Cultural capture: Can whites wear dreadlocks
The phrase "cultural appropriation" in the headlines and posts of recent years, it sounds more and more like a charge. So many corporations and celebrities have been declared guilty of the thoughtless use of other people's cultural codes, that it is impossible to count them all: from Justin Bieber, who has always been on all lists of the most hated celebrities, to Beyonce, who everyone seemed to love.
There are many reasons for condemnation. For example, bindi and Indian headdresses with feathers in magazine shootings and on Coachella visitors. Or shows of collections devoted to abstract "tribal Africa", with the participation of exclusively white girls. Recognizable quotes from collections of dark-skinned designers at major brand shows, not provided with direct links to the original. A tough white singer who serves dance movements traditional for "black" culture as her own trick. White model, painted under a geisha and dressed in national Japanese clothes, which is removed from the sumo wrestlers as decorations. Hairstyles associated with African heritage on white people. Even food of African and Asian origin, cooked and served in an authentic manner. The protest of students at Oberlin College, where Lena Dunham studied, was also supported by the well-known graduate herself - she spoke about the “disrespect” of Japanese and Vietnamese cuisines in an interview with Food & Wine.
Some of the claims are understandable, some cause bewilderment. The most confusing question is this: if the current world is a melting pot, where people from different cultures live side by side, sharing experience and taking advantage of each other’s discoveries and inventions, what is the fundamental difference between "cultural appropriation" and cooperation - that is between theft and exchange? Between "conquest" and the dialogue of cultures? Why are any cases of cultural exchange cause universal indignation, and some not? Commentators on the Internet - and "black" and white; and friendly, and aggressive; and correct, and not at all - even more questions. Can someone without a Mexican family eat a burrito? Is the neighborhood with a non-French chewing a croissant insulting to a Frenchman? Should you throw away your jeans if your ancestors are not from western states? Is every white with dreadlocks a racist? Can one accuse the cultural appropriation of girls of African descent, straightening their naturally curly hair to be “like white”?
White women are models of virtue and worship. Black - objects of fetishization and cruelty
The last question is more common. After all, it is precisely the “black” hairstyles of white celebrities that account for the lion's share of media scandals. For the wearing of dreadlocks and braids someone regularly called to account. One of the most resonant cases happened to Kylie Jenner, who uploaded a photo on Instagram with five pigtails on her head and a caption: "I woke up like disss". In a comment to the post, the Star of the Hunger Games and activist Amandla Stenberg quickly came up: "When you approve of black culture and its individual signs, you don’t even think to use your influence to help black Americans by drawing attention to their wigs instead of police brutality or racism. #whitegirlsdoitbetter. " Omit the moment when Justin Bieber made a defense of Kylie, and immediately come to other, more ambitious speeches by Stenberg.
“Black signs are beautiful. Black women are not,” the actress wrote in a short essay, spreading it on social networks shortly after the clash with Jenner. “White women are models of virtue and worship. Black ones are objects of fetishization and cruelty. These are the ideas of black beauty and about black femininity in a society built on Eurocentric standards of beauty ... While white women are praised for remaking their bodies, increasing their lips and darkening their skin, black women are ashamed of the same things that they were given from birth. " On her account and the video "Don't Cash Crop On My Cornrows", in which she again pronounces the idea that things from her native culture on African Americans are being mocked. And on white people the same things become "high fashion", "cool" and "original." That is, white girls, Stenberg believes, use them to be "rebellious," give themselves a more "sharp", provocative look - and collect compliments.
The fact is that African hair is not just hair. There is a history and context that cannot be ignored, of which you will not erase centuries of slavery and racism as part of government policy. A white man who uses a “black” hairstyle ignores this context, thereby turning black hair into a fetish, into a kind of black-face. Historically, this is a form of theatrical makeup, when white actors covered their skin with black paint, and their lips were brightly smeared bright red, playing incarnated stereotypes: the characters are stupid, dapper, uselessly cheering on white women, poorly controlling their animal urges, ridiculous and cruel. In this set of roles there was also a special role - "black", who desired the impossible: liberation from the planters and slavery. For more than a hundred years, these caricatures, humiliating for real African Americans and affirming society’s contempt for them, were part of the American (and not only) theatrical tradition. Any manifestations of blackface nowadays are expected to meet with fury, be it a “black suit” (dyeing the skin black) on Halloween or all the same pigtails for selfies and likes.
And it's not so much the individual white women and men who wear braids or dreadlocks - by the way, they were worn by the Vikings, but today this hairstyle is associated with African culture - and in the remaining hierarchy: the attitude to "black" is still different from the attitude to white. The latter decide what is “fashionable” and “cool”, thereby, as it were, depriving African Americans of the right to symbols of their own cultures. Moreover, “blacks” are forced to bring themselves closer to “white” standards of beauty: their natural curly hair is called “untidy and scruffy”, dreadlocks are “dirty”, and the smell from special hair styling products with such features is “unpleasant”, comparing it with marijuana or spices.
As a result, regular straightening of curls from childhood becomes for many African-American girls almost a mandatory procedure, without which they will not be accepted in a "white" society. The decision to leave hair the way it is is a radical gesture: as early as the 1960s, the natural afro became almost the banner of the revolution - and little has changed since then. To get a feel for the situation, you can, for example, read the recent essay by writer Jennifer Epperson for the Lenny Letter.
Gucci does no favor to anyone by "paying tribute" to Dapper Dan. Cultural exchange takes place between people, not between people and corporations.
Outside of this context, the recent history of Gucci should not be considered when Alessandro Michele repeated the Harlemian designer jacket Daniel Dapper Dan Day for the cruise collection of the Italian house. Dan still in the 80s was the first to turn counterfeit into art: his clothes, completely covered with the logos of the most desirable luxury brands - including Gucci - were worn by hip-hop stars, and gangsters, and simply local dandies. The designer himself called what he did with things from the wardrobe of rich white clients of fashion houses, the word "blackanize". Michele devoted his cruise collection to counterfeit fashion, constant borrowing and exchanging between luxury and fashion: he subjected Gucification to not only Dan's work, but also several other designers and artists. They were all outraged.
However, in all other cases, the story was discussed solely as an example of plagiarism. And in the situation with Dan, the very fact that the collection is devoted to counterfeit fashion was perceived as a mockery of the history of African-American culture of that time. The phrase from the acclaimed text of Business of Fashion, where it was said that Dapper Dan himself would not have been without Gucci, because he did the same things with Italian things that Michele does with his things today, was taken to bayonets: "When Dapper Dan and Black artists create something, they are marginalized. And when large houses are "inspired" by marginalized groups, they only earn from it. " "There is a difference between engaging in a culture (eating its food, listening to its music, dancing). Usually done by individual people and its appropriation (preying on the aesthetics of other cultures. Usually done by companies), the commentators of the text resented. , "Paying tribute to" Dapper Dan. Cultural exchange takes place between people, not between people and corporations. "
Looking into the piggy banks of other cultures, looking around for inspiration is a completely normal process. But, as critics believe, you have the right to do this only by plunging into the research deeply enough, looking at stereotypes and superficial perceptions, or inviting representatives of this culture to cooperate. “Adoption,” wrote one of the commentators on the text BoF, “means that you have spent the time to establish a dialogue with the culture from which you borrow ... Adoption would mean to meet with Dapper Dan and, perhaps, to do something together. Or invite put him on the show, putting him in the front row, since you pay tribute to his work. "
Even if you move away from the story with Gucci, the value of acceptance is not in the repetition of other people's images, but in the interpretation of details. Not in copying the style, but in combining it with your own. That is why the collection of Ricardo Tisci (the most grown up in poverty) for Givenchy, in which he combined the images of Latin American cholas with Victorian aesthetics and his own style, is an example of successful interaction of cultures. True, she once provoked a storm of indignation and a wave of discussion.
Borrowing from other cultures, it is generally important to do it with respect. You should not wear signs of someone's culture as a fancy dress - "sexy Indian" or "wild native". Or use items that have sacred meaning, like accessories - it was at the Victoria's Secret show when Carly Kloss went to the catwalk in a bikini with a fringe and feather headdress (this headdress was of particular importance in the culture of Native Americans) . Wearing it just like that, especially on the catwalk, according to journalist Simon Moyi-Smith from the Indian settlement of Oglala-Lakota, is the same as wearing real orders and posthumous "purple hearts" as accessories without deserving them.
See how your childhood memories, the realities of your parents' youth, the elements of your identity turn into souvenirs for rich dandies, strangely and not everyone is happy
Meanwhile, appropriation can be called borrowing, the seizure of traditions not only from different nations, but also from marginalized social groups. In fact, the whole trend of “aesthetics of poverty”, flirting with images of people from the lower classes, who were recently laughed at, while being afraid of them, is an example of appropriation. It's not just about the life of the ghetto guys. But also about, for example, Rubchinsky's collaboration with Burberry, which revives the style of the British Gopnik - Chavs, who at one time so loved the brand cell of the fashion house, which almost ruined the brand’s reputation. Previous fans felt embarrassed to buy her stuff. Now the image is again becoming trendy.
A wave of enthusiasm for all post-Soviet ones can also be considered an appropriation - and this example is more understandable for residents of the former USSR because it already affects their own experience. Both Rubchinsky and the Gvasalia brothers, the driving force of this story, found those times and lived in them. The question is, are not wealthy buyers who, having no idea about post-Soviet poverty, Soviet repressions under the flag with a hammer and sickle, wear Hoodie Vetements for $ 700?
After all, just because of the painful associations to many Russian viewers, this trend is so unpleasant. To perceive the "poetics of poverty" and sleeping areas, markets and huge things from someone else's shoulder is more difficult, if for you it is not just a style, but the reality of a desperately poor past, which you are afraid to return one day. To see how your childhood memories, the realities of your parents' youth, the elements of your identity turn into souvenirs for rich dandies, judging by the comments in Russian media, is not pleasant for everyone.
And yet the popularity of these designers and their stylistics provoked interest in the modern culture of post-Soviet countries in general. It gave an opportunity to many "Russians" to integrate into the world cultural stream, from exotic wonders growing into global heroes. And at the same time to get rid of stereotypes about bears and balalaikas and Russian gangsters from Hollywood films. That is, although signs of their own culture on representatives of other cultures may bring discomfort, in the long run, the effect may be positive. Trying to “preserve” cultures, leaving their borders impenetrable, in order to protect them from foreign attacks, in the era of globalization is naive and unproductive. Sharing ideas and experiences, borrowing is an integral part of the creative process. And the possibility of this exchange, which is practically unlimited today, is one of the important social achievements. And who knows, perhaps, in the transition from the ownership of a particular culture to the disposal of a global one, and lies the path from segregation to unity.
PHOTO: Fear of God, Kenzo
