“A shared heritage not only anchors the members of each community in their own history, [it] opens new directions for future understandings.”^[1] 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.^[2] 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.^[3]

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.^[4]

… 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.^[5] 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’.^[6]

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’.^[7] 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’.^[8]

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.^[9] 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.