The Fine Line Between Cultural Appropriation and Cultural Appreciation

Cultural appropriation is often defined as “the taking of intellectual property, cultural expressions or artifacts, history, and ways of knowledge” (Siems, 2019). In public discourse, however, the legality behind appropriating cultures is of less importance. What takes precedence is the discussion concerning ethical issues around borrowing and exploiting ideas from historically marginalized cultures. This paper aims to address the issue of cultural appropriation in the fashion industry; It will analyze the perspectives of designers and the media in framing the divide between those who endorse practices of cultural appropriation and those who strongly oppose it. Moreover, this analysis will consider whether issues of cultural appropriation are solvable or perhaps a divisive issue that will continue to occupy the fashion space.

In the mid-1960s, The Beatles’ hit song, “Norwegian Wood” introduced traditional Indian sound to Western contemporary music. George Harrison ––the band’s lead guitarist–– embraced Indian culture with the use of the sitar, a plucked stringed instrument originating from Central Asia. His blend of Indian music with rock and pop sound received wide appreciation from fans; Yet, the band faced public criticism in years following for claiming indigenous folk music as their own and wrongly (and perhaps unintentionally) associating themes of the 1970s hippie movement –such as sex and drugs– with Indian culture. The history of artists teetering on the edge of cultural appropriation is not mutually exclusive to the music industry. Since the beginning of runway fashion, designers have faced tremendous backlash for creations that misinterpret practices of cultural appropriation for inspiration. Gucci’s Sikh-style turbans, Victoria’s Secret's Native American headdresses, and Marc Jacobs’ dreadlocks are just some examples that have sparked public reactions. The ethical issues surrounding the exploitation of misrepresented cultures for financial gain continues to plague the fashion industry and its most influential brands.

Ralph Lauren's Buffalo Full-Zip Cowichan Sweater

The line between cultural appropriation and inspiration is often contested by designers who are fixated with cultures other than their own. American designer Ralph Lauren is particularly known for borrowing elements of Native American culture in his design and production processes. He collects Native art which decorates his Coloradan home and uses images of the Frontier and Navajo-inspired textile patterns to shape his collections and personal style. The brand drew from indigenous designs intending to celebrate Native American heritage and beauty, according to a CNN report, yet faced public backlash in 2015 with the release of the “Cowichan Full-Zip” sweater. The designer’s first public offense occurred after Cowichan tribe members went to the media to claim Lauren’s sweater as a counterfeit design. Dora Wilson, a Cowichan knitter, argued that Ralph Lauren marketed “under false pretenses” because the designs and patterns were inauthentic and copied from family-based Cowichan producers. A clear distinction is evident in how Lauren labels cultural appreciation for what Cowichan tribes call appropriation. Before this instance, Ralph Lauren was unbothered to give credit to Cowichan knitters or make public apologies. The conflict serves as one of the many cases where fashion designers act from a place of ignorance and take fascination for another culture too far.

The discussion of what dictates cultural appropriation requires defining the term for those on opposite ends of the spectrum. Authors Denise Green and Susan Kaiser argue in their paper “Fashion and Appropriation” that while “respecting a culture may require you to dive into its fashions,” it must be “done with the intent to participate in the culture without insulting it” (Green & Kaiser, 2017). Moreover, it must be done in a way that does not “compromise the identity of another culture’s people.” Sabrina Taylor and John Jacob take this idea a step further in explaining that cultural appropriation happens when a dominant culture takes something from a marginalized group. In contrast, when members of a minority group adopt aspects of the dominant culture, it is not seen as appropriation, but assimilation: the process of two cultures fusing as one. Historically, we see this in the way white people are more likely to adopt cultural elements from Black people than the other way around. Take, for instance, Marc Jacobs's use of dreadlocks in his Spring 2017 runway collection where he dressed models in hand-dyed wool dreadlocks. The reasoning for this, Taylor and Jacob argue, is that dominant cultures live in a society that is exposed to various cultures and ideas, whereas minority groups feel the need to preserve their culture because if they fail to, they risk their culture evaporating into the majority one. Thus, interpretations of what makes fashion cultural appropriation heavily relies on power relations and the politics of race, gender, and class.

While certain forms of cultural appropriation are interpreted as insensitive and disrespectful to their source culture, some argue that culture by its very nature is a mixture of borrowing and sharing with various cultures. This notion supports the idea that one culture owning a specific tradition goes against the definition of culture itself. Coco Chanel, for example, channels this idea of cultural diffusion in her design process as she “encourages photographers and designers to come by [her] place and steal all the ideas [they] can” (Green & Kaiser, 2017). While some favor the integrity of art and design, Chanel advocates for copying as a natural and acceptable occurrence in fashion. Professor Minh-Ha T. Pham speaks for those in support of cultural swiping in saying that “drawing inspiration from the bodies, cultural practices, and cultural objects of people of color are acts of appreciating, admiring, even loving racial difference and diversity” (Pham, 2014). This begs the question of whether cultural appropriation is a bad or good thing since it does not take cultural ownership away, but rather merges association between differing cultures.

The contention between both sides of the argument stems largely from people’s concern over “who controls the benefits from cultural resources'' (Pham, 2014). There are many ways in which dominant culture, white culture that is, has the privilege to not care about the harmful societal effects of cultural appropriation–– such as negative stereotyping and reaffirming historical oppression. A reason for this is because “fashion design, in its entirety, is not copyrightable” by law (Pham, 2017). Thus, brands like Ralph Lauren escape lawful pursuit and are held accountable solely by the media (which is short-lived and rarely career-ending). In other words, few designers violate copyright law; Instead, they commit racial plagiarism. This is seen as problematic because it strips a piece of work from its origin culture, causing dominant culture to choose when and how much of minority culture is assimilated into mainstream society.

The poaching of what fashion appropriation critics call “high culture” from “low culture” is another way cultural appropriation “preserves the hierarchical relations between the fashion industry and the cultures being appropriated” (Pham, 2014). Unauthorized copying “depends on a one-way power flow from the top down” in which “the authorial power and the capital derived from the copying are not only not shared with the source community, they are denied to them” (Pham, 2017). In Ralph Lauren’s case, the Cowichan tribe was not publicly credited or financially compensated for the sweater. The fight for resources and profit is what drives the fashion industry to borrow and the borrowed cultures to feel exploited. Some would argue this cycle is simply the business of fashion.

The discussion on cultural appropriation in fashion is relevant because it reflects current cultural disparities in society. Instead of focusing on questions of personal intention and inspiration, ––all of which are irrelevant and unverifiable–– it moves the conversation to questions of fact, source, and the effects of unauthorized copying. Perhaps the difference between appropriation and appreciation is whether opportunities to “actively and genuinely participate in the fashion system” are granted to marginalized groups such as the Cowichan knitters. If fashion brands elevated and pushed the stories of minority cultures to the forefront of public discourse rather than claim them as their own, charges of appropriation would no longer seem necessary. Sadly, this is not the reality yet, which is why designers must ask themselves how incorporating other cultures in their design process contributes to that culture’s historical exclusion or not.

In all instances of cultural appropriation in society ––from sports team mascots to Halloween costumes–– the fashion industry is intrinsically complicated within its social impact and repercussions. Most of the cultural appropriation critiques gathered for this paper reaffirm the geocultural power relations they aim to criticize. That is, Western dominance and exploitation of culture over everyone else. Sometimes accusations go too far and more often than not, individuals on both sides of the argument remain steadfast in their opinions from one media debate to the next. It becomes obvious that public discourse surrounding cultural appropriation will continue the way it is ––creating more division than progress–– until people are willing to take a new approach to criticism that offers actionable change to uplift communities that are victims of cross-cultural stealing.