Dine and Debate: Is cultural appropriation ever beneficial

A luxury brand sells traditional Indian bag designs for £5,000 while the artisan whose community created the design and perfected the process over generations earns pennies. But when shown photos of his work gracing international runways, he doesn't express outrage, he laughs and says, "people are funny." This disconnect between expected anger and actual response reveals why the cultural appropriation debate is far more complex than many assume.

This scenario emerged from our latest "Dine and Debate" session, where our team grappled with the question: Can cultural appropriation ever be beneficial to communities? Through personal experiences with validation and violation, alongside observations about commercialisation and community impact, our conversation revealed that while cultural appropriation has become a corporate minefield, many businesses are missing the nuanced reality of appropriation vs appreciation. 

The Power Dynamic Reality Check

We began by establishing that cultural appropriation refers to adopting elements from cultures outside your own without proper acknowledgement of their origins or context, often for commercial gain and/or social kudos. Crucially, it's inherently connected to power dynamics; how our social identities interact with histories of exclusion and systemic inequality, determining who gets to engage with culture, how they're perceived, and whether they're acknowledged.

The harm typically occurs when dominant cultures extract elements from marginalised cultures without credit, context, or compensation. But as our discussion revealed, power dynamics aren't always straightforward.

We considered a classic dismissal of appropriation allegations, many of us had heard: "That's like saying you can't wear jeans and a T-shirt because that's my culture." This comparison fundamentally misses the point because it conflates mass-produced consumer goods with deeply interconnected and meaningful cultural symbols. Jeans don't carry sacred significance or serve as markers of community identity, but a bindi does, as do crucifix necklaces.

Moreover, Western clothing achieved global prevalence through mass production and capitalism; it was designed to be exported, consumed, and adopted worldwide. The question isn't whether cultural elements can cross boundaries, but who sets the trends, who holds power over cultural narratives, and who benefits when they do.

Integration vs. Appropriation: Where's the Line?

Our team discussed the discomfort some feel around wearing cultural clothing or hairstyles during celebrations like weddings, despite being in interracial relationships where the intention is to show respect. This led us to an important distinction: the difference between integration and appropriation often lies in the daily life connection versus aesthetic consumption.

Following this line of thinking, we discussed families who have migrated, live within a culture and adopt its practices as part of their community membership: this is integration. When someone extracts elements for personal gain without understanding, acknowledgement, or reciprocity, that's appropriation. Unfortunately, it likely won’t change the discomfort some feel despite them being appreciative of another culture, as the appropriation and ridiculing of cultural practices is still not an uncommon phenomenon. 

The Validation Paradox

Our team members discussed how sometimes the communities being ‘appropriated’ don't actually feel that it is entirely negative when groups ‘borrow from’ their culture. We discussed how, when Madonna incorporated henna into her aesthetic decades ago, many South Asian communities felt validated rather than violated. "It was almost like she was showcasing something inherent in our culture and showing it was cool," reflected Selina.

This created a moment of reflection as we questioned whether feeling seen and valued can be beneficial, particularly when someone culturally significant showcases your traditions on a global stage, especially for communities that have historically been marginalised or ignored.

However, we agreed that validation isn't the same as equity. While personal feelings of pride are understandable, they're distinct from the broader question of whether appropriation serves justice by respecting and platforming its origins, rather than ignoring original creators and imbuing extracted elements with entirely new meanings.

The Exposure Economy

This brings us to the next most uncomfortable question of our Dine and Debate: Can cultural appropriation ever be beneficial if it platforms cultures that previously lacked exposure? 

Shilpa shared a compelling video example:

"I saw a TikTok where this lady showed how under a banyan tree in India, this man and his whole family sit and weave bags every day, selling them for a few rupees. But since this luxury brand used their design, lots of people are going there because it's off the beaten track and seen as cool to visit and get something authentic and original. It's become an attraction; if I'm going to that part of India, I'm going to make sure I see the man under the banyan tree. He was even shown a photo of the designer bag and told the price point, selling for £5,000, and the artisan's response was just, "People are funny." That was the extent of his reaction.”

At first glance, this seems like a win-win scenario. The luxury brand gets inspiration, tourists visit the artisan, and traditional crafts gain visibility. Some might argue this brings deserved attention to traditional crafts, potentially driving tourism and economic interest to artisan communities. The moral dilemma could become: should creators profit from mainstream interest in their culture, or maintain authenticity while struggling financially?

But this surface-level analysis misses crucial power dynamics. Mass production and commercialisation mean brands hold power and the ability to take these designs, morph them however they please, and pocket the economic benefits without any trickling down to the artisan communities that created them. While this case may bring temporary attention to the artisan's products, what happens when the trend fades? The artisan may have lost ownership of their cultural intellectual property without ever consenting to or, in many cases, benefiting from its commercialisation. Worse, as commercial versions become more accessible and affordable, consumers may choose them over authentic pieces, ultimately moving the practice further away from original creators and marginalising them further.

True cultural appreciation would involve partnership, profit-sharing, and platform-sharing, not just extraction followed by exclusion.

Cultural appropriation: The Path Forward

Cultural appropriation will never be a binary issue with clear-cut answers. The goal isn't to gate-keep culture so that no one can learn from or be inspired by others. Instead, it's about building frameworks that allow for cultural exchange while addressing power imbalances and ensuring fair recognition and compensation.

So, returning to our original question: Can cultural appropriation ever be beneficial to communities? 

The answer is nuanced but clear: Appropriation itself is not beneficial; it has to be appreciative. The distinction lies in the approach. When we extract without context, credit, or compensation, we perpetuate harm regardless of intentions. But when we engage through partnership, shared platforms, and equitable benefits, we create opportunities for genuine cultural exchange that elevate everyone involved.

For businesses, this means moving toward proactive engagement and creating systems where cultural sharing can happen respectfully, where communities can benefit from their contributions to global culture, and where diversity becomes a source of innovation rather than anxiety. 

At The Unmistakables, we've taken concrete steps to address this challenge by developing an ‘exploitation to appreciation’ tool, which embeds cultural consideration checks within the creative process. This framework helps us evaluate how we engage with different cultures fruitfully and respectfully, ensuring we address these concerns proactively rather than reactively because prevention benefits more communities than damage control.

Contact us if you’re interested.