Categories 1 and 4 (Cultural Exchange and Transculturation) seem to be desirable environments for ethically sound for cultural inspiration. Rogers argues that in Cultural Exchange and Transculturation, the cultural appropriation is not as strongly associated with insensitivity and prejudice. This is because in these forms, the cultures involved share "equal levels of power". This is in contrast to categories 2 and 3 (Cultural Dominance and Cultural Exploitation) where there is the existence of a dominant culture and a subordinate culture. But how can one culture be said to have more power than another? How is the power level of a culture established? The power structures and struggles between cultures is an important factor to be aware of as it contextualises the way in which cultural appropriation may be perceived. Labeling one culture as dominant over another is certainly an unsavoury proposition but is, unfortunately, a harsh reality. This is chiefly because of a particular practice that has haunted human history since antiquity: colonialism.
Cultural Exploitation: "Curry"
Indian cuisine is a popular option for many people in Western countries. In these countries (and certainly in the country that I grew up in: the UK), one word encompasses Indian food - "curry". In a western context, curry is not a specific dish but it has come to represent Indian main meal dishes in general. The word originates from the Tamil, kari (கறி), which is a specific type of sauce in South Indian cuisine. "Curry", in english, was first used by in Britain to mean any sauce-based Indian dish and the meaning of this english word has since broadened to include other types of Indian food. The word can stir up strong reactions as some feel the cultural exploitation of the British "taking" the whole of Indian cuisine and labeling it as one term is unrepresentative of the versatility of Indian cooking and insensitive to the artfulness of the cuisine. "Lazy and laziness breeds ignorance" writes food blogger, Asma Khan, in relation to the term curry being used to represent a wide range of Indian dishes10. Author of numerous bestselling Indian cookbooks, Madhur Jaffrey, also takes objection to the "confusing" term:
The ethical solutions to these instances of cultural appropriation are not so clear. I am not offering an opinion as to what I feel is ethically right but, rather, offering questions that should be raised and thought about when approaching other cultures for inspiration. As creative artists in the field of music, we too should be asking ourselves such questions. These questions formulate more coherently the more aware we are of the histories associated between cultures. Before embarking upon this research, I must confess that I was quite indifferent to the complexities of colonialism in music. I, rather ignorantly, thought that music should be evaluated on artistic quality (which itself is difficult to judge!) independent of cultural associations. I now feel that my thinking was flawed because music (like all other cultural elements) is perceived, at least partly, through culture. The way an individual perceives music of their culture will be different to the way a foreigner perceives the same music. This is why there are issues of authenticity and insensitivity through certain forms of cultural appropriation, such as the example of the word "curry" being either a simplification or celebration of Indian cuisine.
If cultures are to be authentically represented within works of art, one must be aware of the concept of cultural appropriation. Let us first define what cultural appropriation is. The term is precisely the sum of its parts: appropriation of a culture. Appropriation is the act of "taking exclusive property of”, derived from the Latin appropriare (which is also a root of the word “property”)1. A basic definition of the term would, therefore, be - The taking of elements from a culture. These elements could be anything native to a particular culture such as traditions, language, laws or art.
Professor of Communication Studies at the Northern Arizona University, Richard A. Rogers, claims that cultural appropriation is an "undertheorised" term. In his article "From Cultural Exchange to Transculturation: A Review and Reconceptualization of Cultural Appropriation", Rogers considers a number of different types of circumstances and examples of cultural appropriation3. His examples range from the institutional assimilation of Native American children into Anglo-American culture; to the appropriation of American/Western ideals of beauty in the Japanese fashion industry. In evaluating these different situations, Rogers devises a typological approach to understanding the concept of cultural appropriation in a more holistic way. Rogers presents four categories under which different forms of cultural appropriation exist:
Colonialism
The invasion and control of one or more group(s) of people by another group of people is a grossly immoral occurence that has happened, and continues to happen, across the globe5. One of the consequences of colonialism is the formation of power structures between cultures. The culture associated with the colonisers is defined as dominant to the subordinate culture associated with the colonised. It is important to stress here that the terms 'dominant' and 'subordinate' do not refer to the cultures themselves but only to the level of power that each culture holds due to political and historical circumstances. There are innumerable instances of colonialism and it is certainly something that has strongly affected Eastern cultures. I would, now, like to briefly come back to a point that I mentioned in the beginning of this exposition. In the introduction, I explained the main reason why this research is important to me, my own cultural identity. Being born and brought up in the UK and having Indian ancestral heritage has meant that I have been fortunate enough to draw inspiration from two cultures that I have been immersed in throughout my life. Indian and British cultures are very closely connected because of the recent history regarding the "British Raj" where Great Britain took authorative rule over India (1858 - 1947)6. Through my formal education in Scotland and my own cultural surroundings (family connections and frequent visits to India), I was able to develop an understanding of this colonial rule of India through both cultural lenses 7. In this case, and during that particular period of history, British culture would be deemed as dominant to Indian culture, in line with Roger's typology of cultural appropriation. Let us consider an example of Cultural Domination and an example of Cultural Exploitation within the context of the British Raj. What is interesting about the two examples are the ethical questions that they raise and how, despite being marred by the overarching theme of colonialism, they are difficult to entirely condone.
There is a point to be made about the word curry giving a gross generalisation of Indian food, however, the word "curry" has becoming a cultural phenomenon itself in the UK. In fact, the immensly popular curry, "chicken tikka masala"11, is regarded as one of the UK's national dishes. The word, undoubtedly, originates as a result of cultural appropriation but the question is: is this cultural exploitation or transculturation? The arguement for cultural exploitation is that it can do a disservice to the immense diversity and range of dishes in traditional Indian cuisine. India is a huge country and the type of food greatly differs from region to region. Using one word to describe this cuisine can give the impression that it is one-dimensional and that all dishes are of a similar type, which is far from the case. But despite these semantic implications, is the word so harmful? Another argument supports the word as an example of transculturation. Having voted one "curry" as a national dish, it is clear that Brits love Indian food12. The commonplace of the word curry shows a strong fondness for Indian food and the fact that the British version of curry may not be entirely authentic to the original Indian dishes shows a mix of the two cultures. Perhaps this could be seen as a compliment by the western world to Indian cuisine? Unfortunately, however, the history of colonialism between India and the UK must be considered. It is for this reason that there exists such sensitivity around issues like this one: the appropriation of any cultural element from India by British culture is tarnished by the brush of this colonial past.
In the next chapter we shall look at the response to cultural appropriation with the rise of the alternative term "cultural appreciation". Is this a more suitable term than cultural appropriation? By looking closely at this debate, we should be able to uncover more perspectives as to how we may approach cultures as a source of inspiration in a suitable way.
Based on this definition, it is understandable why the term is commonly associated with cultural insensitivity, offense and prejudice. The "taking" of cultural elements can imply the notion of unwarranted use and explotation of foreign cultural elements2. Certainly, the use of cultural elements in an inappropriate way may be categorised as cultural appropriation as those cultural elements are being "taken" from a culture. However, are all forms of cultural appropriation unethical?
Cultural Domination: Sati
Sati was a religious (Hindu) tradition in India whereby a widow would sacrifice herself by walking into the burning pyre of her deceased husband (during cremation). In the early written records that exist of this practice, Sati was initially a voluntary act8 but as religious fanaticism grew in India, the tradition became forced upon widows by priests and religious communities. The British Raj opposed to this practice which led to the enactment of the "Bengal Sati Regulation, 1829" - a law which made Sati illegal under British rule and punishable by death (figure 1)9. Here, the dominant British cultural values are being imposed on Indian culture by banning a traditional practice that was of significant religious (and therefore cultural) importance. Was what the British did in imposing this law correct? On one hand, the colonial rule and imposition of laws (including this law) upon a country that has not decided through its own political system is unfair and unethical. But on the other hand, the practice of Sati was itself a cruel and violent practice that subjugated Hindu women to, quite literally, fear for their lives. After independence, the Indian government put forward further laws in an effort to totally eradicate this tradition, but the foundations of these laws come from the governing of the British Raj. So, the campaign to end one of the darkest practices in India began during one of the darkest periods of modern Indian history. To make a moral judgement on the right or wrong of cases like this is not so straightforward.
Figure 1a
"How can you take such a big country with so many states within it, with such different cuisines within it, where every town has specialties and special dishes - how can you take all that food from around India and call it all curry?"11
- Cultural Exchange – an ideal interaction between two cultures with each culture holding equal levels of power
- Cultural Dominance – the imposition of qualities, values and materials of one dominant culture on another subordinate culture
- Cultural Exploitation – the improper use of elements of a subordinate culture by a dominant culture without permission
- Transculturation – the mixing of numerous (more than 2) cultures to form hybrid cultures. The direct result of globalisation4
