Cultural Invalidation
It’s More Than Just “Not Having Permission”
When I think of cultural appropriation words like ‘borrowing’, ‘cultural exchange’, ‘assimilation’, etc. all come to mind as these are the most basic arguments that are able to be derived from it’s academic definition of “taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expression, or artifacts from someone else’s culture without permission.” As if race relations in America weren’t already complicated enough, this empty label has made the line even harder to draw in public spaces where all types of bodies are evaluated by face value which is dependent on self interpretation of another person’s culture: their skin color, style, gadgets, use of brand names, and other various cultural markers determine a value to base the interaction off of.
‘Culture’ is the perfect umbrella term for the social aspect of the problem, it’s the word ‘appropriation’ which is the source of confusion that comes with applying these words to describe human behavior. Officially appropriation is defined as: “the action of taking something for one’s own use, typically without the owner’s permission.” Breaking down the term shows that being combined with the ‘cultural’ doesn’t cut out the implications that ‘appropriation’ is merited by the commoditization of cultures as a whole.
Anyone can buy a traditional saree, a head scarf, a head of dreadlocks put it on a model (or themselves) and call it a derivative of their creativeness. What the word ‘appropriation’ fails to describe is the fact that most of the ‘borrowing’ isn’t done in favor of the culture it is borrowing from. The ‘exchange’ language of it all implies that the user is crediting their experience to their ability to afford it, both monetarily and socially.
One recent example of cultural appropriation has been this online individualized adaptation of hijab culture that is trending among white women on social media as #WISH(Women In Solidarity with Hijabis). As an over whelming amount of these women who are posting to the page are white, the images they provide don’t quite exactly match the message they are trying to send as a campaign against Islamaphobia, making this a perfect example of classic culturally centered appropriation that can be percieved as two different things by two different pairs of eyes.
Being based on a online platform places this movement at a distance from the culture it is trying to represent since the adaptation is based on giving white bodies the chance to say that “not everyone in a hijab should be profiled as a terrorist” and not about showing images of already profiled muslim women who have their own history in experience of being ridiculed for wearing a hijab. And who’s to say that these women arn’t terrorizing? At what point is their stealing of a Muslim faith based symbol not supposed to offend those who actually practice it? This isn’t about discrediting these women for putting effort into creating a movement that other women identified with, this is a moment to understand why words like ‘cultural appropriation’ don’t cut it. It’s a violent experience to be a personal member of a culture that has been historically marginalized by white bodies, and to witness recognition be given to those same type of bodies because their adaptation displays a less threatening image that aligns with the existing functions of culture.
“Human rights discourse and praxis legitimated what is described as state violence and state terror. Human rights become the expression of politically legitimated power…it legitimates a particular concept of violence — the violence of militarization, ecological destruction, technological terrorism are not recognized forms of violence.” — Corrine Kumar
Culture has served as another form of constructions when it comes to the existing dominant culture proving to be a timeless concept that is rooted in human behavior and interaction is seen by the sovereign American state as a ‘human right’ and we all have been feed this narrative that “our 50 states have been united by a belief in equality and human rights for all — regardless of race, religion or economic advantage.” This gives rooms for those of us who have no personal connection to a culture to use it in a way that by standard of humans rights, and on the basis that these rights are based on the globalized economy, is not violent at all. The #WISH campaign then isn’t still perpetuating the idea that wearing a hijab makes you a suspected terrorist, as long as you do it under the name of allying with Muslims (not acutally being Muslim, cause you know what that means) and you have pale skin, Facebook will accept your pictures in hijab.
“Our experiences, our meanings, our symbols were not included in the repositories of knowledge.”
Cultural Invalidation. Cultural Violation. Cultural Nullification.
Invalidation is defined as being when ‘a person’s thoughts and feelings are rejected, ignored, or judged’. Violation is defined as ‘an act of irreverence or desecration’. Nullification is defined as ‘when one thing overcomes or overrides another, basically erasing the effects of the first thing’.
These are words that are rooted in emotionality more than they are in politics making them better words to communicate the hurt that is felt when another person uses your culture in capitalistic ‘for-profit’ way that usually means in the eyes of the mass, a culture’s authenticty is based on how well it can be reproduced for the masses. This isn’t a clean break that I’m proposing here, global capital flow ensures that no matter what the decision of the people, there is always going to be someone motivated by money, but this is exactly why using words like invalidation, violation, and nullification can provide the context needed for the those affected by cultural appropriation to address they abuser in a way that doesn’t rely on contradictory nature of the dominant paradigm we’re all doomed to live in.
