7 HERITAGE AND CULTURAL DYNAMICS

Theories of stereotyping explore the formation of individual and group identity, the dynamics of intergroup relations and the social processes that lead to the institutional discrimination of racialized and marginalized groups in the majority society.

A person or a group’s identity is constituted by several converging or diverging factors: ethnicity, race, religion, gender and sexual orientation, class and bodily attributes, along with other chosen attributes, often labelled domain identification, such as occupation and culture. These attributes, together or separately, give a sense of belonging in the social world. While cognitive psychologists emphasize that a person’s psycho-social identity develops throughout their life, the core attributes that mark one’s heritage, such as ethnicity, race and religion, are the first that individuals perceive and identify with. Therefore, these markers become the coordinates along which people establish their inclusionary and/or exclusionary relationships with others at a very young age. As social psychologist Henri Tajfel notes, ‘the enduring basis for future prejudices and conflicts is laid most crucially in childhood’.^[1]

It is immediately apparent that personal identity is thoroughly intertwined with group-based social identities. Our focus here is on the process through which group-self representations are formed and the individual establishes a relation to multiple groups. This process, ‘the identification with a collective’, is captured by the concept of social identity, while the umbrella term collective identity stands for ‘the norms, values, and ideologies that such an identification entails’, in other words, for ‘the meaning attached to specific group identities’.^[2] The concepts of social and collective identity are both interpretive frameworks through which an individual either identifies or counter-identifies with the group. In the formation of the individual and the social identity, intergroup perceptions and pre-judgements play an important role: they become the dividing lines along which the in-group members (‘us’) are separated from the out-group (‘them’).

Social identity theory argues that it is necessary for in-group members to focus on the perceived and real differences between them and those excluded from the group, in order to strengthen the in-group identity and to enhance the member’s individual concept of the self. The generalized negative attributes that in-group members project on others may be prejudices, stereotypes or implicit biases. Prejudices and implicit biases are affective and evaluative (they capture how the group together and individuals within the group feel about the out-group), while stereotypes are cognitive (they capture what they think about the out-group). All of these result in discrimination, a behavioural response through which group members act on or act out these negative prejudgements.

Prejudice

Social psychologist Henri Tajfel, citing Eric Klinenberg (1969), defined prejudice as ‘a prejudgment or preconcept reached before the relevant information has been collected or examined and therefore based on inadequate or even imaginary evidence’.^[3] Such prejudgements of different groups are constructed through in-group discussion, often with no direct interaction with the out-groups and a reliance on media (mis)representations. Prejudice, at the same time, is not merely a preconception: ‘usually there is in addition a readiness to express in action the judgments and feelings which we experience, to behave in a manner which reflects our acceptance or rejection of others’.^[4]

Tajfel identifies three cognitive processes that explain prejudicial thinking by an individual: categorization, assimilation and search for conceptual coherence. Categorization is necessary to simplify and amplify differences between groups and determine one’s attitude towards these differences. Assimilation refers to the social norms and values that new group members (in his case study, young children) acquire as they internalize these affectively charged categories. Conceptual coherence explains the individual’s need to ‘construct a causal explanation’ to account for any change in the status quo.^[5] Prejudices, referring to the characteristics of the groups, may help an individual or a group resolve any cognitive dissonance and preserve their self-image and identity if the inter- or intra-group relations change.

Tajfel emphasizes the emotional investment in ‘preserving the differentiations between [one’s] own group and the “others”’, as they are rewarding to the self.^[6] For this reason, prejudiced judgements towards a particular group are often received positively by the in-group members. Furthermore, in ‘a spiral effect’, as Tajfel explains:

the existence of prejudice at large not only provides additional support and rewards for hostile judgements; it also removes the possibility of a “reality check” for these judgements which then feed upon each other and become more and more strongly entrenched in the form of powerful social myths.^[7]

While prejudices can be positive or negative, as Beverly Daniel Tatum emphasizes, even prejudices with positive associations – she uses the example of Asian students being good at maths – ‘have negative effects because they deny a person’s individuality’.^[8]

Stereotypes

The earliest definitions of stereotypes emphasized the importance of perception and impressions in forming a stereotype. In 1922, Walter Lippmann defined them as ‘pictures in the head’, while in 1935, Katz and Braly explained that a stereotype is ‘a fixed impression’ that ‘conforms very little to the fact it pretends to represent and results from our defining first and observing second’.^[9] It was the renowned social psychologist, Gordon Allport, however, who, in his seminal work, The Nature of Prejudice (1954), recognized the importance of the cognitive process of stereotyping.^[10] In his theory, the stereotype is not merely a picture or an impression, but an association (of a category with a certain group) that becomes the basis and the justification for one group’s conduct against the other. Stereotypical judgements lead to discriminatory actions, often when an in-group member or a group feels that they need to defend their position in society.

Stereotype threat

The term, ‘stereotype threat’, coined by Claude Steele, refers to a form of anxiety that one may experience when fearing being judged according to the societal stereotype that is usually applied to the group to which someone is seen to belong. ‘It is a situational threat – a threat in the air – that, in general form, can affect the members of any group about whom a negative stereotype exists’, writes Steele.^[11] Stereotype threat can result in the underperformance of the stereotyped group, especially when members of the group are again and again reminded that, as a result of their heritage, they are less – less capable, less educated or prepared – than other members of the majority society. Their anxiety over potentially confirming the stereotype can negatively affect their performance.

Implicit biases

Implicit biases or unconscious biases are forms of unconscious stereotyping that determine our perceptions and decision-making processes without us being aware of their influence. ‘Because the implicit associations we hold arise outside of conscious awareness’, writes Cheryl Staats, ‘implicit biases do not necessarily align with our explicit beliefs and stated intentions’.^[13] The human brain is ‘designed to be biased’, Shankar Vedantam argues in his renowned work, The Hidden Brain, as these biases – usually unconsciously internalized at a very young age – are important constituents of one’s survival mechanism, ensuring that a young child can differentiate members of their own, therefore safe, group and the potentially dangerous group of the others.^[14] Eventually, a child needs to consciously unlearn these hidden biases, otherwise their brain will continue to reinforce the earlier internalized prejudicial views of the other group.^[15]

Patrick C. Brayer, in his article on how jurors in the American judiciary system might make decisions shaped by their implicit biases, emphasized that implicit biases can only be mitigated if they are brought to awareness and new automatic associations with the prejudicial categories are formed.^[16] Brayer’s case study is especially astute, as it investigates implicit biases in an environment where they matter most: in the voir dire, or jury selection process, in which both the prosecutors and the defence lawyers aim to identify the prejudices potential jury members may harbour. The question his study asks is: How can lawyers tease out biases that the potential jurors are not even aware of?

Brayer’s response is simple: by openly, and appropriately, addressing them. He cites the findings of social psychologist Samuel Sommers, who established that ‘individuals “were less likely to vote guilty before deliberating and gave lower estimates of the likelihood of the Black defendant’s guilt” when asked race-related questions in voir dire’.^[17] ‘Thus, a simple interactive reminder to a juror to consciously put prejudice aside’, observes Brayer, ‘appears to invite a self-assessment of the individual’s bias and may produce discernible results’.^[18] Such a ‘discernible result’ would be to become aware of our own biases so that we can start the difficult cognitive process of reconditioning our mind and de-bias our perceptions.

Combating stereotypes through heritage

As Ilişoi, Macarie, Nagy and Lesenciuc explain, stereotypes belong to our cultural heritage and they appear as forced clichés. Alongside all cultural heritage they contribute to the formation of personal and collective identity. Everyone’s cultural heritage, acquired via enculturation, contains in its very core auto-stereotypes and hetero-stereotypes that become active and of which we become aware during contacts with individuals and groups from various cultures. Further, the authors argue that cultural dialogue embodies the conjunction of symbolic universes, having distinct significations that are expressed by a rich range of words, gestures, behaviours etc. in which mental clichés, which contain within themselves the power of socialised collective representations, are also found.^[19]

The authors highlight the importance of debate about heritage and appropriation to build knowledge of diversity, tolerance and intercultural dialogue, based on an authentic self-image and rising above negative self-stereotypes.

Assimilation, acculturation, adaptation: competing concepts for subtle processes

Words do not describe docile and passive human experiences, they construct the way we understand them: our access to the experience will be mediated and transformed by the words, models and narratives we use. This is even more true for phenomena that are complex and result from the subtle interplay of diverse factors. Adaptation to a new or dominant cultural environment is such a phenomenon. The words we choose to describe this are not trivial or inconsequential. ‘Assimilation’ was one of the first words used to describe such processes of change, and despite its age, it is still with us today. The word comes from Latin, denoting absorption or incorporation. It appears in English in the 15th century with a similar meaning, referring to body and nutrition, but it gains a broader meaning later (‘to make alike’).^[20] Its popularization as a concept to denote what happens to groups of people who become a cultural minority originates in the Chicago School’s ‘classical model’ in the early 20th century.

Between 1830 and 1880, the population of Chicago grew from 500 to 500,000 inhabitants. By 1910, there were two million inhabitants,^[21] unprecedented growth that was almost exclusively due to the influx of migrants. No wonder the social scientists of the time were eager to propose explanations for the exciting social processes that were taking place. What they observed was a majority of Irish and Italian migrants, coming from rural areas, settling into the urban environment of Chicago, who fairly soon after their cultural immersion ‘began to work, talk, live, and play like others who were already there’. After several generations, they slowly shifted from being clearly identifiable groups of ethnic immigrants to being enmeshed in mainstream American life and seen as ‘Americans’.^[22]

These observations triggered explanations based on optimism and linearity. Assimilation was described as ‘the process or processes by which peoples of diverse racial origins and different cultural heritages, occupying a common territory, achieve cultural solidarity’,^[23] or as a process of ‘interpenetration and fusion in which persons and groups acquire the memories, sentiments, and attitudes of other persons or groups, and by sharing their experiences and history, are incorporated with them in a common cultural life’.^[24] Above all, it was seen as a ‘straight-line convergence’^[25] that any immigrant group would experience and that would inevitably lead to the same result, with an overall loss of distinguishing features. However, just as the context of an Irish migrant in Chicago in the 1900s is different from that of all the other migrants from any continent in relation to any destination that would follow, the journey of adaptation would also be different. It turned out that ‘straight-line assimilation’ would not be the one description that would fit all cases.

Fast-forwarding half a century of cross-cultural research, a next unavoidable stop in our conceptual voyage is John W. Berry’s ‘matrix of acculturation strategies’. Berry proposes to take ‘acculturation’ as the most generic concept (rather than ‘assimilation’) to denote changes that migrants or members of minorities would experience on different levels, such as emotions, thoughts and behaviours.^[26] ‘Assimilation’ becomes only one possible outcome of the acculturative processes, among three others that he called ‘strategies’, even if he was aware that the suggestion of conscious planning may be misleading, as members of minorities are not completely free to decide what ‘strategy’ they will embark on. In any case, in 1974, he proposed his typology, with a wonderfully simple and clear structure, to answer the question of ‘how people acculturate’. He proposed the consideration of two questions: firstly, do migrants/minorities wish to ‘maintain their heritage, cultures and identities’?; secondly, do they wish to engage with members of the host/dominant society? Based on these two questions, four acculturation strategies emerge: integration, segregation, assimilation and marginalization.

Each of these four strategies has different features and also different implications in terms of well-being and identity. Integration is often depicted as the ‘best’ strategy. It occurs when individuals are able to adopt the cultural norms of the dominant or host culture, while also maintaining their culture of origin. Integration leads to and is often synonymous with biculturalism. People hold on to some aspects of their own culture, such as central norms and values, but also engage with the new cultural environment.

Separation or segregation occurs when individuals reject the dominant or host culture in favour of preserving their culture of origin. In this case, they focus on maintaining their own values and avoiding contact with the majority culture as much as possible. Separation is often facilitated by immigration to ethnic enclaves. It may be a strategy used to find positive identity in a cultural environment where one’s social group is discriminated against or undervalued by isolating oneself from the negative representations in the dominant group.

Marginalization takes place when individuals do not engage with either their culture of origin or the dominant culture. This may happen due to limited possibilities for interaction with members of the host culture (often for reasons of exclusion or discrimination) or because of a lack of interest in cultural maintenance. This may lead to isolation from both cultural groups (host as well as culture of origin).

Finally, assimilation is clearly a much more specific process here than in the ‘classical model’ of the Chicago School. Assimilation occurs when individuals reject their minority culture and adopt the cultural norms of the dominant or host culture. They seek daily interaction with the host culture, and their ambition is to become accepted as part of the majority culture. Among other things, assimilation has been associated with a weakening of the immune system,^[27] and it is often reported to bring about higher levels of acculturation stress and dissatisfaction.^[28] It is assumed that this negative relationship between assimilation and well-being is because complete assimilation is rarely possible. Visual markers, names and accents often highlight the strangeness of immigrants, and they are still perceived as foreigners after many years in the host country. Those engaging in an assimilation journey often face a gap between their self-perceptions and the perceptions that members of the host society reflect back to them.

In the half century that separates our present moment from the genesis of the matrix explained above, Berry has probably received as much criticism as the classical Chicago model in its own time. Berry’s model is indeed ‘simple’ and as such cannot account for all the diversity of human experiences, in particular of the impact of power differences, colonialism, variability in the degree of differences between host culture and culture of origin, or even of physically visible differences (members of racialized groups have a different experience than non-racialized) and/or a context of forced migration, etc. Moreover, the model seems to suggest that migrants make a strategic decision once and for all, whereas in reality, different acculturation strategies are more likely to apply to a situation or life domain rather than a person. Also, the model does not help to analyse all the complexities implied by ‘integration’, when there are contradictions and incompatibilities between the culture of origin and the host culture. Finally, one last simplification: no one can be properly characterized by just two sets of identities (‘host culture’ and ‘culture of origin’), as each of us bears a very diverse collection of cultural baggage, such as national culture, religious culture, urban or rural culture, and professional culture, to name just a few.

Nevertheless, as a basic conceptual orientation, the model remains very useful. These four concepts continue to influence the way we consider the path that newcomers/minorities are supposed to take. In particular, it helps us to gain a more concise understanding of ‘assimilation’, which we recommend using in this narrower, more specific sense, so that we can explore the next question: Is there any pressure that states and ‘majority societies’ exert on newcomers and minorities? What are their chances of doing this effectively?

Assimilation from the point of view of the assimilator

Contemporary nation-states have their own visions, approach and institutions for the management of cultural diversity covering a broad spectrum on the multicultural/intercultural to universalist/assimilationist scale. What varies is the extent to which the state makes it a priority to ‘help’ members of minorities to assimilate and to what extent it also offers support in the maintenance of minority cultural identities.

A multiculturalist/interculturalist orientation may be enshrined in legislation. We might check whether members of a minority have specific cultural rights. In France, such specific group rights would amount to discrimination. In Hungary, there are such rights but only for the thirteen official ‘ethnic and national minorities’, which excludes more recent groups of migrants. We might also pay attention to official discourse and wording. For example, according to the official procedure for obtaining French citizenship, candidates must undergo an interview to prove their ‘assimilation into the French community’.^[29] Finally, we might explore how cultural heritage is considered: Are heritage elements of minority members safeguarded, promoted, included? What celebrations appear in the official calendar?

The promotion of assimilation may be perceived as a political necessity, but even the proponents of the classical model knew that assimilation under pressure does not work. As Bogardus argued: ‘To forbid the use of one’s native tongue, especially when that is inseparably bound up with religious worship and with domestic experiences and sentiments, at once arouses one’s loyalty to that which one is about to lose. One will die rather than give up the old loyalties’.^[30] Park and Burgess agree: ‘Not by the suppression of old memories, but by their incorporation in his new life is assimilation achieved […] Assimilation cannot be promoted directly, but only indirectly, that is, by supplying the conditions that make for participation. There is no process but life itself that can effectively wipe out the immigrant’s memory of his past’.^[31]

Education, assimilation and cultural heritage

As we can see in the section above, we can reasonably discuss questions of acculturation and assimilation while skipping any reference to the concept of ‘cultural heritage’. What we would like to explore here is what added value ‘cultural heritage’ brings to this discussion. We see at least two perspectives that we explore in the following.

Pedagogical perspective: anchoring in the concrete

To many people who have not completed an introductory cultural anthropology course, the concept of ‘culture’ may be notoriously elusive, particularly in its broader, anthropological sense, which includes practices as mundane as washing dishes or going to the toilet. In intercultural training, to talk about cultural identity, we first need to understand the concept of culture, how it defines us and how it underlines everything around us. By the time we come to talk about changes in cultural identity, learners may have already acquired so much new knowledge that their capacity for absorption may be saturated. The reference to ‘cultural heritage’ may offer a pedagogical shortcut. When it comes to visible material heritage, learners may find it easier to think of examples that matter to them. In fact, even immaterial heritage may be easier to access than the abstraction of ‘culture’ alone.

Political perspective: question of rights

From the angle of assimilation/acculturation to a new cultural environment, it is very easy to put the burden unilaterally on the members of minorities and newcomers, assuming that to be able to function properly they need to adapt to certain norms and practices. It is this same unilateral perspective that we see reflected in the different tests and agreements required for citizenship and naturalization: there is nothing about how the host society will help the newcomer or minority members make their own respective contributions. However, the heritage perspective could remedy this asymmetry. The Faro Convention’s Article 4 on ‘Rights and responsibilities relating to cultural heritage’ discusses a right to heritage and a responsibility to respect the heritage of others. Importing such reciprocity into the ‘acculturation’ discussion could help shift the focus from the unilateral demand for adaptation and change.

The activity below has the ambition of exploring these two perspectives of enabling reflection on cultural heritage to trigger an interactive and somewhat experiential discussion of assimilation.

“A shared heritage not only anchors the members of each community in their own history, [it] opens new directions for future understandings.”^[32] The word “heritage” itself is telling: in order to talk about it we need to talk about transmission from one generation to another. As such, heritage is essentially relational. Whether we speak about monuments, objects or intangible heritage, all of these aspects have the role of serving as a symbolic anchor for our sense of identity, continuity and connection to others. The concept of ‘cultural appropriation’, at the centre of our inquiry in this section, creates a disturbance in the relationship implied by cultural heritage. In the following, we will explore the ways this happens.

However, before we do so, it is important to emphasize that for ‘cultural appropriation’ to occur, the first relationship that needs to be identified is that between a group and an element of cultural heritage that is meaningful to its members. Indeed, there is a recurring confusion, with practices such as ‘blackface’, for example, being declared to be cases of cultural appropriation. However, as long as putting dark make-up on the face does not belong to African American cultural traditions, the same gesture at a frat party is not cultural appropriation but the caricaturing of the physical traits of others along racist lines.^[33] Having clarified this possible confusion, we will embark on the analysis of relations disrupted by cultural appropriation.

A break in continuity: loss of the linearity of heritage

There is a certain promise of linear continuity in the concept of heritage, as if heritage was handed down to us from the generation before us, who received it from the generation before them, and we will hand it down to the generations that follow us. The idea of this linearity is important and meaningful: it gives us a sense of stability by connecting us to the past and future (see the opening quote). However, there is a great deal of fiction attached to this linearity, as cultural practices are in continuous evolution. For example, ‘marriage’ today is not the same as ‘marriage’ at the time of our grandparents and will certainly continue to change. Moreover, the groups themselves who should pass down the heritage are subject to change. If we consider a group of people in a specific geographical region, we will see that some identities gain importance, others fade. Furthermore, there may be waves of migration that imply a change in the inhabitants of that region.

Looking at a particular identity, let’s say ‘European’, we notice that it has continually undergone transformation and also means different things to different people. Moreover, exchange is as much a natural dynamic of culture as transmission: no culture has evolved on its own without borrowing and building on contributions from others. Consider the traditional dishes of your own culture and count the ingredients that are not native to your environment. For example, there would be no ratatouille without ‘borrowing’ from South America (tomatoes, pepper, courgettes) and Asia (aubergine). This dynamic context of permanent movement should not necessarily discredit or diminish the strength of claims of appropriation. It only points to the recognition that instead of a positivist search for objective facts, we are entering the realm of narratives; that instead of theft, we will be talking about recognition.

Another break in continuity: loss of meanings

Cultural appropriation often reappropriates a form, a practice, a pattern whose meaning is unknown, thereby reducing it purely to aesthetics or folklore. A pertinent example is dressing up as an ‘American Indian’ at Halloween or, more precisely, the fantasy of wearing feathers, war paint or the imagery of a sexy Pocahontas. Here, we see a degradation of the cultural practices of the First Nations people, reduced to a simplistic fantasy. The patterns, clothes and objects used by the First Nations people originally carried important meanings for the group. For example, the Amerindian headdress is worn only by tribal chiefs or distinguished individuals who have performed a brave act for their community, while for many indigenous peoples, body tattoos are war tattoos. So, when Karlie Kloss appeared on the catwalk in 2012 in a fringed suede bikini with turquoise necklace, wristbands and rings and a feathered headdress on her head at the Victoria’s Secret fashion show, it is understandable that some people saw it as disconcerting, contemptuous and even offensive.^[34]

A break in equality: asymmetry in the relationship

Cultural appropriation is born in a relation of domination. It is linked to the logic and history of racism and colonialism. A simple example is that of African works of art that were looted during colonization and put in European museums. In contrast, European countries have a different relation to their own cultural artefacts exhibited abroad. We do not see the French demanding the return of furniture and paintings that are exhibited in reconstructed rooms at the MET in New York. In this latter case, we speak of the influence of French culture, we see a respectful, consensual and egalitarian ‘borrowing’ of the works. In most cases of cultural appropriation, these ‘borrowings’ are more akin to theft and an abuse of the customs of minority peoples, who are, in addition, often subject to a long history of systemic discrimination. We must look more closely at the relationship between ‘borrower’ and ‘lender’.

When Americans dressed up as Geishas, Japanese people in Japan did not see a problem, but Japanese people in the United States who lived through the US concentration camps of the Second World War were offended. In order to spot cultural appropriation, we must look at the power relations. A French person does not feel offended by a foreigner wearing a beret; he or she does not have the same relationship with that person as a member of the First Nations would have with a non-American Indian wearing a headdress. In the latter case, there is an imbalance of power, as First Nations people still experience discrimination and consider that reconciliation is yet to be fulfilled. The traditions, rituals and cultures of the First Nations people in Canada and the American Indians in the United States have for years been labelled as ‘savage’. This ‘subculture’ was fought against until it became a victim of conscious cultural genocide organized by the newcomers. The heart of the problem lies in the dominant position that people have in claiming aspects of a dominated culture for themselves that they do not understand, after attempting to destroy that living culture and still discriminating against it.

… Showing by hiding?

The best way to ensure asymmetry in the relationship is to hide the others and not give them the space to be present, or to represent themselves. This may not have been the intention of the Valentino 2015 fashion show, for example, but it does seem to be the result. This show was supposed to honour African traditions and styles – and African patterns did appear on clothes, and in particular in the hairstyling. Nevertheless, the show failed as a cultural homage, especially considering that none of the models who participated were African.^[35]

… And no means to rebalance the asymmetry

When the voices of those concerned are raised, victim censorship is usually the consequence. It is common to hear claims that appropriation is ‘harmless’; that ‘now we can’t say/do anything without offending someone’ or that ‘Japanese people are not concerned about dressing up as a Frenchman’ (in a sailor suit, a beret, with a baguette and a glass of wine). These discourses not only discredit the claims of underrepresented communities and deny existing discrimination and power relations, but also reproduce them by depriving these communities of their right to indignation and their power to act, that is, depriving them of their agency.

A break in reciprocity: taking without giving back

In his shows, Marc Jacobs uses models with Bantu knots.^[36] This hairstyle, which has existed for thousands of years in African tradition, is now considered to be, and is disseminated as being, invented by Marc Jacobs. The original practice had been transmitted from generation to generation – it is a real moment of transmission – while here it is taken over by a commercial enterprise led by members of the majority society to profit from it without crediting its origin. As Fatou N’diaye, an activist for the recognition of Afro culture and author of the beauty blog, ‘Black Beauty Bag’, explains: ‘The problem with cultural appropriation is that the culture from which a trend is taken is rarely recognised’.^[37]

Doing it right?

Some will use the term ‘cultural appreciation’ to justify their actions, considering it a tribute. But beware, it is easy to confuse appreciation and appropriation. To put it simply, cultural appreciation respects and honours the culture of the other. One recognizes the culture, knows its codes, histories and meanings (spiritual, religious, social, etc.). It is an exchange between two parties. For example, a Japanese and a Mexican chef can decide to join forces to exchange recipes, thus seeing the Mexican restaurant propose Japanese dishes revisited. Travelling, researching, learning a language and participating in rituals and celebrations of another culture are all ways of getting to know it without making it your own. Curiosity about and openness to other cultures is enriching and essential to the development of each society, and it should not necessarily turn into ‘appropriation’ in the negative sense. ‘Well executed’ appropriation may even become a useful tool in keeping alive cultural heritage and diversity. However, as Susan Scafidi, author of Who Owns Culture?, points out: ‘It’s not fair to ask any culture to freeze itself in time and live as though they were a museum diorama’.^[38] If it is natural for cultures to evolve and change, it is also natural to lose connection with a particular heritage. In this case, some argue that ‘cultural appropriation can sometimes be the savior of a cultural product that has faded away’.^[39]

In order for appreciation not to turn into ‘appropriation’, however, there are some guidelines to consider. Above all, we should engage with members of the group whose heritage we are interested in. There is a need to take the time to understand the social context, the relationship between our groups, its history and its asymmetries. It is important to go beyond the surface, taking time to understand the meanings and values beyond the motifs and the forms. Ensuring recognition, symbolically and financially, is also essential when we intend to generate income – can it be done well?

Osklen’s Spring 2016 collection, for example, was created in collaboration with members of the Asháninka tribe, and has been cited as a good example.^[40] The collection, named ‘Asháninka’ after the tribe, was created with the active collaboration of the tribe: the designer team lived with members of the tribe, and the tribe benefitted financially from the venture. Of course, we do not know whether the actual consumers were interested in learning anything about the clothing; for example, whether they understood what the prints on the shirts meant, or what was special about ‘Amazon red’. The Asháninka were given space for their voice to be heard, and we can only hope others were listening. Even here, however, we might ask about the power relationship and the motives of those involved.

What is interculturality?

A practical approach to understanding seemingly elusive concepts is to cut them up into their constituent parts. We can apply the same trick to ‘interculturality’ and explore ‘inter’ and ‘culture’. Let’s start with the second term and do an experiment.

About ‘culture’

Stop reading, close your eyes for a minute and think of the first ideas, words and images that come to your mind when you are asked to think about ‘culture’. A typical ‘Western’ mind (forgive the generalization) tends to take one of two paths. Firstly, perhaps you will think of the last opera or theatre performance you saw, or an exhibition or concert that touched you. Rarely do people think of such mundane activities such as washing the dishes or even sitting and reading a trainer’s handbook. As Ralph Linton puts it, culture

refers to the total way of life of any society, not simply to those parts which the society regards as higher or more desirable. Thus culture, when applied to our own way of life, has nothing to do with playing the piano or reading Browning. For the social scientist such activities are simply elements within the totality of our culture. This totality also includes such mundane activities as washing dishes or driving an automobile, and for the purpose of cultural studies these stand quite on par with the ‘finer things of life’.^[41]

Moreover, these manifestations of culture, daily or not, are not fixed in an immutable form. On the contrary, they change, they are transformed and they evolve during their transmission, according to the generations and the exchanges between cultures. The need to give a logical meaning to our cultural practices according to our context pushes us to reinterpret and recode them constantly. This can be seen, for example, in religious practices. If paying homage to a god can be central to the cultural practices of a group, the way of doing so, as well as the reasons, still depend on the individuals and their relationship to this practice.

Secondly, when you think of ‘a culture’, images could emerge of a not too close, not too distant cultural group, usually a national group, centred on some key distinguishing features. For example, I might think of ‘the Japanese’ because yesterday I saw The Last Samurai and, in my mind, I would have an image of Japanese people in rather traditional clothes. We rarely think of a group that we are part of in this instance, and we rarely think of a group of people of great diversity – of seniors, of non-binary people, accountants or adherents of extreme right parties – although these would be as valid for ‘cultural groups’ as ‘the Japanese’.^[42] Even so, can ‘culture’ be equated with a group of people? The truth is, for ‘culture’ to develop, we do need groups of people: there is no solitary culture developed by one single person. However, even using the word ‘culture’ to refer to a particular group will always be a simplification: any group of people will be heterogeneous, each integrating a special mix of different cultural values, norms, traits and behaviours in slightly different ways. Reflect on yourself: how many different types of cultures are you connected to?

Now that this first overview of culture is completed, we can tackle the second part of the word ‘intercultural’.

About ‘inter’

If culture is a constantly changing set of values, norms and practices, if ‘cultures’ are not fixed and statically definable sets of people, what does the ‘inter’ or ‘between’ refer to? How can we compare or encounter entities that are constantly changing? This is the interesting part: the ‘inter’ constructs the reality of cultures, either by rigidifying them or by engaging in a dynamic and constructive exchange.

Indeed, we can be quite oblivious to the idea of culture until the moment we actually meet someone from another culture. This does not mean that we would not be cultural beings, we would still be motivated by cultural values and display cultural behaviour. However, it is through an encounter that a fluid conception of culture may take a more static shape. As Dietz proposes: ‘The encounter between individuals from two different cultures generates a mutual recourse to reciprocal stereotypes as a reaction to cultural ambiguities’.^[43]

That said, static rigidity is not the only possible outcome of intercultural encounters. The ‘awkward, unequal, unstable and creative qualities of interconnection across difference’^[44] can also result in new combinations, meanings, hopefully even ‘new arrangements of culture and power’.^[45] The mission, then, is to see how an ‘intercultural’ moment can be an occasion for fruitful new meanings – rather than the rigidification of static conceptions – and an opportunity for new arrangements and the promotion of an exchange, a co-construction that is not crushed by conscious or unconscious power dynamics. How can cultural heritage become an ally or a catalyst in this mission?

Interculturality as a turning point overcoming the illusion of our cultural neutrality

The intercultural approach that we propose starts with accepting a certain intercultural humility: becoming aware that our perception is not as objective as we may have believed, and also that we are subject to a range of cognitive and social biases which influence the way we contemplate others. We see interculturality as a way to fight against the stereotyping process – not to eradicate it but to de-rigidify it. Being aware of our own stereotyping processes allows us to limit ethnocentrism.

Interculturality as a desire to give more visibility to cultural groups with less power

If the promotion of the heritage of minorities is intended to be a tool for the promotion of diversity – notably at the level of international political bodies – the mere recognition of diversity is not enough to create a common ground, because it maintains an identity-based, even reified, conception of heritage. Because of this, the first attempts to build this common heritage were based on the principle that this cultural heritage had to go through a phase of de-appropriation, including in its public dimension. Because of the power dynamics at stake, this was done mainly using a national geopolitical model (e.g. French, Polish heritage), which was to the detriment of minorities, who only played a minor role in the decision-making process, as well as in the processes of representation within this common heritage.

The intersectional approach to culture reveals a valorization of certain cultural practices or groups at the expense of others. This hierarchization of culture according to the prism of the so-called ‘dominant culture’ is notably visible through the choices of valorization of cultural heritage. For example, if we refer to the UNESCO List of World Heritage,^[46] 47% of the world heritage validated by the institution is located in Europe/North America, 24% in Asia, and only 8.5% in Africa and 7.6% in the Arab States. Bearing in mind our previous reflection, this hierarchization is not only geographically based but also has effects on all areas of culture. This can be seen in everyday life, but also in the media. Ask yourself: In such and such a film, which practices are promoted? Which cultural groups are invisible?

Interculturality as readiness to hear the voices of minorities

There is a growing reconsideration of cultural heritage in a more intercultural way so as to give voice to those in the minority.^[47] As Rautenberg and Rojon argue:

The transformations of the conceptions of heritage opened by the new international conventions provide a context of transformation of the forms of communication. States no longer play the central and unifying role that was theirs, even if it is not theirs, even if one should not neglect the weight of the big cultural institutions, which remains important, particularly in the French case. The possibility of producing and disseminating images oneself, as well as of accessing resources and archives more easily have further accentuated the flows of cultural circulation and multiplied their uses.^[48]

We are also seeing more and more hybrid processes that involve institutions and people from minority groups in ways that co-construct the preservation and transmission of cultural heritages. In the case of museums, for example,^[49] we are moving away from a paradigm centred on ‘the collection’, that is from a model of the museum oriented to its own holdings to museums connected to communities (understood here as populations-publics-territories). Institutions must not only function in response to their audiences and meet their expectations, but also be anchored, that is, locally relevant, as heritage-based community services.

Here, we have the founding principles of the ‘community ecomuseum’, for which the museum is an instrument that can serve the community and help it to think and act on common problems: it serves social time to fill a political function. There is no distinction between professionals, researchers or the public insofar as everyone is considered an actor and contributes to the development process. This is just as much a question of enhancing the value of ‘heritage’ as it is of enhancing the lives of the people who are its bearers.