For how is much-needed reform to come if that which needs reform is mandated as worthy of respect? How, indeed, can we prevent that which should be reformed from becoming even further entrenched, if it is mandated to be exempt from criticism and disrespect?Īnd who does the mandating anyway? Who decides what is worthy of respect, and what isn’t? Who are the gatekeepers here, and on what authority?
But that it is a cultural symbol of deep significance is beyond doubt, and the injunction that we must not disrespect it, especially if we weren’t born into the Hindu religion, seems to me arbitrary at best, and, at worst, completely bonkers. He did not deem it worthy of respect any more than I do. Some sixty or so years ago now, my father respected this significant cultural symbol by chucking away his own sacred thread. And Brahmin men are supposed to wear around their necks a sacred thread, as a mark of their high caste: it is a significant cultural symbol. The culture I was born into, for instance, has many fine things in it, but it also has this thing called “caste system”, which is culturally very significant. The most obvious point is that not all elements of all cultures are worthy of respect. Well, I slept on that for a bit, and it still doesn’t make much sense to me. About disrespect of elements of a culture that have symbolic value for adherents of that culture. However, let us, for the sake of argument, accept this revisionist definition: “cultural appropriation” is not really about appropriation of culture (that would be too simple, apparently), but about disrespect of culture.
All very comical, frankly, were its implications not so sinister. – none of them involving any disrespect at all, and yet all resulting in large numbers of people quite apoplectic with rage. And, indeed, all the various manufactured controversies relating to “cultural appropriation” seem to assume this interpretation also: visitors to an art gallery invited to try on a kimono, pop stars wearing sari and bindi, etc. (I think any dictionary would confirm that.) So when anyone speaks of “cultural appropriation”, I naturally take it to mean appropriation in the context of culture: that does seem to me a reasonable interpretation. “Appropriation” means taking something that does not belong to oneself, usually without permission from the owner. If “cultural appropriation” is about disrespecting other cultures, then it would have been termed “cultural disrespect”, or something similar. (I won’t link to the various posts in which I argue this case: a quick search reveals them quite easily.) But recently, I’ve been hearing that “cultural appropriation” is not at all about taking things from other cultures: it is about wilfully disrespecting elements of other cultures. I have, on numerous occasions on this blog, been scathing about the concept of “cultural appropriation”, arguing that adopting elements of other cultures, far from being reprehensible, is desirable, as the alternative is to create cultural ghettoes. Generally, as we approach Christmas, I try to keep off controversy.
0 kommentar(er)
