In 1994, the Indiana University’s publishing house (Indiana University Press) released a book authored by George Lipsitz titled Dangerous Crossroads: Popular Music, Postmodernism, and the Poetics of Place. In Crossroads, Libsitz details what he refers to as strategic anti-essentialism (Lipsitz, 1994). Lipsitz defines this novel phenomenon as, “the adoption (and adaption) by one cultural group of a cultural form drawn from a different culture, typically in order to resist an imposed cultural identity,” (Lipsitz, 1994). Libsitz claims that these episodes of anti-essentialism are a form of restitution, which (when properly utilized) promote freedom and enhances one’s perception of their own experiences and responsibilities.

While many today would not recognize the term strategic anti-essentialism, they would recognize the term’s analog in the common lexicon: cultural appropriation. While cultural appropriation is often not well defined by those asserting its existence (or decrying those who “appropriate”), Lipsitz does clearly define strategic anti-essentialism.

Beyond his explicit definition provided above, Libsitz gives additional clarity to his term through numerous examples of strategic anti-essentialism throughout his literary works. Libsitz states that a member from a minority population can adopt (or appropriate) cultural trends, dress, language, etc. from other minorities in order to forge a coalition with the other minorities to fight oppressive forces (Lipsitz, 2007). Members from majority populations can also adopt cultural trends, dress, language, or music from minority groups only if the majority group does not use the cultural adoption to bolster stereotypes and the adopting person (or persons) from the majority group acknowledge the cultural history, oppression, etc. of the adopted group (Lipsitz, 1994).

While Lipsitz utilized essentialism in his definition of the phenomena he observed, his usage of the word seemingly contradicts the word’s definition. If one were to construct a connotative lexical definition for Lipsitz’s phrase, it may look like the following: 1. a careful plan 2. that opposes 3. the inherent attributes that are essential to something (the definitions of strategic, anti-, and essentialism, respectively) (Merriam-Webster, 2018 and Cartwright, 1968). As essentialism is the belief that all things (metaphysical and physical alike) have essential characteristics that are unmovable and are inherent to that thing alone, Lipsitz supplants this definition of essentialism with his own, which is a social, racial, and cultural characteristic(s)/identity that is imposed on a population (namely a minority population). One can derive that this supplementation asserts the very idea of a cultural identity (or essentialism) must be (in some way) the result of an external oppressive force trying to bind people into various social strata.

Lipsitz’s commentary on essentialism and anti-essentialism has become increasingly omnipresent in contemporary life. Unlike other forms of essentialism that were strictly relegated to academic discussions or that fell out of favor socially, the idea of cultural appropriation has impacted daily discussions to a surprising degree. Most recently, a worldwide debate erupted when a non-Asian girl decided to don a Chinese dress on her prom night. On April 22nd, 2018, Keziah Daum posted a picture of herself in her prom dress to the social media site Twitter. While this post would have, undoubtedly, garnered no special attention had she worn a prevailing style of dress common for girls with her physical complexion, she chose to wear a qipao (a rather elegant Chines dress, which took on its current form in the 1920s).

After viewing Daum’s picture, on April 27th, 2018, Twitter user Jeremy Lam posted a response to the prom post, which contained the original post along with a comment (authored by Lam) that stated, “My culture is NOT your goddamn prom dress.” This post became the motivation for (at the time of this writing) an eight-day international media story. Those who support Daum point to the fact that Lam is American, so he has no claim to Chinese culture, and that by asserting that only Chinese people can wear the qipao Lam is promulgating racism. Those that support Lam say that because Daum is not Chinese, she does not appreciate or understand Chinese culture and/or history and is thusly relegating the whole of Chinese culture to a material good that can be purchased.

It is effortless to berate and criticize those in either camp Daum or camp Lam. To be certain, members of these opposing camps have tirelessly attacked each other with caustic vitriol. What many in both camps forget is that their “opposition” rarely is malicious or has malicious intent (though care must be taken to not discard the notion of a malicious actor due to their infrequency). Most people who find themselves in this hippodrome are doing what they think is appropriate in this situation. Moreover, both groups are, ironically and unknowingly, participating in the same, “cultural appropriation” phenomenon that sparked their bellum sacrum!

Contrary to what those who denounce cultural appropriation may think, this so called cultural appropriation is a natural, vital and, somewhat jocosely (especially in light of Lipsitz’s definition), essential part of the human fabric. What those who advocate for the abolishment of cultural appropriation fail to comprehend is that, unlike many other forms of life, human behavior is a thread that is woven into the human evolutionary attire. Human behavior is joined by genetic material, which makes up this sister thread found in the evolutionary fabric. Just as with any textile, threads come in a host of colors, lengths, durabilities and stabilities. Some threads are weaker than others and break when tension is applied, or they are no longer applicable to biologythe attire’s current demands. Thusly, the thread is removed and replaced by a more suitable thread.

In his 1976 book, The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins goes into detail on the machinations that drive physical evolution, namely the passing of various genes from one lifeform to another. While the mechanisms of biological evolution had been a topic of academic discussion since Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, Dawkins introduced a concept which is at the core of the discussion at hand, the meme (Dawkins, 1976). Unlike it’s colloquial doppelganger, Dawkins’ meme is an analogy to an idea, culture, or belief. Ideas can take the form of many things. Fashion, religion, philosophy, music and art are all the phenotypical result of memes. Just like their genetic siblings, memes undergo various evolutionary pressures, which “mutate” the meme or eliminate the meme in future generations.

One of the clearest examples of memetic evolution is human participation in religion. Thousands of years ago, people participated in independent-tribal religious traditions. The independent nature of the tribal religions meant that the religion was bound to the population size of the tribe. After humans began to forego tribal life for agrarian and urban lives, these tribal religious memes encountered one another (sometimes for the first time) and began competing with one another. After thousands of years of competition, 86.4% of the human population (or roughly 6.5 billion people) belong to one of four religious schools of thought (which also include atheism/agnosticism) (Pew Research Center, 2017). Memetic evolution also became the downfall of the institution of slavery, which existed since antiquity but was almost entirely destroyed in a span of approximately the last 210 years. Basically, memes that once provided suitable fitness to a person (or group of people) no longer could, so they were replaced by, or mutated into, more suitable memes.

Just like genetic change, memetic change does not occur in the best interests of a host organism in a vacuous environment. If entirely isolated from changing environmental pressures or contact from other animals, an isolated animal species could quickly face the deleterious genetic perils of inbreeding or become vulnerable to diseases or climate conditions that are not native to their locale. Though the isolated animal species may endure for centuries in their isolation, it is unquestionable that the free flow of genetic information (and the competition that is a basal component of said free flow) produces the strongest and best organisms that can be produced with a defined amount of genetic material.

Likewise, isolated memes wither and open memes thrive. The further isolated the meme is, the more it is affected by intellectual inbreeding. Just as with genetic inbreeding, intellectual (or memetic) inbreeding can yield noxious and deleterious mutations which destroy the overall fitness of the culture, language, religion, ideology, politics, economics, etc. Conversely, memetic environments that are open allow only the most utilitarian, stable, and durable memes to thrive. These open environments (just like open genetic environments) allow for the fittest memetic vehicles to emerge.

There are, however, legitimate concerns over stereotypes (as well as other harmful memes) and memetic transfer by way of force that must be addressed. In the case of the former, stereotypes are an embodiment of intellectual inbreeding. They are the hobbled, withered, shell of a body that has been twisted by isolation, instinctual fear, and no social competition. Thusly, stereotypes are regularly unfit memes and are finite in duration, as their duration is inversely proportional to the time spent in direct contact with the item, idea, animal, or person being stereotyped. The more time spent interacting with the stereotyped subject, the weaker the caricature becomes. Therefore, the way to directly combat stereotypes is to allow them to openly compete with other memes and observational data. Repeatedly addressing stereotypes in a direct fashion only allows the meme to survive that much longer, insofar as the address effectively resurrects a mutation that would have otherwise been removed and forgotten from the meme pool.

Conquest and memetic transfer by force is also a topic of intense debate. Should one adopt the memes of the “conqueror” or the “imperialist?” One may, and should, address such issues on a personal level, although keep in mind that, in addition to a physical conflict, a memetic conflict also took place during the “conquest.” The memes of the conquered may have been sufficient for their survival in their niche; however, the memes of the “aggressing” force allowed them to have a more uniform personnel cohesion, superior weaponry, and the ability to adapt to an unfamiliar environment. Ergo, the memes of the aggressing party provided them an improved fitness over the “aggressed” party. This is not to morally sanctify the actions of the aggressor, as to judge either memetic makeup of either side as good or bad is unfair to the past (as those who lived with the memes and had to deal with the real consequences of their time, cannot defend themselves against such moral accusations).

Memetic transfer through force is not always a net negative event either. To explain how, let’s imagine an isolated island. On this paradisaical isle lives a verity of related amphibial turtles. A clear majority of these turtles hunt by diving at their prey (when in the water) and lackadaisically roam the island to sleep, eat vegetation and play. There is a minority group of turtles that only travel in small groups, sleep in large formations, and hunt by swimming below their prey and attacking them from below. In this island environment, the memes (hunting strategy, travel procedures and sleeping habits) being utilized by the majority population of the turtles and the minority group of turtles alike are sufficient for survival on the island. In fact, since their population is larger, it could be said that the majority population of turtles have a memetic advantage.

One day, a small group of seafaring saltwater crocodiles happen across the island. They decimate the majority population, as the turtles travel independently and cannot dive below the crocodiles. The minority population of turtles, however, were able to survive land-based onslaughts by the crocodilian menace (as they travel in groups) and have some success attacking the crocodiles in aquatic environments (as they could attack the bellies of the amphibian lizards). The conflict between the minority population of turtles and the small band of crocodiles ends in an impasse. Some crocodiles stay on the island and the once minority population of turtles become the majority population.

In this hypothetical scenario, whose memetic makeup reigned supreme? It completely depends on the environmental variables being considered. In a static environment, the previous majority population of turtles had a superior memetic makeup. In a dynamic environment, the minority population had the superior makeup. The population of crocodiles that “invaded” the island had an adaptive memetic structure that allowed them to survive the open seas, hunt on multiple land-based environments and launch concurrent offensive and defensive strategies against the turtle population. Would an outside observer diminish the competency of crocodiles in their hunting expedition? No. Would an outside observer shame and belittle the surviving turtles for their culture, which allowed them to survive the reptilian onslaught? Absolutely not, nor would an outside observer condemn the once majority population of turtles for their culture. Each animal group utilized what they could and in what they believed was the most optimized fashion. Indubitably, the survival fitness of the turtles on the island has been drastically improved by the addition of an outside variable. Had the crocodiles not arrived on the island, the minority population of turtles may have been out-competed and driven to memetic extinction. Had this been the case, if a predator had happened across the island, the whole of the turtle population would have perished. This was not the case, however, and the hunting and social culture of the minority population was allowed the chance to thrive through the chaotic predation event and protected the genes of the surviving turtle community thereafter.

Beyond being counterproductive in an evolutionary sense, the idea of castigating cultural appropriation is horribly regressive in a social sense. To explain why, let’s return to the case of Daum versus Lam. Lam’s argument is one that is heard commonly in this day and age. The argument fundamentally states that someone may only express themselves with cultures, traditions, languages, etc. that are associated with their physical characteristics, sexual preferences, and sex. Thus, this dogma artificially creates social, racial, and sexual monoliths that everyone must fall into. The dogma does not allow for creole cultures, traditions, language, etc., as a person must fully fall within a strict categorical compartment socially. Thus, someone who has a black father and an Asian mother must choose to “be” black or Asian. Additionally, this mixed-racial child must also choose if they are heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. The child must also choose a sexual identity in which they will operate. Once these choices are made, the child is locked into a social caste. Because of the ever-reducing nature of the strategic anti-essentialist/cultural appropriation narrative, people are forced to create their own increasingly specialized niches. While hyperspecialized in nature, these specialized niches still are affected by the innate social nature of human beings and thusly attempt to connect to other niches while staying hyperspecialized.

As one may infer from the discussion of memes and genes previously, by increasingly compartmentalizing people, the compartmentalized (and isolated) people will become unfit memetically. Intellectual Inbreeding will run rampant and act as a rust, which slowly, but surely, corrodes the intellectual framework of the individual and the hyperspecialized group (easily observed by an increasing lack of rationality). This rust emerges as true racism (only people that look like this can do this), true ethnocentrism (only our culture can be here), and true bigotry (close mindedness to any new encounter or belief).

What if the hypothetical child in the aforementioned example wasn’t placed in a constricting serpent of never-ending categorizations and definitions? The child would be reared in a creole culture. A creole culture being a culture that is made up of equal parts the culture of the child’s father, mother, and the locale the child lives in. Eventually, the child grows and embodies this creole culture. What the child does next is almost involuntary. The child selects the most useful aspects of each of the three cultures and synthesizes the three into a novel culture of their own (if we are to adhere to linguistic terms, a pidgin culture). If the novel culture is successful, it will, in time, spread the world over (in part or as a whole).

In closing, let’s once again revisit Daum versus Lam. Will future generations look back on this paroxysm as a watershed moment for a “culture war?” While there may exist a mathematical probability that this event is of immense importance (importance that’ll only be realized in the future), it is highly unlikely. What is more likely is that those in the future will revisit this event, and similar events, and just marvel in the hysteria they produced. After all, the object at the center of this debacle is a dress invented in 1920s China. A dress that, for some baffling reason, those in the debate regard as a “traditional” Chinese dress (though they do not regard the zoot suit, flapper dress or boater hat from the same era as “traditional” American dress).

Most rational persons can understand the ire that is garnered from commercializing something that “belongs” to you or your culture. Nevertheless, the rational response isn’t to completely isolate your cultural “belongings” away from the reach of commercial enterprise or curious people. In fact, it’s incredibly hard to argue that anyone, or any group of people, owns any culture, idea, or work of art. Just as with genetic material, culture is an evolved amalgamation of the ideas, progress, politics, religions, and cultures used and provided by our ancestors. Instead of lashing at someone for wearing clothes not native to their country or self-flagellating every time you want to enjoy music made by people with a different physical complexion, enjoy what you enjoy. Evolve your memes, your society, and your culture. Build a more useful and optimized society for your children. Eliminate the social, intellectual, or cultural chaff that might be weighing you down. But be cognizant in that to remove this dead weight, your culture may have to be commercialized, prodded, criticized, or ridiculed. If these growing pains didn’t exist, how would you know there was something amiss that needed your (or your group’s) attention? Growing is hard, but in that hardship exists meaning, a meaning defined by trying to construct a better life for those to come, a meaning shared by everyone you know, everyone you don’t know, everyone you can’t know, everyone that came before you, and everyone that will come after you.

_______________________________

References:

anti. 2018. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved May 5, 2018, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti

Cartwright, R. L. (1968). Some Remarks on Essentialism. The Journal of Philosophy, 65(20), 615. doi:10.2307/2024315

Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lipsitz, G. (1994). Dangerous crossroads: Popular music, postmodernism and the poetics of place. London: Verso.

Lipsitz, G. (2007). Footsteps in the dark: The hidden histories of popular music. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Pew Research Center. (2017, April 05). The Changing Global Religious Landscape. Retrieved May 5, 2018, from http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-religious-landscape/strategic. 2018. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved May 5, 2018, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strategic

Like this: Like Loading...