English sailor, ca. 1900, photographed by F. Urakawa, in Ethnic Photographs of the Nineteenth CenturyI happened to come across the style aspect of cultural appropriation recently.
Sandra, a Finnish fashion blogger living in London, wore a Native American head dress to a photo shoot and got some very aggressive feedback about it. Wanting to know more about the beef people had with her, I visited several blogs (see end of post for links) discussing the question of cultural appropriation. I got to thinking about whether I am just a burglar, breaking into the house of sacred beliefs and cultural history by occasionally wearing dream catcher earrings, a kimono jacket or a Saami witch drum pendant. It seems that according to many, I am a lowlife ignorant hipster trying to act cool at the expense of minorities. I mock people who have faced genocide, and I deeply offend the representatives of "real" traditions that go deeper than the blank canvases of white sad-excuses-for cultures. According to some, as a white privileged female, I actively participate in imperialism by wearing moccasins, prints inspired by ethnic designs, or by hanging onto my said dream catcher earrings. Thank goodness I don't have henna tattoos on my body, or I'd really be nailed to the wall.

This whole issue reminded me of a Finnish ice dancing duo, who decided to wear ice skating interpretations of native Lapp costumes in one of their performances in the mid 1990s. The majority of Finns were thrilled (how original, how pretty!), the Saami minority appalled. To this day, every time I see a "neljän tuulen hattu" ("the hat of four winds", as worn by the male ice skater Petri Kokko above) in a trendy Helsinki thrift store, I think of the ice dancers and their good intentions, and the handful of Saami minorities who got upset.
Picture taken from here
I guess it is obvious that some things should be left alone; I can feel it in my bones that the picture above is probably offensive to many Native Americans. But when it comes to wearing culturally specific jewelry or clothing as style statements (when we do so without sitting our legs crossed in front of a mock teepee), where are we supposed to draw the line? Who owns the rights to traditional prints or symbols? In our multi-layered, troubled and troubling multi-identity-filled melting pot of a world, can we even talk of cultures belonging to their representatives anymore? Isn't mixing of cultures in the heart of mankind? Haven't we always done it? Is it even possible to wear anything without making direct, sometimes uninformative references to (or stealing from) some culture or another? Are kimonos off limits? What about Ikat prints, China red, Celtic symbols, Navajo jewelry, the star of David, Peruvian blankets or Turkish evil eye pendants? What about saris, or Thai fisherman's pants? Does silk belong to the Chinese? Is "Egyptian revival" costume jewelry offensive? Which Native American tribe has the right to make or wear dream catchers (they were originally made by the Chippewa, but were later adopted by the Sioux and the Navajo)? What about sub-cultural appropriation? Should someone like Donald Trump not wear jeans or a Sex Pistols t-shirt?
"Indian chiefs who counciled with General Miles and settled the Indian War", 1891, in Michael Lesy: Bearing Witness - A Photographic Chronicle of American Life, 1860-1945Personally, I would not wear a Native American head dress as a fashion statement, even if I felt drawn to them for whatever reason or another. I wouldn't feel comfortable wearing one because I've read about a warrior's need to earn the right to wear one; the cultural context of a head dress would weigh way too heavy on my shoulders. I've also seen too many fashion magazine editorials where a white model wears some culturally specific gear in a purely eroticized manner, or poses next to indigenous people of colour in an "exotic" location. That type of stuff just makes me feel uncomfortable. (The issue falls in line with the Westward-Ho!-cowgirl rhetoric in American Vogue earlier this year, which I
posted about at the time.) When historically and culturally sensitive issues are portrayed as being cool, trendy and disposable, yes, I have a problem with that. But if this means that I can't wear my dream catcher earrings without someone labeling me as a trend-driven, mindless, exploitative imperialist just because I happen to be white, I have a problem with that, too.
Vogue Italia, photo by Steven Meisel
A blogger's guide to avoiding cultural appropriation in style issues claims that if you are drawn to culturally specific items for aesthetic reasons, you should not wear them. Just by definition, this is a little troublesome; aesthetic pleasure is inherent in the way people all over the world have always dressed. That, of course, is not to say that whatever spiritual meanings might be associated with the items in question are trumped by their physical appearance - I, for one, like the look of dream catchers, but their origin and meaning only make their beauty more interesting and inspiring. Do I have the right to wear dream catchers, then? What if I had no clue about the meaning of dream catchers? To the latter question, the blog posts I consulted say absolutely no, obviously. Wearing culturally specific, sometimes sacred items can be insulting and hurtful if the wearer is not aware of the meanings attached to the symbol by others. (Think of a crucifix worn as a fashion statement by someone who doesn't know who Jesus is, in an environment where Christians are a suppressed minority.) But when it comes to the first question, the bloggers seem to think that as long as you know the cultural and spiritual significance of the item you are wearing, you are not
automatically doing something wrong, but - and this is a major curve ball- if a representative of that culture calls you out on your choice, you have no right to defend yourself. If they say you are diluting their traditions, there is nothing you can do. If they say that you are practicing imperialism, regardless of your origin, their word is what goes. I don't know about you, but I have a serious problem with someone,
anyone, telling me what I can or cannot wear.
On the one hand, diluting the meaning of cultural iconography is, of course, awful from the standpoint of tradition and cultural conservation. Being a representative of a nation whose own indigenous cultural traditions were wiped out in the Northern Crusades and only live in one awkward chapter in the comprehensive school's history book, I get it. But on the other hand, cultures and cultural symbolism are living and breathing entities, and they are known to have their ebbs and flows everywhere. The fact is that cultures mix and overlap. They have always done so, often at the expense of spiritual traditions and "purity". Cultures don't exist in a vacuum, they never have. And the unfortunate fact is that some cultures die, too. The indigenous culture of the Finns is long gone, dead, buried. What remains is an awkward collection of folk stories bound in a national epic, and a handful of de-spiritualized traditions like the sauna. The Finns' ancient god of the water and fishing, Ahti, is now a brand of pickled herring on the shelves of the supermarket, dressed in Poseidon's costume. That's the way it goes. But of course, this does not mean that we should consciously try to destroy whatever symbols of threatened cultures are still out there, and the cultural appropriation bloggers feel that that is exactly what the Western world (I use the term loosely here) is doing.
Ahti.fi
When we are talking about cultural appropriation within the framework of style, clearly the role of fashion and multinational clothing retailers is huge. It is pretty obvious that companies have no interest in securing traditional understandings of potentially sacred symbols or culturally specific pieces of clothing. They, of course, are only out there to make money as quickly as possible. Fashion is notorious for this-that-and-the-other-culture-inspired fancy collections that then get reproduced cheaply by mass-market manufacturers, only to be forgotten when the next season arrives. It might have been Ikat prints last year, Navajo the next. The cultural or in some cases spiritual connections are lost. For most consumers, they are nothing but cool prints. As if that wasn't bad enough, these types of fashions are often portrayed in a horrible way. Like I wrote earlier, fashion magazines continuously set their editorial photo shoots in "exotic" locations. What we often see is a pretty white girl in a Versace jacket next to a child who doesn't have shoes. Some magazines are worse than others - sometimes reading British Vogue is like taking part in a one-on-one lesson in Orientalism.

Vogue UK, photos by Mario TestinoAn often-heard argument for fashion/style-related cultural appropriation is that what looks like appropriation is actually appreciation: that whoever chooses to wear a culturally specific piece of clothing is actually doing a favour for the culture in question, out of respect, or that portrayal of indigenous cultures in desirable settings can also create awareness for cultures and their symbols, prints and pieces of clothing that might otherwise be lost eventually. The cultural appropriation bloggers would be horrified to even suggest anything of the sort, and I agree with them completely. Labeling indigenous cultures "exotic", "exciting" or "erotic" and portraying them in the light of superficial consumerism is demeaning, no matter what the intentions might be. But I do wonder whether there might be at least a handful of teenagers wondering where the design of their cool new H&M feather earrings comes from, and if so, perhaps one of that handful will go online to look for information on feather use in jewelry. Perhaps they might buy their next pair of earrings from a Native, and perhaps they might educate their friends on the importance of supporting handcrafted Native pieces rather than getting a quick fix at the high street. But I guess that's just wishful thinking.
In the end it comes down to personal decision making, and the role of the consumer. It is unlikely that any free, thinking individual is going to let a stranger (regardless of what his or her cultural heritage might be) dictate what he or she can wear - in this sense, the cultural appropriation bloggers are the ones who engage in wishful thinking. It is individuals who eventually make the final decision as to what they want to wear and what they feel comfortable with. It is us who create meanings to our style choices: we pick, choose and wear our clothes to show the world who we (think we) are. Whether it is choosing eco-friendly materials or recycled clothing, whether it is all bought at H&M on the cheap, whether we are aware of the cultural references behind our clothes or not, choosing what to wear can be a pretty tricky enterprise. A lot of people in the Western world don't care about anything but looking cool, but others feel the need to make their clothing choices emotionally meaningful: we might wear our parents' old clothes or jewelry, for example, or religious symbols, or styles typical of where we are from. Our clothing choices can also represent a spiritual quest, an attempt to show that we are looking for ourselves. I am sure that these polar opposites exist in all cultures.
But there is one more question I haven't asked: why are we "Westerners" drawn to culturally specific and indigenous fabrics, jewelry and pieces of clothing? It is just because we are greedy thieves and imperialists? Or are we looking for beauty? Is it only human to be attracted to something that is different from what we know? Or perhaps our quest for indigenous cultures and their spiritual symbols and fabrics is telling of the lack of meaning and spirituality in the lives of many Westerners today. What many cultural appropriation critics see as "one destructive, white, void Western world" carries with itself a tragic, torn history of many complex, destroyed or disappeared cultural heritages that we, as citizens of the world, sorely miss.