Where does inspiration end and cultural misrepresentation begin

Last Sunday was fun! I started my day with a Balinese massage at a Gurgaon mall, got late coming home, so quickly made myself some instant noodles and ended the evening watching 'Best Exotic Marigold Hotel' that I’d somehow missed, thus far.

The reason I share this with you, dear reader, is because of how interesting and nuanced I find the idea of ‘cultural appropriation’ (or misappropriation, as some prefer to call it).

The Balinese massage had nothing Balinese about it. I can say this with confidence because I’ve lived in Indonesia for a decade. What is even more problematic is that the spa chooses to only have staff from India’s North East parts in order to create a more 'authentic' experience. Asian restaurants in India have been doing this for decades! 

It is no ‘secret’ that the noodles I ate were produced and marketed by a very Indian brand, had Chinese calligraphy on the pack, and a very Indian actor as the Brand Ambassador, dressed as a Samurai.

The film, however well-intentioned, might still be read as perpetuating stereotypes shaped by the Western gaze. Those who argue might view the film through a critical lens of post-colonialism and cultural studies, and feel that it falls into the trap of using India as a 'magical' and 'exotic' land that heals broken Western souls. 

Now, I believe that there is a difference between cultural ‘appropriation’ and cultural ‘magnification’.  One is dangerous and rooted in anything between ignorance to racism. The other, fair. Even flattering. 

Cultural magnification, to my mind, is when one culture celebrates or adapts elements of another with research, context and respect - without reducing it to caricature.

A very popular activity when my generation went to school was what we called a 'fancy dress competition'. You came to school all dressed up as someone representing a different culture: a native American, a Masaai, a Geisha artist or even a Kathakali dancer from Kerala. 

In the current social context, this would perhaps have ‘misappropriation’ written all over it. Is it really? Or are these simply one way for children of a certain age to learn about different, distant cultures - their dances, their languages, their traditions and their foods? 

The question, of course, is whether the culture being represented has historically been marginalised or exploited. Context matters.

To my mind, this aligns with the idea of cultural magnification. Just like Taco Bell, a very American brand selling Mexican food in India, may have a sombrero in their brand visual to prove the authenticity of the burrito or the same being tried by Dominos when they claim that you’ll scream 'Mamma Mia' after trying their very Italian ‘Pizza Roma’. 

This is a case of one large culture showcasing another equally prominent one and democratising access to the same. Even if for commercial purposes.

The question around cultural appropriation then comes down to HOW we do this.

Dressing an Indian actor as a Chinese person on a noodle pack might still pass (silly as it may be). But using Chinese calligraphy on a Korean pack is cultural appropriation at its best. Regardless of intent. It’s poorly researched and lazy.

If done with the right homework, with intent and above all else, with respect, the magnification of a culture is beautiful and very welcome. 

The question is, how many brands get it right each time? And how far is one allowed to go?

The Gucci Balaclava fiasco of 2019 sits very clearly on the wrong side of this fence due to its sheer racist connotation. Does the same apply to brands like Urban Outfitters’ use of Navajo or native African prints? Would this be as palatable to many communities if religion were involved (Hindu deities on Western tee, for instance)?

While it is heartening to watch India embrace its Indianness, as seen across thousands of ‘Made in India’ brands lately, this is equally the time to be careful of how we interpret global codes, as cultures rapidly merge and lines fast blur. 

With  globalisation leading to homogenisation and the very valid concept of a global aesthetic, it is often true that the creator is not ill-intentioned. However, the ‘democratisation of criticism’ and what we popularly refer to as ‘call out culture’, the public condemnation of something potentially harmless, could be a dangerous thing. 

It is also incumbent upon us, design and marketing specialists who use AI generously and religiously to generate imagery at the click of a button, to be careful and conscious of the prompts we choose to do the same. 

In summary, let’s begin with respect as the foundation. In a world where cultures blur and aesthetics travel faster than passports, respect is not optional - it is foundational. Let’s always retain the authenticity of the cultures we choose to represent and not reduce them to a few marketable tropes. Let’s be inclusive but steer clear of stereotypes at all costs. And let’s keep our Kolhapuri chappals on while we do.

This article is penned by Upasana Dua, Executive Director, Strategy, Landor