Dear Editors,
Issue 601’s Comment section—specifically the “tribal” theme of the SSB—was nothing short of frightfully offensive, particularly for us as students who live in an international community. The ball has always been a great idea, but themes like these actively do away with any ideas of intersectionality or tackling prejudices.
Much as Exeposé has tried to be objective about it, articles in the later pages such as Rebecca Longhurst’s sickening piece on “affordable tribal fashions” clearly demonstrate a leaning towards endorsing cultural appropriation—which is not a mere matter of one person’s opinion over another. It is a disturbing, oppressive practice that results from the cashing in on cultures as “commodities”. It happens when India is reduced to colours and the song-dance-Taj Mahal trope, or Latin America to a feathered headdress as though it were fancy dress, existing solely for one’s pleasure, to borrow and discard as one pleases. This is why Gwen Stefani faces flak for her exploitation of traditions like wearing bindis and saris. Wearing them in itself is not appropriative. What is, is the fact that they’re seen as “fashion” that can be shrugged off at will. That they’re context-less and entertainment. That they become reductive symbols for entire cultures and emphasise homogeneity.
The debate is not helped by Nandini Basu saying “the tribal theme being racist genuinely didn’t cross [my] mind”. This negotiating of “authentic experiences” by roping in someone with presumably South Asian origins to say, effectively, “I don’t think so, hence it can’t be appropriation” is fairly dubious. Deleuze’s essay “Plato and the Simulacrum” addresses the problems of this very notion of authenticity. Cultural appropriation is not restricted to political discussions or rallies, as James Crouch evidently seems to think so when he says “your aim at a party is not to make political statements with your costume but to have fun”. Fun, yes- by whom, for whom, and at whose expense? And what is this line dividing the theory and praxis of beliefs?
This is institutionalized racism existing invisibly in everyday life, capitalising and trivializing other cultures. Arguing in favour of intentions and ignorance becomes an excuse for erasure and endorsing the falsehood of reverse-racism. If Crouch wants to inform himself about cultural appropriation, I suggest he dump Bruce Parry and head, instead, towards Gayatri Spivak, Edward Said, Frantz Fanon and Ashis Nandy. They will also help override potentially insipid arguments such as “aren’t we endorsing your culture by wearing it?” and accusations of “not taking everything so seriously or making everything so political”. This kind of theory deals with our everyday lives, and helps us understand how to live alongside other cultures better, instead of trampling over them.
The committee should know by now that this is deeply murky territory, best not to be entered to avoiding embarrassing themselves. The rest of us are, meanwhile, left bewildered and deeply saddened at the gaping chasm that exists between saying Exeter is a safe space for cultures, and actually living that reality out.
Sharanya Murali
As featured in Exeposé
exeposedev 