What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ethics of Cultural Appropriation
The Ethics of Cultural Appropriation undertakes a comprehensive and systematic investigation of the moral and aesthetic questions that arise from the practice of cultural appropriation.
Explores cultural appropriation in a wide variety of contexts, among them the arts and archaeology, museums, and religion Questions whether cultural appropriation is always morally objectionable Includes research that is equally informed by empirical knowledge and general normative theory Provides a coherent and authoritative perspective gained by the collaboration of philosophers and specialists in the field who all participated in this unique research project- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
302 pages, Hardcover
First published March 30, 2009
5 people are currently reading
127 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
October 23, 2015
Confession: I didn't read this entire book, I only read that chapters that concerned the issue I had on my mind, which was only the Introduction and the final chapter (#11 - "Nothing comes from nowhere - Reflections on cultural appropriation as the representation of other cultures").
For the curious, the chapters I didn't read include discussions by various authors and researchers on the topics of appropriation & repatriation of human remains, religion, genetic research, ethnobiology, music (!), and object & artifacts.
So Chapter 11 covers audience appropriation, misrepresentation, assimilation, harmfully sympathetic/accurate representation, privacy, authenticity, and cultural relativism of "envoys".
Although the authors of this chapter (the editor James O. Young with Susan Haley) seem to believe that an audience cannot be "used up" and point to examples of "outsiders" increasing the audience, range, popularity, and acceptance of a cultural expression (Paul Simon's promotion of South African music & musicians), they do mention that members of minority cultures often have difficulty in "obtaining an audience".
I'm sure I will use this quote at some point, "Discrimination against Indigenous artist by publishers or the general public is deplorable, but it is irrelevant to the question of whether artists may represent other cultures." (p.272) Young & Haley point to Sherman Alexie to prove that audiences "prefer" authentic depictions of a culture by Native peoples speaking on their own behalf, but they fail to acknowledge that their examples might all be exceptions to the rule. Many people who are watching publishers of diverse books notice that they seem to accept the work of a member of the dominant culture writing about a minority culture more readily than the writing of a member of the minority culture about their own experience. If there isn't a measurable, finite limit on access to publisher's resources & support, there still may be one - in effect.
Right after they say, "We might hope that the voices of insiders would also be heard, but that is not a reason for not hearing outsiders," they say that insiders "could still be harmed...by misrepresentations..." and later include harm by sympathetic, or even accurate representations - which are in fact the type that are most likely to gobble up the time, attention, support, funding, resources, and space of indigenous or minority authors.
However, clearly the larger point they want to make is that if a minority culture is ignored and perceived of as "other", it is unlikely to gain empathy and respect from the dominant or majority culture, so don't shoot down these authors - embrace their potential value, and strive for the best quality possible.
That probably is a great relief to publishers, professors, and many dominant-culture authors, but it is probably not entirely welcome to indigenous and minority-culture authors.
TWO NOTES: (1) Please forgive me if I'm using language to describe authors, readers, and members of different groups that are not as fungible as I'm implying. I'm using terms from the book, and I may have misunderstood what they meant, or mis-applied the meaning. (2) Once again, James O. Young does an exemplary job of acknowledging both the influences, collaboration, and help he received in putting this collection together. It really does go a long way to gaining the reader's trust, and is so different from many professors who seem to think their graduate students are their personal, anonymous minions, and their professional colleagues are all competitive, intellectual-property-thieves.
For the curious, the chapters I didn't read include discussions by various authors and researchers on the topics of appropriation & repatriation of human remains, religion, genetic research, ethnobiology, music (!), and object & artifacts.
So Chapter 11 covers audience appropriation, misrepresentation, assimilation, harmfully sympathetic/accurate representation, privacy, authenticity, and cultural relativism of "envoys".
Although the authors of this chapter (the editor James O. Young with Susan Haley) seem to believe that an audience cannot be "used up" and point to examples of "outsiders" increasing the audience, range, popularity, and acceptance of a cultural expression (Paul Simon's promotion of South African music & musicians), they do mention that members of minority cultures often have difficulty in "obtaining an audience".
I'm sure I will use this quote at some point, "Discrimination against Indigenous artist by publishers or the general public is deplorable, but it is irrelevant to the question of whether artists may represent other cultures." (p.272) Young & Haley point to Sherman Alexie to prove that audiences "prefer" authentic depictions of a culture by Native peoples speaking on their own behalf, but they fail to acknowledge that their examples might all be exceptions to the rule. Many people who are watching publishers of diverse books notice that they seem to accept the work of a member of the dominant culture writing about a minority culture more readily than the writing of a member of the minority culture about their own experience. If there isn't a measurable, finite limit on access to publisher's resources & support, there still may be one - in effect.
Right after they say, "We might hope that the voices of insiders would also be heard, but that is not a reason for not hearing outsiders," they say that insiders "could still be harmed...by misrepresentations..." and later include harm by sympathetic, or even accurate representations - which are in fact the type that are most likely to gobble up the time, attention, support, funding, resources, and space of indigenous or minority authors.
However, clearly the larger point they want to make is that if a minority culture is ignored and perceived of as "other", it is unlikely to gain empathy and respect from the dominant or majority culture, so don't shoot down these authors - embrace their potential value, and strive for the best quality possible.
That probably is a great relief to publishers, professors, and many dominant-culture authors, but it is probably not entirely welcome to indigenous and minority-culture authors.
TWO NOTES: (1) Please forgive me if I'm using language to describe authors, readers, and members of different groups that are not as fungible as I'm implying. I'm using terms from the book, and I may have misunderstood what they meant, or mis-applied the meaning. (2) Once again, James O. Young does an exemplary job of acknowledging both the influences, collaboration, and help he received in putting this collection together. It really does go a long way to gaining the reader's trust, and is so different from many professors who seem to think their graduate students are their personal, anonymous minions, and their professional colleagues are all competitive, intellectual-property-thieves.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 of 1 review