- Acts of cultural boundary-crossing evoke significant disapproval when perceived as disrespectful or exploiting the target culture, especially when done by individuals of higher socioeconomic status.
- The concept of “cultural tariffing” emerges as a societal mechanism wherein “people assess [the boundary crossing’s] legitimacy by weighing the costs and benefits accruing to the parties involved. They approve of boundary-crossing as long as they believe the adopter does not capture more value than the target.” This mechanism aims to protect disadvantaged cultures from unfair appropriation.
- Beliefs about systemic inequality, along with individual political ideology and age, significantly influence observers’ reactions to cultural appropriation, highlighting a societal move toward recognizing and addressing cultural inequities.
Introduction
When is adopting or borrowing from a different culture okay, and when does it constitute cultural appropriation?
A new study published in the American Sociological Review sheds important light on this distinction. In it, authors Abraham Oshotse, Yael Berda, and Amir Goldberg use an experimental design to challenge some of the most established theories of culture in sociology.
Read on to learn more about their research into attitudes toward cultural borrowing, and what you can do to combat cultural appropriation.
Background
Let’s begin with some basic definitions:
- Groups are defined as collections of people with unique cultural practices.
- Practices are symbolic expressions of group identity, such as cuisine or language.
- A cultural boundary is crossed when an outsider adopts a practice that is strongly associated with another culture. For example, a U.S. chef garnishing a hamburger with kimchi, a Korean staple, would be crossing a cultural boundary.
- Cultural appropriation is seen as a form of cultural boundary-crossing that is perceived as transgressive, often because it is viewed as harmful to the target group.
When does crossing cultural boundaries turn into cultural appropriation? It depends on whether the adopter is seen as complying with the “rules of the game.” These rules can vary, leading to different reactions to similar acts of cultural exchange.
Sociological Theory and Cultural Appropriation
Probably the most famous sociological theory relevant to this discussion, based on Bourdieu’s concept of cultural distinction, argues that high-status groups are motivated to protect symbolic boundaries that maintain their social advantage:
- Therefore, on one hand, they may resist cultural mixing by lower-status groups to preserve their cultural distinctiveness.
- However, high-status individuals must balance this with the risk of being too exclusive. They cannot be so closed off that their tastes and preferences become irrelevant to the masses.
- Research indicates that people are generally averse to boundary-crossing, especially when it challenges social order. High-status individuals, however, are often given more freedom to cross cultural boundaries and defy cultural norms.
Historically, boundary-crossing by high-status individuals was not always seen as cultural appropriation. Elvis Presley, for example, was initially celebrated for bringing rock ‘n’ roll, a genre with African American roots, into mainstream U.S. culture. It was only later that his actions were reconsidered as cultural appropriation.
However, in contemporary discourse on cultural appropriation, accusations are often directed at high-status individuals, especially when they adopt elements associated with disadvantaged minority groups. For example, Kim Kardashian faced criticism for wearing cornrows, a hairstyle associated with the Fulani people of Africa. Similarly, her sister Kendall Jenner was criticized for culturally appropriating Mexican culture with her tequila brand.
Thus, Bourdieu’s theory of distinction, which dates back to the 1970s, doesn’t explain the growing awareness and calling out of cultural appropriation we see today.
What changed?
The authors answer this by arguing that cultural omnivorousness, where individuals with high status display a wide range of cultural tastes, has become prominent in Western societies. Cultural omnivorousness has made previously niche cultural practices desirable for consumption and turned cultural boundary-crossing into a form of cultural capital that can translate into economic advantage.
In other words, today, high-status individuals can cross cultural boundaries as a way to maintain their social position by showcasing cosmopolitan sophistication. This is not authentic cultural integration; it is a way for high-status people to reinforce their exclusivity.
Cultural tariffing
The authors coin the concept of “cultural tariffing” to explain what Bourdieu’s theory cannot:
- Cultural tariffing theory suggests that people are increasingly aware of the ways high-status individuals cross cultural boundaries to reinforce their own status.
- Therefore, they assess the legitimacy of cultural boundary-crossing by considering the costs and benefits for both the “adopter” and the “target” culture.
- The idea is that one has the right to cross a cultural boundary only if they have “paid a price,” which could be interpreted as showing respect, understanding, or contributing positively to the culture being adopted.
Hypotheses
To test their theory of cultural tariffing, the authors propose 4 hypotheses:
1. Group Status Hypothesis: “Acts of cultural boundary-crossing will generate disapproval if an unambiguous status difference exists between the adopter and target group that favors the adopter.”
When the adopter’s social group has higher status than the target’s, boundary-crossing is more likely to be seen as appropriation. For example, Alec Baldwin’s use of Spanish names was criticized as appropriation, while Whoopi Goldberg’s adoption of a Jewish name was not. This is because Baldwin’s white identity is seen as a position of social advantage, whereas Goldberg’s African American identity is seen as disadvantaged.
2. Socioeconomic Status Hypothesis: “Acts of cultural boundary-crossing will generate disapproval the higher the adopter’s socioeconomic status within their social group.”
Additionally, the socioeconomic status of the adopter within their own group affects perceptions of cultural boundary-crossing. High-status individuals crossing boundaries are more likely to face disapproval compared to those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. For instance, Eminem, who grew up in poverty, is seen as having a more legitimate right to rap than Macklemore, who comes from an upper-middle-class background.
3. Devaluation Hypothesis: “Acts of cultural boundary-crossing will generate disapproval the more superficial the adopter’s connection to the target culture.”
Devaluation occurs when the act of boundary-crossing undermines the prestige of the target culture or reinforces its low status:
- This can happen intentionally, such as when someone mockingly wears a costume from another culture
- It can happen unintentionally, such as when cultural artifacts are displayed in a way that emphasizes their “primitivity.”
- It can occur even when the adopter has good intentions. For example, attempts to protect the authentic nature of a multicultural neighborhood can exoticize its residents.
In general, observers assess whether an act is respectful based on the adopter’s connection to the target culture. Those with a deeper connection are seen as acting out of respect, while those with a superficial connection are perceived as devaluing the culture.
4. Extraction Hypothesis: “Acts of cultural boundary-crossing will generate disapproval the more value derived by the adopter relative to members of the target group.”
Extraction occurs when the adopter derives value from boundary-crossing that does not accrue to the target group. This can happen when the adopter’s social position provides economic advantages or when the meaning of a borrowed cultural practice is reinterpreted to benefit the adopter. For example, White individuals may consume hip-hop culture without facing the negative connotations associated with it for Black individuals. Extraction is seen as a form of theft when the adopter gains significant value at the expense of the target group.
Methods
Oshotse et al. recruited 2,999 participants through Prolific, an online survey platform. After excluding 359 participants who failed attention checks, data from approximately 650 participants per scenario were analyzed, split evenly between the transgressive and permissible conditions. The sample represented a broad cross-section of the U.S. population.
Oshotse et al. employed a between-subject experimental design to test their hypotheses about cultural boundary-crossing:
- Participants were shown scenarios describing hypothetical situations and asked for their reactions.
- A total of 16 scenarios were created, with four scenarios dedicated to each of the four hypotheses listed above.
- Each scenario had two versions: one for the treatment condition and one for the control condition.
- Participants were randomly assigned to four scenarios, each related to a different hypothesis, and within each scenario, they were assigned to either the treatment or control condition.
- The order of scenarios was randomized.
In each scenario, participants were assigned to one of two conditions, where a variable related to the person adopting a cultural practice, the target of the practice, or the context of the boundary-crossing was manipulated:
- This manipulation was intended to influence how participants perceived the boundary-crossing act as either transgressive or permissible.
- The “transgressive” condition was expected to generate higher disapproval, while the “permissible” condition was expected to generate less disapproval. Participant reactions were measured after each scenario.
- For instance, in scenarios testing the socioeconomic status hypothesis, the treatment involved a high socioeconomic status individual, and the control involved a low socioeconomic status individual. One such scenario showed a high-status white woman wearing traditional Indian clothing in the “transgressive” condition, and a low-status white woman doing the same in the “permissible” condition.
This design has two main advantages:
- First, by having each participant evaluate four different scenarios, individual differences in the tendency to express disapproval can be accounted for. These individual differences alone explained 45-48% of the variance in reactions.
- Second, testing each hypothesis with multiple scenarios allows for the inclusion of scenario-specific effects in the analysis, ensuring the robustness of the results.
Participants’ reactions were measured on a five-point scale:
- The primary dependent variable was disapproval, measured by asking if the behavior was appropriate and if the scenario made them feel upset.
- To assess devaluation, participants were asked if the adopter was respectful.
- To assess extraction, they were asked if the adopter was exploiting the target identity.
To avoid priming participants with the term “cultural appropriation,” the focus was on these emotional and evaluative responses.
Results
The study’s results show that respondents consistently express more disapproval when someone engages in cultural boundary-crossing that is seen as transgressive. This means that when someone adopts elements of another culture in a way that is perceived as inappropriate or exploitative, it generates significant negative reactions. These reactions are driven by feelings that the act is either disrespectful or exploitative.
- When people are in the transgressive condition, they are seen as behaving more disrespectfully and exploitatively than when they are in the permissible condition.
- Disrespect and exploitation mediate the relationship between the experimental conditions and respondents’ disapproval. Essentially, most of the negative reaction can be attributed to these perceptions.
- Being upset is primarily mediated by exploitation, while perceptions of inappropriateness are mainly mediated by disrespect.
The study also examined how social position influences reactions to cultural boundary-crossing:
- Respondents showed greater disapproval when the person crossing cultural boundaries had a high-status social identity, such as a wealthy or influential background.
- This effect was particularly strong in scenarios where the adopter’s identity and the target practice were manipulated, showing that the identity of the target group plays a crucial role in driving these reactions.
- Disapproval was also higher when the boundary-crosser had a higher socioeconomic status. This suggests that people are particularly sensitive to cultural appropriation when they perceive the adopter as using their privileged status to gain unfair advantages.
The study does indeed identify two primary mechanisms through which cultural boundary-crossing leads to disapproval:
- Devaluation: When the adopter lacks a genuine connection to the target culture, their actions are perceived as disrespectful. For example, a white couple giving their child a traditionally Black name without any cultural connection was seen as more disrespectful.
- Extraction: This occurs when the adopter gains more rewards from the cultural elements than typical members of the target group. For instance, a white potter benefiting significantly from using Native American designs was seen as exploiting the culture.
Additionally, the study found that:
- People who believe that inequality in the United States is systemic rather than meritocratic express greater disapproval of cultural boundary-crossing. These individuals are more sensitive to actions they see as unfairly benefiting the adopter.
- Liberal respondents and those younger than 40 showed stronger disapproval of cultural appropriation. This aligns with the notion that cultural appropriation has become a more prominent issue in recent years.
Conclusions
In sum, the study reveals that Americans, regardless of their cultural backgrounds, tend to be protective of cultural identities they perceive as socially disadvantaged. This protection isn’t merely about defending group-based entitlements but also about evaluating the perceived benefits and costs incurred by the cultural adopter compared to the target group. When boundary-crossing devalues the target identity or provides the adopter with rewards inaccessible to the target group, people disapprove more strongly.
“Cultural tariffing,” similar to international trade tariffs, seeks to limit cultural exchanges. Unlike legal instruments used in other domains, cultural boundaries are maintained symbolically. People perform mental calculations based on their understanding of systemic barriers and historical intergroup relations. For example, objections to the appropriation of Native American art are likely tied to beliefs about the discrimination Native Americans face today or their historical injustices.
The study suggests that disapproval of cultural boundary-crossing stems from a moral resentment of distributive injustice. This sentiment is reflected even among respondents who deny systemic mobility barriers, showing that discomfort with devaluatory or extractive boundary-crossing is widespread.
Relative to previous eras, high-status individuals face greater scrutiny when crossing cultural boundaries. The research shows that respondents are particularly critical of boundary-crossing by those with high socioeconomic status, interpreting such actions as exploitative. This suggests that prestige can be a liability, limiting the normative license for high-status actors to engage in cultural boundary-crossing.
Cultural tariffing, motivated by a redistributive impetus, ironically may reinforce existing inequalities by emphasizing symbolic boundaries. While intended to protect disadvantaged groups, it is unclear whether cultural tariffing undermines or exacerbates group-based inequality in a material sense. Understanding these dynamics is crucial as society navigates the complexities of cultural appropriation and boundary-crossing.
What Can I Do?
Understanding cultural boundary-crossing and the concept of cultural tariffing can help you navigate cultural interactions more respectfully. Here are some concrete steps you can take to help address the problem:
- Educate Yourself: Learn about the history and significance of cultural practices before adopting them. Understanding the context can prevent unintended disrespect or exploitation.
- Respect Authenticity: Ensure that your engagement with another culture is genuine and respectful. Avoid using cultural elements merely as fashion statements or for commercial gain without acknowledging their origins and significance.
- Support Minority Creators: Purchase cultural products and services from creators who belong to the culture. This supports the community and ensures that the benefits of cultural practices go to the rightful owners.
- Credit the Source: Always acknowledge and credit the culture from which you are borrowing. This can be done through verbal acknowledgment, social media posts, or any public display where the cultural element is used.
- Engage in Dialogue: Have conversations with members of the culture about how they feel regarding the use of their cultural elements. This can provide valuable insights and foster mutual understanding.
- Advocate for Fair Representation: Use your voice to support policies and practices that promote fair representation of minority cultures in media, education, and workplaces.
- Reflect on Intentions: Before adopting any cultural practice, ask yourself why you are doing it and who benefits from it. Ensure that your actions do not reinforce stereotypes or contribute to cultural exploitation.
- Promote Cultural Exchange: Engage in cultural exchanges that are based on mutual respect and benefit. Attend cultural events, participate in workshops, and support initiatives that encourage learning and sharing in an equitable manner.
- Be Open to Feedback: Be willing to listen and learn from members of the culture you are engaging with. If you receive criticism, take it as an opportunity to improve your understanding and actions.
- Challenge Appropriation: Speak out against cultural appropriation when you see it, especially when done by high-status individuals or corporations. Use your platform to raise awareness about why certain actions are harmful and advocate for more respectful practices.
By taking these steps, you can help foster a more inclusive and respectful environment where cultural practices are appreciated rather than appropriated. Understanding and addressing cultural tariffing ensures that cultural exchanges are equitable and that the value derived from cultural practices benefits the rightful communities.
What do you think about this new theory of “cultural tariffing” and its utility in explaining the dynamics of cultural appropriation? Chime in below in the comments!
Stay informed and inspired! Subscribe to our newsletter, “Society This Week,” and get a free copy of our exclusive report, “Peaceful, Powerful: 225 Nonviolent Tactics for Impactful Activism!”
