Cultural Appreciation vs Cultural Appropriation: Understanding The Difference and The Harm in Cultural Appropriation

Today’s blog post will focus on cultural appropriation.  Cultural appropriation is the act of one cultural group seizing control of the symbols, traditions, customs, concepts, or items of another cultural group (for a refresher on culture please go here).  Cultural appropriation should not be confused with cultural exchange or assimilation.  Cultural exchange is when cultures equally share elements of each others culture with the other in order to mutually learn and benefit from the exchange.  Cultural assimilation occurs when individuals from one culture either voluntarily or involuntarily (typically out of forced need) adopt the cultural elements of another culture.   Cultural appropriation is about the differences in power and control among different groups within a culture in which one group is the dominator or oppressor and the other group is the exploited or oppressed, leading to the trivialization of and loss of cultural identity of the exploited and oppressed group.

This description most likely sounds incredibly damaging (because it is) and scary (as it should be), but how does one identify cultural appropriation?  We have all most likely seen an element of another culture, found it appealing, and adopted it without meaning to cause harm or insult.  There are differences between cultural appreciation and cultural appropriation.  One can identify cultural appropriation in many different ways.  The first way is by examining how specific cultural elements (e.g. symbols, traditions, customs, concepts, and items) are identified and labeled among various groups, particularly between majority (those with power) and minority (those with little to no power) groups.  When both groups practice the same cultural tradition or utilize the same cultural symbol but one is praised while the other is censured cultural appropriation is occurring.  For example, as Amandla Stenberg points out in her video about cultural appropriation of African American culture braids (aka cornrows or dreadlocks) are an integral part of African American identity as they are used to maintain the health and vitality of African American hair but are often identified and labeled very negatively among African Americans who style their hair that way.  Caucasian individuals, on the other hand, such as Kendall Jenner (Figure 1), are praised as being fashion forward for styling their hair in braids.  This difference in labeling the same act between groups, in this case African Americans (who are a minority group in the United States) and Caucasians (who are the majority group), is an example of cultural appropriation and not cultural appreciation.  One can also identify cultural appropriation in this scenario by the labeling of the hairstyles between Caucasians, who have braids, versus African Americans, who typically have dread locks, cornrows, etc.  These terms refer to the same hairstyle but bring forth different emotional responses and images.

Figure 1: Kendall Jenner being praised for "cornrow" fashion statement

Cultural appropriation can also be identified based on the harm caused to a minority group through the misrepresentation of a group’s culture.  Recent examples of this type of cultural appropriation occurred at the 2012 Victoria’s Secret Fashion show where model Karlie Kloss wore a Native American headdress with her bra and underwear ensemble (Figure 2) and in 2014 when Pharrell Williams wore a war bonnet on the cover of Elle Magazine (Figure 3).  These symbols of Native American culture were misappropriated in their use in the fashion show and magazine cover as they misrepresented the purpose of symbols.  These symbols are sacred to many Native Americans and represent the completion of specific rites of passage and represent specific earned statuses.  The true purposes and values of these Native American symbols were not taken into consideration when they were utilized in the fashion show and magazine cover, and Native Americans were justified in their criticisms of their misappropriated use.  More on this topic can be found In this video.

Figure 2: Karlie Kloss demonstrating cultural appropriation of Native American culture at the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show

Cultural appropriation also often leads to profiteering by members of the dominant groups who are the perpetuators of cultural appropriation and the continued exploitation of the oppressed groups.  This occurs when members of the dominant group utilize or take cultural elements from the oppressed groups and earn income from those cultural elements, while the exploited cultural group members do not receive the same if any profits either when they complete the same task or as royalties from the profiting dominant group members.  For example, among many Americans yoga is identified as a trendy fitness routine that also nurtures the mind and spirit.  Yoga has become quite the commercialized enterprise across the USA as a result.  What many people do not realize, however, is that yoga has a spiritual meaning and cultural connection among Indians (of India).  It was banned in the 18^th century by the colonial British government, and it was practiced as a means of rebellion against the colonial British rule and as a form of cultural pride by many Indian yogis thereafter, which is how it exists today despite efforts to abolish it.  For many the commercialization of yoga is seen as offensive, particularly as it now represents young, trendy, and white culture, not Indian culture, identity, and resilience and yoga’s original spiritual and cultural meanings have been lost.  White yoga instructors gain praise, popularity, and profits by claiming they were trained by traditional yogis either in or outside of India, but Indians who practice yoga themselves are not as valued as whites when they practice yoga and/or try to teach it to others, leading to monetary exploitation of an element of Indian culture.

Figure 3: Pharrell Williams & Cultural Appropriation of Native American Culture on the Elle Magazine Cover

Last but not least, cultural appropriation also continues and spreads racist stereotypes of cultural groups.  This is manifested primarily around Halloween when individuals are encouraged and in many ways expected to don costumes of identities that run counter to their daily or regular identity.  A popular Halloween costume is the “sexy Geisha” costume (Figure 4), which spreads ideas of Asian women being sexually provocative and available.  Many individuals who don this costume do not realize the harm they are causing Asian women who report that they are often sexually harassed by men who buy into this stereotype.  This is just one of many racist stereotypes that occur on Halloween, which has further negative effects on minority groups who report further discrimination and prejudice against them throughout the remaining 364 days of the year.  

Figure 4: One of many examples of a "sexy geisha" costume that is popular at Halloween

So how does one practice cultural appreciation and not cultural appropriation?  Should we not ever adopt elements of another culture so as to not offend or continue to oppress members of the minority groups?  No.  To say that is to take an extreme view point that does not solve the problem of cultural appropriation and instead directs attention away from the problem and toward reassuring majority groups who are-intentionally or unintentionally-practicing cultural appropriation.  What one can do, however, is learn about the culture(s) and the meanings associated with the cultural elements that one would like to utilize.  Upon learning about the cultural elements one can make an informed decision as to whether or not the cultural element should be adopted and how it would be most appropriate to do so.  If you meet a member of that culture and he or she takes offense to your adoption of that cultural element do not get defensive.  Instead, first apologize and if possible engage in a respectful dialogue about why he or she is offended and what specifically you may have done to offend them.  You may feel that your research into the cultural element you just adopted was thorough but it may not have been and it may not have been entirely accurate, particularly if you utilized improper sources.  Consider the situation a learning experience and act appropriately from the lesson(s) learned from that experience.  Expect to make mistakes (because no one is perfect) but be open to learning and changing as necessary.  There is nothing wrong with cultural appreciation, but that is because it is very different from cultural appropriation.

Learn more about being a solution rather than a problem here by following this example by Jessica Sanchez and her company.

Bibliography:

Johnson, M.  2015.  “What’s Wrong with Cultural Appropriation?  These 9 Answers Reveal Its Harm”  Everyday Feminism

 

Michaels, S.  2014.  “Pharrell Apologizes for Wearing Native American War Bonnet”  The Guardian

Miller, A.  2014.  “The Origins of Yoga: Part III”  All Things Yoga Blog

sMash, L.  2013.  “Yellow Fever: Dating as an Asian Woman”  Persephone

Stewart, D.  2012.  “Karlie Kloss as Half Naked ‘Indian’ and Other Absurdities from the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show”  Jezebel

Welsch, R. and L. Vivanco.  2015.  Cultural Anthropology: Asking Questions About Humanity.  Oxford University Press. 

Strange Ways: A Biocultural Understanding of Cross-Cultural Patterns of Childrearing

Anthropologists know and realize that there are no universal childrearing practices and that the “art” of raising children does vary by culture.  While many claim to be experts on raising children and others admit that they do not have the first idea of what to do it is clear that there are a variety of different and very effective ways to raise children.  Today’s blog post will discuss the biocultural understanding of cross-cultural patterns of childrearing by examining three different examples (two modern and one historic) and breaking down how culture and biology are intertwined and ultimately benefit or detriment the child.  Biocultural practices are cultural practices that affect the biology of individuals practicing them.  These practices may seem strange to some readers, particularly American ones, but I encourage you to keep an open mind and be culturally relativistic as you might be surprised about the biological benefits and consequences of “strange” and “normal” childrearing practices.

Example 1: Finnish Babies Sleep in Boxes 

Figure 1: Finnish Babies Sleep in Cardboard Boxes Provided by the Government (Source: BBC News)

To many the idea of having one’s baby sleeping in a box conjures up notions of a family living in poverty and unable to purchase a proper crib or bed for the child, but in Finland families willingly place their babies in cardboard boxes that include a baby sized mattress (Figure 1).  Now you may be thinking a great many things, including but not limited to “How can this be?  Are they willfully abusing and neglecting their children?” 

Not at all. 

The tradition of using cardboard boxes as beds for Finish children is a fairly modern practice that dates back to 1938.  This practice began as an initiative through the Finish government to reduce infant mortality rates in the country.  Prior to the start of the initiative 65 out of 1000 Finish babies died annually, which was one of the highest infant mortality rates in Europe.  The reason for this high infant mortality rate was due in part to the Finish population being poor and unable to afford the basic necessities for babies and expectant mothers and fathers being unaware of specific prenatal treatments that would assist the newborn baby in surviving and growing up healthy.  The Finish government began to send “Maternity Boxes” to socioeconomically poor families.  These boxes contained several items, such as diapers, clothing & outwear, and a mattress, as well as information guiding families to seek medical attention for both the mothers and their infants.  The “maternity box” contents were meant to assist low income families in caring for their newborn children, and an unintended effect of this government assistance was that the “maternity box”, which was the cardboard box that housed the contents meant for baby, served as many of these babies’ first bed, primarily because these families could not afford a “proper” bed. 

Through this initiative the infant mortality rate steadily began to decline in Finland.  The maternity box was a catalyst for reducing the likelihood of death for infants in Finland because the contents provided support in ensuring the health of the developing infant in several ways.  The diapers reduced biological waste that could harm the child because cleanliness does reduce the risk of infection and disease transmission.  Also, the clothing and outwear kept children from being exposed to the elements, and while the old wives tale about the cold causing illness is false it is known that extreme weather, such as cold or heat, can negatively affect the body as it causes drastic changes in the body’s internal temperature, which can and does lead to negative health outcomes.  And the bed, well, it did not do too much to ensure the baby’s health other than reduce the stress of the parents who did not have to worry about not having the money to pay for a bed and instead could allocate their monies toward food for their infant.  The Finish infant mortality rate continued to fall as other cultural changes occurred in future decades, including the institution of a free health care to all Finish citizens. 

Example 2: Cosleeping Practices

Figure 2: Cosleeping (Nenet Culture) (Source: Marie-Stenzel, National Geographic Collection in Haviland et al. 2011)

In the United States it is common practice for a baby to sleep not only in a crib (or separate bed) but also in a separate room.  This practice is not, however, common cross culturally.  In fact, it has been demonstrated that it is more common, cross-culturally, for mothers and infants to sleep together in the same bed, a practice known as cosleeping (Figure 2).  The practice of cosleeping is slowly being adopted by some Americans but remains heavily criticized, with opponents claiming that there is a strong possibility of mother’s accidentally smothering babies by rolling over onto them as well as increasing the likelihood of producing clingy children who cannot and do not gain independence from their mothers.

But scholarly studies produce different conclusions in regards to the effects of cosleeping vs separating mother and infant so early on.  First, cosleeping practices reduce the length of infant’s crying bouts.  A perpetually crying infant can and often does stress out individuals, particularly parents who are sleep deprived and therefore already stressed, and sometimes this stress can and does manifest into physical abuse against the children.  Also, studies have demonstrated a reduction in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) among cosleeping infants who purportedly receive breathing cues from their mother and continue to breathe normally throughout the night.  In regards to the aforementioned criticisms studies have not found a significant number of infant deaths due to accidental smothering or overly dependent children.  In fact, based on an informal survey of some of my friends who practice cosleeping it seems the mothers are more distressed by no longer sharing their beds with their children than the children themselves!

Example 3: Giving Up Breastfeeding

Figure 3: Infant Formula (Source: Google Images)

It is very common these days to see advertisements for infant formula, a manufactured food meant to feed and nutritionally sustain infants (Figure 3), but the notion of abstaining from breast feeding children actually goes back to prehistoric times.  Ancient Greeks used to feed infants wine and honey, ancient Romans provided infants a mixture of goat’s milk and honey, and ancient Indian’s (as in populations from India) were known to serve their infants a mixture of diluted wine, soup, and eggs in place of breast milk.  The notion of not breast feeding is not a new one, and it was actually considered beneficial throughout various cultures and periods to not breastfeed infants. 

This notion of not breastfeeding infants for their benefit, however, is one that is incredibly detrimental to the development of infants and children.  Breast milk provides infants with essential vitamins and minerals as well as disease fighting substances, which provide early immunity to infants who are born without much of an immune system (that typically develops as our bodies are exposed to and successfully fight off various pathogens that make us ill).  A consistent trend of increased infant mortality can be seen throughout history as well as cross-culturally when breastfeeding is discouraged and/or discontinued. 

As well, not all baby formulas are created equal and some are actually incredibly nutritionally deleterious for a developing baby, causing a decrease in the overall health outcome of the child.  Case in point, ancient baby formula recipes actually left children nutritionally poor, increasing the likelihood of death.  This does not, however, mean that all baby formulas are bad for baby.  Modern baby formulas are more nutritionally beneficial to babies than past formulas, but modern baby formulas are not nearly as nutritious as breast milk.  Also, modern baby formulas can be incredibly harmful to babies in certain cases.  Modern baby formulas most often come in powdered form and require the addition of water before they can be consumed by infants.  This makes baby formula a great substitute for infants in situations when and where breast milk is not available (e.g. mothers are not developing breast milk, mothers produce breast milk that contains life threatening diseases that can be passed onto their infant, etc.).  But in areas of the world where clean water is not readily accessible powdered baby formulas can be incredibly dangerous to infants because of the exposure to unclean drinking water, which may contain dangerous pathogens that will harm the child.  Ultimately, studies have demonstrated that whenever possible it is best to breastfeed a child despite cultural prohibitions against breastfeeding.        

The cultural practices of letting children sleep in a cardboard box and cosleeping may seem strange to some, but these cultural practices serve a larger biological need, ensuring that babies are born healthy and grow up in fit environments.  In these ways culture and biology are working together to benefit individuals.  In the case of baby formulas while it may seem like cultural interventions are best for baby they are actually quite harmful and should be avoided.  So next time you see a cultural practice that is counter to what you grew up with do not immediately leap to the negative conclusion but look for the positive aspects of it.  Learning from other cultures can lead to not only a better understanding of cultural diversity but also improved health of all humans globally. 

Bibliography

Dailey, K.  2014.  “Breastfeeding: Was Their Ever A Golden Age?”  BBC News.

Haviland, W.A., H.E.L. Prins, D. Walrath, and B. McBride.  2011.  Anthropology: The Human Challenge.  Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.

Lee, H.  2013.  “Why Finnish Babies Sleep in Cardboard Boxes.”  BBC News. 

Beauty or The Beast: A Brief Review of Venus Figurines

Today’s blog post will focus on Venus figurines, which are sculptures of women often times depicted with exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics and date to as far back to the Upper Paleolithic Era (40,000 and 10,000 years ago).  Named after the Roman goddess of love, a culture and ideology that formed several millennia after their creation, these sculptures have fascinated and perplexed scholars for decades.  Venus figurines have been found throughout Europe and Asia (i.e. Siberia).  These figurines depict women of various shapes and sizes, ranging from figurines with robust and exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics and large bellies (Figure 1) to slender women with very diminutive secondary sexual characteristics (Figure 2).  They were carved out of a variety of soft stones (e.g. steatite, calcite, and limestone), bone, or ivory, but there are several examples of Venus figurines being formed and fired in clay. 

The Venus of Lespugue (23,000 BCE)

It is unclear as to what purpose the Venus figurines served in Upper Paleolithic cultures.  Speculation exists because the Upper Paleolithic groups did not have a written language, meaning scholars do not have a substantive reference to consult for understanding their past cultures.  This, however, has not prohibited scholars from hypothesizing about the nature of these unique sculptures.  The robust secondary sexual characteristics and large bellies of several Venus figurines have been associated with pregnancy and therefore some scholars believe that Venus figurines were fertility idols that were used to encourage pregnancy among women.  Other scholars claim that these figurines may actually be self portraits of Upper Paleolithic women.   Yet still other scholars believe that these sculptures were early pornographic images that served a specific purpose that pornography typically does, which is to titillate and excite.  

Venus of Galgenberg (30,000 BCE)

Despite their mysterious purpose Venus figurines do provide insights into Upper Paleolithic culture and people.  They were not oafish brutes who lacked intelligence and creativity.  They were not people who had to fight for their survival every moment of their days.  They were imaginative and artistic people who had a dynamic way of life that eventually gave rise to more modern cultures throughout the Old World. 

Sources:

Boundless. “Venus Figurines.” Boundless Art History. Boundless, 21 Jul. 2015.

Holloway, A.  2014.  “The Venus Figurines of the European Paleolithic Era.”  Ancient Origins. 

Soffer, O., J.M. Adovasio, and D.C. Hyland.  2000.  The “Venus” Figurines.  Current Anthropology 41: 511-537.

Venus Figurines.  Encyclopedia of Stone Age Art.