since most people aren't counter-culture and left-wing, the Everyday Little Guy is wrong and we need to stick to our internal sense of right and not be sucked into the beliefs of the culture around us.

This may be a bit meta-ethical for you, but I was wondering where your left-wing upbringing states that the internal sense of right came from if it was believed to be in opposition to the beliefs of the culture around you? I'm also wondering how it gels, if it does gel, with the idea of democracy.

(I am aware that this is largely the problem you personally are currently wrestling with, but I am interested in what you used to believe before the contradiction occurred to you.)

[alias_sqbr]

Well, I think I'm pretty safe if I don't go writing books explaining them to other people or whatever.

[alias_sqbr]

Thanks for explaining that so clearly! It explains a lot of stuff I have never understood about left wing peeps.

Happy to help!

It might (and I stress the might) help if you took some time to understand your own culture in terms of cultural assumptions

Oh absolutely. For example, I listened to a really good podcast series on European history which did a great job of exploring the way these attitudes have shaped us.

I was wondering where your left-wing upbringing states that the internal sense of right came from if it was believed to be in opposition to the beliefs of the culture around you

God. My parents see their ethics as coming from God and the Bible (including certain anti-sex/homophobic beliefs :/). Which also causes problems because most christians (or even anglicans) don't see things the same way as them, but their explanation is that everyone else is doing it wrong.

This explanation hasn't done me much good since I became an atheist, which is about the time I started getting very conflicted about the whole thing..

I'm not sure what my left wing atheist grandparents think, but they tend not not get very meta (and are pretty senile now)

[alias_sqbr]

"Boring thinky" and "writing/drawing" are totally different parts of my brain. You'd be better off saying "Less fanfic" but my muse has been insistent, it was stop ACOS for a while or have it turn into regency romance since that's what I was going to write either way :P

[penchaft.livejournal.com]

You're a terrible person and I am ashamed to like you. :(

[alias_sqbr]

HMM. I've been trying to articulate a reply, then I remembered that the whole premise of this post was that I am incapable of articulating my thoughts about cultural appropriation.

So: I disagree, but I can't articulate why. I will understand if you don't find this a compelling argument!

[alias_sqbr]

Hey I plan to get back to it eventually! I just have some other stuff I need to work out of my system first!

Which is not to say I'm not a terrible person anyway :)

have I bored you yet??

[danamaree.livejournal.com]

I was thinking more about this last night, and two thoughts came to mind, which may or may not be related to your thoughts (but I think it should be put into consideration).

1. I think it's important to try and define what culture sometimes, but I think that's almost impossible, I don't know if culture can be defined, it's not as absolute as nationality or ethnicity, although ethnicity can be tricky as well. And it's difficult to say that there is an overall Western culture, because Western culture is a bastardisation of so many different cultures.

2. There is a line of reasoning, that I've seen around in the anthropological forums, and through reading books, that a stagnant culture is a dead or dying culture. If a culture doesn't change, or adapt, or is flexible to changes in the world, it will stagnant, and it will die (although, does a culture ever truly die, if some of it's traditions continue...). I guess in some ways, that would mean that the strongest cultures in the world are the ones that allow for diversity, allow for change. Bit like biology in a way. Inbreeding is death.

And then you look at 'our culture' or let's say British culture, look how much that has changed over the last thousand years. If you look at the big picture, that little island that is now England, has changed so radically, due to imperialist occupation by the Romans, the Normans, the French, goodness knows who else - do we have anything left over from before Roman times? If so, is it because we adapted and changed some of those traditions to suit?

It's just a thought, I'm not sure how it relates, but I think it good to keep in mind that culture is damn hard to pin down, possibly because it's so changeable.

And of course, this is probably something that everyone has seen a thousand times before - so I'm not looking to be groundbreaking here ;)

Re: have I bored you yet??

[alias_sqbr]

1. I agree it's hard but I think Western culture (and all the subcultures ie us, American western culture etc) are moderately distinct, even if they do get all blurry at the edges

2. I don't see that change is neccesary => more change makes you strong. I mean salt is necessary but past a certain point too much of it will kill you...

Also I think all cultures change. To go back to our previous conversation, China and Japan have changed an incredible amount in the last 50 years, but so has Australian Aboriginal culture, the various African cultures etc, and not just in passive response to external changes beyond their control. They are creating new cultures for themselves out of what colonialism etc left behind, the same way that England did after the Romans left.