Fashion, hipsters and the appropriation of culture

An anonymous video that has recently surfaced accusing the hypercool Melbourne label Perks and Mini (PAM) of blatant cultural appropriation has sent shockwaves through the hipster community. The voiceover in the video states:

For a group of people who freely use African textile patterns and traditional ornaments, put on performances using didgeridoos and dot painting, and casually deface images of black people, you might think they have some personal connection to the cultures they have profited from . . . But they are just as white as their $150 t-shirts. T-shirts which are cheaply made in China, but have the labels removed and replaced with ‘Made In Australia’.

This is a strong argument to make against the label, which has previously claimed it is culture indiscriminately to create art in their fashion. And the offending items are one part of PAM’s clothing range, most of which does not use the design of other cultures.
Nonetheless, the issue provides an opportunity to discuss three main problems not only symptomatic of PAM but also of ‘postmodern’ fashion more generally (H&M, Urban Outfitters and others have faced similar accusations).

Firstly, the appropriation is used for indiscriminate profit, not as a way for intercultural dialogue.

Secondly, this form of appropriation flattens the myriad of cultures designers steal from, and mythologises them simply as belonging to a people who create interesting design, not as a non-homogenous group who also happen to be some of the most oppressed people in the world. We are bearing witness to an unprecedented homogenisation.

Thirdly, it is ahistorical, neglecting the colonial past of the white culture that is PAM’s market base, a culture that views the other from a position of privilege. In this sense, contemporary ‘postmodern’ racism is the symptom of multiculturalist late capitalism, and so brings to light the inherent contradiction of the liberal-democratic project.

On the surface, fashion, like other forms of art, can be seen as a powerful meditator of cultural diplomacy, translating the aesthetics of one nation to people in distant lands who would not necessarily think about that part of the world.

Fashion as a piece of art that is on your body, which gives it a more intimate connection with you, possibly allowing you to walk in the shoes of another.  Furthermore, fashion design does not face the copyright issues confronting other industries, which makes cross-cultural sharing more possible.

Yet it is naïve and simplistic to see such transactions as equal exchanges. The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu argues that cultural distinctions (which include our choices of what we wear) involve social distinctions as well as purely aesthetic choices.  Notions of ‘good taste’ function as class markers and investments in the appropriate (culturally approved) commodities can be ‘traded’ for social position.

Fashion is often regarded as only ephemeral. But consumer choices about clothing speak to wider issues about the nature of contemporary transnationalism and the commodification of cultural difference. Fashion discourses become a way in which consumers align themselves with certain cultural viewpoints, while resisting or subverting others. Wearers of PAM (I know many) follow the contemporary liberal attitude, which sees the individual as surpassing the limitations of ethnic identity.  This functions to reinforce an elitist, upper middle-class identity, opposing itself to the majority of society, who are looked down upon for being caught up in their narrow confines.

This social position is not only a marker of status in Australia but also on a global scale, where colonising no longer takes place by the hand of the state directly under the control of global business.

The form of ‘multicultural’ appropriation that PAM practices is an ideal of global capitalist ideology. The relationship between traditional imperialist colonialism and capitalist global auto-colonisation is the same as the relationship between Western cultural imperialism and multiculturalism.  Just as global capitalism includes the paradox of colonisation without the colonised countries, so multiculturalism offers a protection of Euro-centric distance and the respect for local cultures without having any roots in its own particular culture.

Defenders may claim that they are respecting other cultures and being aware of others outside an insular white existence – the good intentions behind such designs. Yet I would argue that what we are really seeing is an unrecognised form of distant racism.  It is ‘respecting’ the identity of the colonial other, in which the other is a ‘authentic’ closed community against which we can maintain a distance only made possible by our privileged position.

To put it another way, such art removes all positive content from the other – not in an openly racist manner but in a way that maintains our white position as empty but privileged universality. In strong terms, the ‘respect’ for the specific other from the position of the universal is the way in which the hegemonic white culture can reaffirm its own superiority.

It is not only the fashions of distant cultures that are appropriated for profit, but also that of the working class and poor.  We have all seen the shabby chic fashion look and the Prada shoots in shantytowns in which a gaunt model takes on a poor appearance ­– but not poor enough to be associated with the excluded of society. Suffering has become a cultural commodity, as photos of suffering people are used to sell newspapers and magazines and to reinforce the cultural superiority of the west.

It should never be forgotten that fashion is a huge, profitable business.  Like all capitalist businesses it constantly needs to expand and change its market to continue accumulation.

Nonetheless, acts of appropriation vary in terms and degree and relevance of (in)voluntariness, (in)equality, (im)balance and (im)purity. The answer is not protection of a ‘pure’ culture, because this does not exist either, with all cultures flattened by multicultural capitalism since the fall of really existing colonialism. The challenge is to reconceptualise culture not so much as a bounded entity and essence (as the use of ‘ethnic’ design does), but as relational or dialogical. Cultural practices, including appropriation, are both constituted by and constitutive of culture (in general) as a realm of relationships.  What we are dealing with is matters of power and rhetoric, rather than essence of a sovereign, liberal individual or state.

Naturally, this is a complex issue. On the surface, the designers do not appear to have committed any great crime (except against fashion) – and, let’s face it, cultural appropriation is inescapable.  No-one says we should only dress directly from our culture or in drab clothing. Nonetheless, the fashion industry is one of the world’s largest global export industries (of culture and commodities) and, like capital itself, itself disguises its reality. High fashion and art are always looking for the artistic camouflages that capture the essence of innocence and design.  Of course, fashion as design is a worthy pursuit. But when it is motivated purely for profit, it can only follow the colonial logic of late capitalism.

Andrew Self

Andrew Self is a journalist and teacher from Melbourne. He tweets at @andrewself.

More by Andrew Self ›

Overland is a not-for-profit magazine with a proud history of supporting writers, and publishing ideas and voices often excluded from other places.

If you like this piece, or support Overland’s work in general, please subscribe or donate.

Related articles & Essays

Contribute to the conversation

  1. This reminds me of the story that keeps popping up over here (the US) about a lawsuit filed by the Navajo Nation against Urban Outfitters (who you rightly single out as a premier purveyor of ‘postmodern fashion.’) As far as I know the legal proceedings are ongoing: UO had been using Navajo designs on all manner of products, but it seems that the ‘Navajo Hipster Panty’ is what finally brought on the lawsuit. UO argues that they are using ‘Navajo’ in a merely descriptive way to refer to the generic design style. How that can possibly be seen as a conciliatory explanation I don’t know.

    On my last visit to Oz I noticed that Día de los Muertos tattoos have arrived on many a hipster arm or calf. Sad to realise that Aussie hipsters are re-appropriating the already culturally clueless appropriations of US hipsters.

  2. 1. PAM is not ‘white’ – the woman is Lebanese and the man is Russian Australian. The woman has been conveniently omitted from the critique – disingenuous and patronising.

    2. Political correctness vs artistic expression is an old argument. Nick Cave is not misogynist, Bill Henson is not a paedophile, PAM is not racist – can we all please grow up now.

    3. are you saying only ‘white’ artists can’t reference other cultures, b/w they have an inherently abusive relationship with every culture in the world? Bit racist?

    4. Bored now.

  3. 1. PAM is more than two people, and most of them are white. And the vast number different cultures that get appropriated and mistreated by PAM mean that to not be unethical they would need to be not just from Russia or Lebanon but nearly everywhere in the whole world, which they are really not.

    2. Whether Bill Henson is a pedophile has nothing to do with this. And no-ones talking about ‘political correctness’ here, you’re the very first person to mention it.

    3. Reverse racism is not a thing. And no one’s saying artist (white or otherwise) can’t reference other cultures, just that they need to be responsible about it.

    4. Bored of being white?

    Thank you come again.

  4. PAM and smaller incarnations prior -including time at Dangerfield – have spent a career appropriating whatever took there fancy and spat out as being cool.
    Hardly the 1st nor the last to do so.
    Some one has an agenda and an axe to grind here somewhere !

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.