Originally published on Medium on June 11, 2019.
I have a narrow definition of cultural appropriation. (Short version: it’s only cultural appropriation if the thing being appropriated has symbolic value that needs to be earned by those within the culture it is taken from.) Although this definition has flaws, I believe that the definition of cultural appropriation needs to be narrowed somehow from common usage if it is to avoid condemning all cultural exchange. Cultural exchange is the lifeblood of cultural evolution, and it has been the source of much good.
Still, with such a narrow definition of cultural appropriation, it is useful to think about the broader set of questionable cultural borrowings. For example, copying clothing that is strongly associated with a particular culture may not be appropriation, but it may imply a level of affinity with that culture which members of that culture would not consider appropriate. For cases like these, where the cultural item borrowed does not have granted symbolic value but is perceived as closely tied to the originating culture, I propose the term cultural infringement.
The term cultural infringement is intentionally meant to invoke the idea of copyright. Copyright is a delicate balance between control and usage. While copyright cannot be directly translated to cultural infringement, it does have some useful lessons to teach us. One is the idea of fair use: there may be contexts in which it is appropriate to use the artifacts of a culture even if members of that culture might disapprove. Criticism is one such use.
Another idea we can learn from copyright is that borrowing can often be generative. See, for example, the rich world of fan fiction. Much of it is terrible, but the best fanfic helps the reader learn something new about the work. Similarly, cultural borrowing can often be beneficial and lead to mutual enrichment both for the source culture and the destination culture. For copyright, we aim to balance control and generation by having copyright expire. That does not apply to borrowing culture, but the observation that borrowing culture can be generative still stands.
As the expiration of copyright illustrates, cultural infringement cannot be literally treated as copyright. Most of the time, there is not a recognized owner of a culture, and members of the culture may perceive acts of infringement differently. However, thinking of the trade-offs of copyright can lead us to think about the trade-offs, good and bad, that come from non-appropriating borrowing from other cultures. It helps us think about how a cultural has certain claims to its own artifacts but also how giving too much control impedes positive change.
In this framework, whether a particular instance of cultural borrowing is generative or infringing depends largely on how the borrowing is perceived by the members of the source culture. To understand this, we need to listen and learn from the perspectives of those in the culture, both those who feel the borrowing is inappropriate and those who feel it is reasonable. If cultures are going to realize the benefits of borrowing from each other, taking time to learn a bit more about what is being borrowed seems like a small price to pay.