On October 28, the Bowdoin Student Government (BSG) issued a resolution condemning “cultural appropriation,” which they defined as “a power dynamic in which [1] members of a dominant culture take elements from a culture of people who have been systematically oppressed by that dominant group, [2] perpetuates racist stereotypes, and/or [3] misrepresents a peoples culture.” I recognize the second part of this definition—racist stereotyping—as a serious problem that Bowdoin should and must condemn. However, I reject the definition’s first section—which envisions a clear distinction between dominant and subordinate cultures—as well as its third section, which asserts that “cultural appropriation” involves misrepresenting another culture. These claims perpetuate uncritical notions of culture that have no place at a sophisticated, intellectual institution. For this reason, we should condemn and address racist stereotyping while discarding the term “cultural appropriation” altogether.
The BSG’s definition assumes that each “culture” has a fixed nature that can be properly or improperly represented. This assumption contradicts academic understandings of how culture operates. Anthropologists and religion scholars avoid attributing an essence to any cultural tradition. Instead, they look at how various groups define themselves. In order to remain impartial, academics do not attribute objective reality to any of these self-definitions and instead analyze all identities as human constructions.
An example: over the past decade, certain people who identify as Hindus have criticized American religion scholarship for ostensibly misinterpreting Hinduism. Bowdoin’s religion department employs the methods that these Hindus condemn. According to the BSG resolution, Bowdoin’s study of Hindu traditions represents “cultural appropriation.” Yet before denouncing our own department, we must ask who is defining the “correct” Hinduism. Not all people who identify as Hindu condemn the scholars—only some do. Which perspective determines the correct representation of Hinduism? If we try to take the practitioners’ perspective, we find that—like every other religious or ethnic group—Hindus’ self-definitions vary between times, places and persons. If we take an academic perspective, we must deny the existence of any objective Hindu identity at all. Therefore, identifying the correct representation of Hindu culture—or of any other culture—is impossible.
Acknowledging the constructed nature of all identities reveals the fallacy of believing that neat and objective boundaries separate different cultures. While Americans tend to understand identities—particularly those associated with race— as objectively real, anthropological analysis reveals the fundamental artificiality of these categories. Thus, we must discard the idea that “cultural appropriation” involves a dominant culture taking from an oppressed culture for the simple reason that boundaries between cultures have no objective existence. Instead, different individuals draw these boundaries differently—leaving none of the agreed-upon distinctions between one culture and another that the BSG resolution presupposes.
Instead of using a vague and unhelpful term, we should describe incidents such as the “Gangster Party” as what they are: racist stereotyping. Unlike “culture appropriation,” the notion of racist stereotyping does not conflict with an academic understanding of culture. As I see it, such stereotyping—like all discourses that define an identity—describes a group by emphasizing certain features. But, unlike other group-defining discourses, racist stereotyping causes harm by reducing people into the fears and/or fantasies that others entertain about them—in this case, the fantasy of the “Black gangster.” In doing so, racist discourses demean the people who identify with (or are identified with) that group. An event such as the “Gangster Party” harnesses these insulting discourses for the purpose of entertainment. Bowdoin must condemn such racist stereotyping if it wants to build a community in which students from historically and currently marginalized groups can feel safe and welcome.
Frankly, Bowdoin students should know better than to perpetuate uncritical concepts of what culture is. The most concerning aspect of Bowdoin’s use of the phrase “cultural appropriation” involves the severe judgment that accompanies a misleading term. Activists lose credibility when they wed harsh condemnation to unexamined ideas. Bowdoin can do better.
Stephen Kelly is a member of the class of 2017.