The thing that drowns out meaning is when the dominant culture (because of the power involved, not because the phenomena is unique to dominant cultures) decides it defines "the one true meaning" and are partaking of the "real" meaning rather than seeing culture as a function of history and geography.
I think it could well be a way that dominant cultures generically operate, though i haven't studied the way other cultures today, or throughout history (except to a small extent the Alexandrian and Roman Empires), have assimilated and modified the practices and motifs of minorities in their midst.
It could also arguably be a function more of commodification than of cultural dominance, with the cultural effects being an after-effect. One example i've seen discussed at length is whether or not Madonna misappropriated "voguing" from the gay community. It's not really accurate to speak of this as cultural misappropriation, but it would be an example of the same principle at work. Another example that comes to mind is the way corporations took the rebelliousness out of punk rock and made it into a fashion and music business.
Where this whole phenomenon concerns me the most is when the language or conventions of dissent (be it political or social) are trivialized and turned into a product which is sold to the masses. No matter how much the dissenting subculture or minority might complain about inauthenticity or "selling out" the majority, the larger culture, becomes unable to distinguish between the original expressions of dissent and the newer expressions of prefab "entertainment" or easy-to-swallow bits of "spirituality."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-01-09 05:55 pm (UTC)The thing that drowns out meaning is when the dominant culture (because of the power involved, not because the phenomena is unique to dominant cultures) decides it defines "the one true meaning" and are partaking of the "real" meaning rather than seeing culture as a function of history and geography.
I think it could well be a way that dominant cultures generically operate, though i haven't studied the way other cultures today, or throughout history (except to a small extent the Alexandrian and Roman Empires), have assimilated and modified the practices and motifs of minorities in their midst.
It could also arguably be a function more of commodification than of cultural dominance, with the cultural effects being an after-effect. One example i've seen discussed at length is whether or not Madonna misappropriated "voguing" from the gay community. It's not really accurate to speak of this as cultural misappropriation, but it would be an example of the same principle at work. Another example that comes to mind is the way corporations took the rebelliousness out of punk rock and made it into a fashion and music business.
Where this whole phenomenon concerns me the most is when the language or conventions of dissent (be it political or social) are trivialized and turned into a product which is sold to the masses. No matter how much the dissenting subculture or minority might complain about inauthenticity or "selling out" the majority, the larger culture, becomes unable to distinguish between the original expressions of dissent and the newer expressions of prefab "entertainment" or easy-to-swallow bits of "spirituality."