| |
|
Hmm, I don’t think cultural appropriation is exclusively a new age phenomena (although various systems of new age thought and practice may rely on it)—like someone stated above, the appropriation of aspects of foreign cultures into a specific culture has been going on for a long time. Perhaps it has been happening for as long as groups of people have come together to form cultural structures. I mean, whatever culture is, it certainly seems to be constructed on various blocks that fit together to form its overall content and influence. I doubt that any of these blocks are exclusively original, but are either bits of other cultures’ practices and beliefs—in whole or with alteration, or are reprocessed aspects of the specific culture that retain some form of stability, but also may be mutated. I don’t feel that culture is static, because it is made up of the individuals within it, and individuals are entities that evolve over time; however, there certainly are systems within cultures that have some stability even as the host culture remains dynamic.
In some ways I agree that the mingling of cultures is healthy as it does lead to greater diversity and understanding. However, cultures can also be destroyed by being subverted by other cultures. It is a fine balance, I think, and one that is not easily maintained. Even a host culture can be irrevocably altered by its appropriation of bits of other cultures.
I once gave a casual reading of some book (can’t recall name or author) the argument of which was that things like magic and spirituality are devoid of meaning, power, and purpose when transposed outside of the culture in which they originated. Indeed, this thesis has some merit. A good example is that of a shaman. I could proclaim myself a shaman and base my shaman practices upon some cultural model; however, if I am not imbedded within that culture, then it is likely that my practices are going to be largely a pointless endeavour since much of a shaman’s purpose and power is based solely upon the position and role s/he plays within a specific cultural milieu. Indeed, it is often this milieu which empowers the individual shaman in the first place!
On the other hand, I tend to feel that practice and belief are not merely a cultural phenomena, but a personal experience as well. Thus, it all depends on what the individual wants to get out of these things. This means that some eclectic picking and choosing might be more empowering than trying to devote one’s self to a specific set of religious and/or spiritual practices and beliefs. I also wouldn’t say that picking and choosing is merely a reflection of consumerist ideals (although I do think that it can be that): to think so is also “a massive over-simplification of a hugely complex process.”
Also, I think there is a give and take interaction amongst aspects of cultures. ImpLad mentions Buddhism above, and here is a good example. It’s not merely that certain people took what they wanted from Buddhism, it is also that Buddhism was taught and spread in certain ways by its devotees which reflected some aspects of indigenous cultures in order that the more general practices of Buddhism would catch on a flourish. Indeed, as has been mentioned above regarding Xtian offshoots, we can see that it’s not simply that some people took Xtianity and altered it, but that some people gave Xtianity to others in altered forms. Tied in with this, interpretation and understanding are two key factors that are going to strongly influence both the giving and taking of such and such practices and beliefs.
Now is all of this or any of this disrespectful and misrepresentative? Well, yes, sometimes it certainly is, but it isn’t always—how could it be? Again, much of it is going to depend directly upon specific instances of appropriation and representation with respect to agendas, goals, aims, means, desires, deeds, and so on. |
|
|
