The sound of a drumbeat reverberates through a concert hall, its rhythmic pulse echoing centuries-old histories. A model walks down the runway sporting attire once reserved for sacred ceremonies. An artist presents work imbued with motifs taken from a culture she’s never known beyond textbooks and the occasional tourist trip. We live in an age of seemingly endless creative fusion, but what lies beneath this tapestry of global exchange? Are we witnessing respectful homage—or mere exploitation of symbols, histories, and identities for the sake of profit?
In a world shaped by colonial legacies, mass consumerism, and uneven power structures, cultural appropriation has emerged as a vital topic of debate. Yet the difference between cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation is neither trivial nor always self-evident. This article aims to untangle these concepts, shining a light on recent controversies, gathering expert opinions, and offering a guide on respectfully navigating cultural exchange from a left-wing, anticapitalist lens.
Defining Cultural Appropriation and Appreciation
Before delving into recent controversies or the anticapitalist critique, we must first clarify the distinction between cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation. In simplest terms, cultural appropriation occurs when elements of a culture—often a marginalised or historically oppressed culture—are adopted or exploited by members of a dominant group, typically without meaningful understanding, credit, or respect for their origins. These appropriations can manifest in the fashion, music, and art worlds, where sacred symbols or culturally loaded aesthetics become mere trends or commodities.
On the other hand, cultural appreciation entails an informed, ethical, and genuinely respectful engagement with a culture’s traditions, art forms, or modes of expression. It arises from a place of curiosity and solidarity rather than profit or novelty. In an ideal cultural exchange, the adopting individual or institution honours the source of inspiration, recognises the power imbalances at play, and seeks meaningful collaboration or permission when possible.
However, distinguishing between these two is fraught with complexities. Power differentials—often shaped by histories of colonialism, capitalism, and patriarchy—complicate seemingly benign acts of “borrowing.” As we shall see, superficial acknowledgements or disclaimers rarely suffice to neutralise these systemic inequalities, which is why an anticapitalist perspective can illuminate the role of profit and power in shaping what we deem to be “inspiration” and what we label “appropriation.”
An Anticapitalist Perspective on Cultural Exchange
Why focus on a left-wing viewpoint when exploring cultural appropriation? Capitalism, with its relentless drive for profit and commodification, frequently reduces cultural symbols to marketable goods stripped of their deeper meanings. Under capitalism, cultural elements—be they patterns, rituals, or entire music genres—are easily monetised and sold to mass audiences, often without returning any value or compensation to the communities from which these elements originated.
From an anti-capitalist standpoint:
1. Commodification of Culture: Marginalised cultures, already subject to systemic inequalities, become sources of raw material for wealthier or more powerful groups. The same society that marginalises certain cultural practices can simultaneously profit from them. Thus, there is an inherent injustice when sacred traditions or aesthetics are turned into profitable trends by those who hold greater economic power.
2. Labour and Value Extraction: Cultural producers—often from working-class or formerly colonised backgrounds—frequently lack the structural means to protect or monetise their creations. Meanwhile, corporations and influential designers, backed by marketing budgets and global reach, can turn these creations into lucrative products. This is essentially an extraction of cultural “labour”: the stories, identities, and creative output of communities become the raw material for capitalist ventures.
3. Alienation and Erasure: In Marxist theory, alienation emerges when workers are separated from the value of their labour. Similarly, cultural alienation occurs when a community’s symbols, which carry ancestral meaning, are appropriated and sold back as mere commodities. Over time, the original context becomes diluted or erased, leaving only a fashionable veneer devoid of the culture’s lived realities.
A left-wing framework thus compels us to ask: Who profits from this cultural exchange, and who is harmed or excluded? Are the communities that originated these cultural elements benefiting, or are they seeing their heritage distorted for the sake of mass consumer appetites? Answering these questions helps illuminate what it means to move from appropriation toward genuine cultural appreciation rooted in respect, solidarity, and equity.
Recent Controversies in Fashion, Music, and Art
In the last decade, cultural appropriation controversies have proliferated, signalling a growing awareness—though not always a consistent transformation—within creative industries. Let us explore three spheres in which these tensions are particularly acute.
Fashion
High-profile designers have repeatedly come under fire for lifting motifs from Indigenous or African cultures and using them as decorative flourishes on high-end garments. One particularly glaring case involved a major European luxury brand incorporating ceremonial Indigenous headdresses into its runway show, rebranding them as “bohemian chic.” Critics pointed out that these headdresses hold sacred significance for specific tribes, symbolising achievements and leadership within their communities. Transmuting them into lavish accessories divorces the headdresses from their context, diminishing them to mere props. This rift exemplifies how capitalism converts cultural signifiers into trends, often disregarding the harm inflicted upon the culture of origin.
Music
Music has similarly been a crucible for debates around appropriation vs. appreciation. From hip-hop to Afrobeat, genres birthed within marginalised communities frequently become mainstream hits once they are adopted by more privileged artists or labels. The global popularity of African rhythms, for example, can be a positive phenomenon—showcasing the beauty of these sounds to worldwide audiences—but problems arise when major labels or Western artists mimic these styles without giving credit or collaborating with African musicians. Instead of forging respectful partnerships or sharing profits, the industry at large often pockets the lion’s share of revenue, leaving the originating communities with little recognition or financial reward.
Moreover, we can observe the phenomenon of white artists adopting musical forms tied to Black struggles or Indigenous experiences, thereby gaining accolades for perceived “originality,” while the communities that nurtured these traditions remain underpaid and underrepresented. Such inequities reflect broader structural injustices in how capitalism exploits cultural forms.
Art
In contemporary art, several galleries and museums have been accused of displaying works that appropriate Indigenous or diaspora imagery without consultation or permission. One notorious example involved an installation using Yoruba religious symbols, stripped of their spiritual dimension and reconfigured as edgy, avant-garde statements.
While the artist claimed to honour Yoruba culture, community members pointed out that the piece felt like a superficial borrowing, ignoring historical lineages of oppression suffered by African religions under colonial rule. This scenario underlines how cultural appropriation can flourish in spaces that exalt novelty and spectacle, often pandering to a market for the “exotic,” rather than fostering genuine cross-cultural engagement.
Expert Opinions on Cultural Appropriation and Appreciation
Many experts—from cultural theorists to community activists—have weighed in on these controversies, providing frameworks to differentiate cultural appreciation from exploitation. Their insights often converge on similar principles:
1. Contextual Understanding: Dr. Olufemi Taiwo, a scholar of African diaspora aesthetics, argues that cultural appropriation occurs when artistic or commercial practitioners adopt aesthetics without understanding the socio-political histories behind them. A left-wing position would add that ignorance is not a neutral stance: it is frequently enabled and exacerbated by capitalist structures that prioritise short-term profit over ethical responsibility.
2. Acknowledgement and Respect: Cultural anthropologist Dr Linda Tuhiwai Smith emphasises that if one is truly interested in cultural appreciation, one must actively honour the source culture’s intellectual property, spiritual beliefs, and communal values. This might include consulting elders, compensating artisans, or establishing collaborative relationships that allow the originating community to decide how their cultural elements are used.
3. Power Dynamics: Several Indigenous activists highlight power imbalances as the core issue. When the adopting party belongs to a dominant culture, and the source community has historically been oppressed, there is an inherent risk of replicating colonial extraction. A left-wing analysis underscores the role of capitalism in perpetuating these inequalities, suggesting that genuine cultural appreciation demands systemic change, including redistribution of resources and empowerment of historically marginalised communities.
4. Economic Equity: Many progressive commentators argue that talk of “respect” without economic justice is insufficient. If a fashion label profits massively from Indigenous designs, for example, respect alone does not fix the exploitative dynamic unless royalties, collaborative design processes, and capacity-building measures for Indigenous designers become part of the equation.
The Left-Wing Critique of Appropriation in Capitalist Markets
As we have seen, cultural appropriation controversies rarely unfold in a political vacuum. They are imbricated in colonial legacies, racial hierarchies, and gendered power dynamics. A left-wing, anticapitalist perspective illuminates how market forces intensify these inequalities. Consider the following critiques:
1. Mechanisms of Profit: Under capitalism, many creative enterprises aim to maximise profit. This imperative often spurs designers and artists to search for “unique” or “exotic” elements that will make their work stand out. Yet, because capitalist economies encourage the commodification of intangible cultural elements, the conversation around ethical use is overshadowed by the quest for novelty and revenue.
2. Neoliberal Myths: Neoliberal ideology often frames cultural exchange as a free-market success story, suggesting that “all cultures borrow from each other.” However, this glosses over the violent histories of colonialism that established uneven relationships in the first place. A left-wing critique challenges the notion that the playing field is level. It insists that true cultural exchange can only occur once oppressive economic and social structures are dismantled.
3. Appropriation as Neo-Colonialism: Critics sometimes describe cultural appropriation as an extension of colonial processes. Where empires once plundered lands and resources, contemporary capitalism plunders symbols, aesthetics, and narratives. Without deliberate efforts to restore agency and economic benefit to the communities whose culture is being used, these practices risk reproducing the same extractive dynamics upon which colonial economies were built.
Towards Genuine Cultural Appreciation: A Practical Guide
It is one thing to critique cultural appropriation and another to live out the principles of cultural appreciation in creative practice. Below is a guide on respectfully navigating cultural exchange that draws upon a left-wing, anticapitalist ethos:
1. Research and Self-Education
Before adopting any cultural element—whether it be a style of dress, a musical form, or an artistic motif—take time to research its significance. Understand the historical contexts, the struggles faced by the communities that birthed it, and the cultural protocols that govern its use. Self-education is not a one-off gesture; it is an ongoing process that demands humility, open-mindedness, and a willingness to unlearn previously held assumptions.
2. Seek Consent and Collaborate
If you plan to integrate cultural symbols or methods into your creative output, consider collaborating with individuals from that culture. When possible, seek their input, compensate them for their expertise, and ensure they have a say in how their cultural elements are used. This extends to crediting contributors not just in a token sense, but by sharing profits or ensuring that they retain ownership of their intellectual and cultural property.
3. Acknowledge Power Imbalances
No exchange is neutral. If you belong to a community with systemic privilege or historical ties to colonisation, be prepared to confront your privilege. Reflect on whether your adoption of another culture’s elements perpetuates inequalities. Are you receiving praise or economic benefit for something that the source community has been marginalised or stigmatised for? Awareness of these imbalances is the first step in preventing appropriation.
4. Support Grassroots Movements
An anti-capitalist approach insists that we cannot separate creative practice from broader struggles for social and economic justice. Consider supporting grassroots organisations, cooperatives, or independent businesses run by the communities whose culture you admire. This kind of solidarity not only fosters genuine cultural appreciation but also contributes to dismantling the structures that enable exploitation.
5. Financial Accountability
If your work yields profit by drawing upon specific cultural elements, set up mechanisms to distribute some of that wealth back to the originating communities. This can take the form of royalties, scholarships, or mutual aid networks. Such gestures are not mere charity; they are a recognition of the labour, heritage, and intellectual property from which you are benefiting.
6. Be Open to Critique
Even the most well-intentioned creators can cross boundaries or overlook certain histories. Critique, especially from within the culture you are engaging with, should be received not as an attack but as an opportunity to learn. Taking responsibility for missteps, offering genuine apologies, and adjusting your practices accordingly reflect the ethos of respect crucial to cultural appreciation.
Imagining a Post-Capitalist Landscape of Cultural Exchange
Although we can enact measures to reduce harm and commodification under capitalism, some critics argue that genuine cultural appreciation in its fullest sense may only flourish in a society that has transcended the exploitative drives of capital. In a post-capitalist framework, creative endeavour would not hinge on profit or scarcity, but on communal enrichment and reciprocal sharing. Communities would hold collective ownership of their cultural heritages, deciding how and when these elements can be shared, ensuring that such exchanges are guided by respect, mutual benefit, and shared values rather than consumer appetites and corporate marketing strategies.
From a left-wing vantage point, then, cultural appropriation emerges not merely as an ethical failing of individuals or brands but as a systemic by-product of a profit-driven world order. In seeking solutions, we confront the need for structural changes—shifting our economies towards cooperative models, decolonising cultural institutions, and building frameworks of solidarity that enable genuine, equitable cultural exchange.
This is not to say that individual efforts at cultural appreciation under the current system are far from futile. Every act of thoughtful engagement, collaborative creation, or community-led project can function like a seed of possibility. Through these seeds, we glimpse what an artistic world might look like if divorced from relentless commodification and grounded instead in reverence and respect for cultural lineages.
Drawing the Line, Building Bridges
Where do we draw the line between cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation? Perhaps it is not a single, static boundary but rather a question we must continually revisit, guided by the realities of power and profit. In the present economic order, the appropriation of marginalised cultures often follows a pattern reminiscent of colonial extraction—lifting symbols, rituals, and aesthetics without returning value, credit, or agency to the communities of origin. A left-wing, anticapitalist perspective underscores the role of capitalism in facilitating this dynamic, where art, fashion, and music become lucrative markets that transform cultural heritage into saleable goods.
Meanwhile, true cultural appreciation demands more than surface-level tributes. It requires informed consent, collaboration, and a willingness to address the unequal distribution of resources and recognition. This means acknowledging that creative borrowing is never just a personal aesthetic choice but also a social and political act, one that can perpetuate or dismantle oppressive structures.
In a world still grappling with the fallout of colonialism, patriarchy, and economic disparities, respectful cultural exchange can be a force for building bridges—provided it is grounded in an ethic of equity and reciprocity. Whether we are artists, designers, musicians, or simply avid consumers of global culture, we have a responsibility to interrogate our choices. We can educate ourselves, listen to communities whose symbols we wish to adopt, and adapt our practices to ensure that our admiration does not turn into extraction.
Ultimately, the conversation about cultural appropriation vs. appreciation invites us to reimagine what creativity looks like when liberated from the imperatives of profit. It calls us to envision cultural spaces where ideas can flow freely, not in ways that violate or commodify, but in ways that enrich and empower the very communities whose stories and aesthetics make up the tapestry of human cultural expression. Only then can we speak of a world in which fashion, music, and art transcend marketplace dictates and become genuine avenues of solidarity, mutual respect, and shared creativity?
In that future, the line between appropriation and appreciation would no longer be a blurry mark drawn by corporate marketing teams or individual well-intentioned ignorance. Instead, it would be guided by collective values—sensitivity, dialogue, and justice—offering a cultural landscape where every motif, rhythm, or design is honoured for its roots, and where the wealth that flows from cultural exchange is directed back towards those who have kept those cultural legacies alive through centuries of struggle and resilience.
Keep Independent Voices Alive!
Rock & Art – Cultural Outreach is more than a magazine; it’s a movement—a platform for intersectional culture and slow journalism, created by volunteers with passion and purpose.
But we need your help to continue sharing these untold stories. Your support keeps our indie media outlet alive and thriving.
Donate today and join us in shaping a more inclusive, thoughtful world of storytelling. Every contribution matters.”