The Debate Over Cultural Appropriation in Fashion and Media

Content

It’s a common sight at music festivals, on high-fashion runways, and flooding social media feeds: a piece of jewelry with deep spiritual meaning worn as a casual accessory, a hairstyle with profound cultural roots adopted as a fleeting trend, or a “tribal” print used on a mass-market piece of clothing. These moments often spark a fiery and complex debate that sits at the intersection of creativity, commerce, and culture. We’re talking about cultural appropriation. The conversation around it has become one of the most significant and divisive dialogues in modern fashion and media, forcing creators and consumers alike to ask a difficult question: Where does inspiration end and exploitation begin? At its core, cultural appropriation typically refers to the adoption of elements from a minority or marginalized culture by members of a dominant culture. This is not a simple exchange. The core of the criticism lies in the power imbalance. When a dominant group borrows, it often does so without permission, without understanding the context, and without acknowledging the history of the element it’s taking. These elements are frequently stripped of their original meaning, significance, or sacredness and are reduced to mere “aesthetics” or costumes. This process can perpetuate stereotypes and, in many cases, commercially exploit a culture that receives no credit or compensation. On the flip side of the debate is the concept of cultural appreciation or “cultural exchange.” Proponents of this view argue that globalization has inherently led to a blending of cultures and that creativity thrives on borrowing and reinterpretation. They posit that forbidding this exchange leads to cultural silos and stifles artistic freedom. From this perspective, a designer incorporating Indian embroidery techniques or a musician blending African rhythms into their music is an act of celebration and homage, fostering a global, interconnected creative world. The intent, they argue, is to honor, not to steal.

The Great Divide: Power and Profit

The distinction between appreciation and appropriation often hinges on three factors: context, credit, and compensation. Appreciation involves a good-faith effort to engage with a culture, often involving learning, listening, and participating in a way that respects the source. Appropriation, however, is a more extractive process. It’s taking without asking, often for profit. When a major fashion house puts a design identical to a traditional Romani textile on a $2,000 jacket, the community that originated that design rarely sees a penny. Instead, they may continue to face discrimination while their cultural heritage is celebrated on the wealthy. This is where the line begins to blur and the debate intensifies. Is it appropriation for a non-Japanese person to wear a kimono? Many in Japan would argue it’s appreciation, especially if worn respectfully. Yet, when that same kimono design is printed on a cheap bathrobe by a fast-fashion brand, it feels different. The sacred has been made mundane and, more importantly, commercialized without consent.

Fashion on Trial

The fashion industry has been a primary battleground for this debate. From luxury runways featuring sacred Native American headdresses (which are earned symbols of honor, not hats) to celebrities wearing box braids, the industry has a long history of “borrowing.” Critics argue this isn’t inspiration; it’s a colonization of aesthetics. A hairstyle that a Black woman might be penalized for at school or work suddenly becomes “edgy” or “high fashion” on a white model.

It is critical to recognize that this debate is not just about abstract ideas; it often involves tangible economic harm. When large corporations or designers mass-produce designs taken from indigenous or minority artisans, they can directly undercut the livelihoods of the creators. This transforms a vital piece of cultural heritage into a disposable commodity, severing its connection to its origins and diverting profit away from the community that nurtured it for generations.

The Fast Fashion Complication

While high fashion may introduce a problematic trend, fast fashion makes it a global epidemic. These brands churn out clothing at breakneck speed, replicating designs seen on the runway or on indigenous craft market stalls. The entire business model is built on speed and volume, leaving zero room for context, credit, or collaboration. A sacred geometric pattern from a South American tribe can become a meaningless print on a polyester top, sold for $10, with its origins completely erased. This dilutes the culture and effectively “flattens” it for a global audience, turning deep traditions into disposable trends.

Media’s Magnifying Glass

Media—from film and television to music and social media—plays an equally powerful role. It is the machine that disseminates these images and normalizes the appropriation. Think of blockbuster films that cast white actors in roles meant for people of color (whitewashing) or that portray foreign cultures through a lens of harmful stereotypes. These choices aren’t just artistic; they reinforce a power dynamic where the dominant culture gets to tell everyone else’s stories. In the music industry, the line is just as fraught. Artists have often been accused of adopting the visual aesthetics, language, and styles of other cultures—particularly Black culture—to gain “edge” or “authenticity,” only to discard them when they are no longer trendy. The critique is that they get to “wear” the culture as a costume without having to experience the systemic discrimination that members of that culture face. Platforms like Instagram and TikTok have accelerated this cycle. An “aesthetic” can go viral in hours, completely detached from its cultural source. Wellness trends often rebrand ancient practices like yoga or the use of turmeric (haldi) as new discoveries, whitewashing their origins in South Asia. However, social media has also been the most powerful tool for accountability. “Call-out culture,” for all its flaws, has given a voice to marginalized communities. A brand that commits an act of appropriation can expect immediate and massive public backlash, something that was impossible just two decades ago. This has forced a new level of consciousness, even if it’s sometimes driven by fear of cancellation rather than genuine understanding.

Moving from Appropriation to Appreciation

Navigating this complex territory is challenging for creators and consumers. There are no hard-and-fast rules, but a consensus is growing around a more mindful approach. The path forward seems to lie in shifting from passive consumption to active engagement. The “Three C’s” offer a helpful guide:

Context: Understand the significance of what you are engaging with. Is it a sacred object? A symbol of resistance? A daily item? Using a sacred symbol as a bikini print is fundamentally different from buying a tablecloth from a local artisan.
Credit: Always acknowledge the source. If a designer is inspired by traditional Maasai beadwork, they should state it, celebrate the artisans, and tell the story of its origin. Hiding the inspiration is a hallmark of appropriation.
Compensation/Collaboration: This is arguably the most important. The best form of appreciation is often participation that benefits the source community. Instead of copying a design, collaborate with the artisans. Source materials directly from them. Ensure they are partners in the venture, not just a mood board.

Ultimately, the debate over cultural appropriation is not an attempt to build walls between cultures. It is not about saying “you can’t eat this food” or “you can’t listen to this music.” Culture is, and always has been, fluid. It is, however, a call for mindfulness, respect, and equity. It’s a demand that in our globalized world, we celebrate and engage with each other’s cultures in a way that honors, rather than harms, and gives credit where credit is profoundly due.