Doane, A. (2014). Shades of colorblindness: rethinking racial ideology in the United States. In S. Nilsen and S. Turner (Eds.), The Colorblind Screen: Television in Post-Racial America (pp. 15-38). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Althusser, L. , (2006). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an investigation). In M. G. Durham and D. M. Kellner (Eds.), Lenin and philosophy and other essays (pp. 142–7, 166–76). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Chatman D. (2015, July 7) . Lecture. USC
Gramsci, A. , (2006) Hegemony, intellectuals and the state in cultural theory. In J. Storey (Ed.), Selections from prisons notebooks (pp. 85-91). London: Pearson
Isa, M. (2015, April 27). Celebs react to Bruce Jenner interview. Retrieved August 5, 2015, from
Link to “Television Reality: The Discourse of Today’s Mass Culture” – a video essay by Luke Loftin and Andrea Poapst:
Abrego, C. (Writer), Cronin, M. (Writer), & Kozek, Z. (Director). (January 1, 2006). Fifteen Beds and a Bucket of Puke [season 1, episode 1]. In Abrego, C. (Producer) & Cronin, M. (Producer), Flavor of Love. New York City, NY: VH1. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiZZQYoYLyg
Abrego, C. (Writer), Cronin, M. (Writer), & Kozek, Z. (Director). (October 1, 2006). Family Flavors [season 1, episode 8]. In Abrego, C. (Producer) & Cronin, M. (Producer). Flavor of Love. New York City, NY: VH1. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8wSYDHrvro
Adorno, T., and Horkheimer, M. (1993). The culture industry: Enlightenment as mass deception. In S. During (Ed.), The cultural studies reader (pp. 31-41). London: Rutledge.
Golnick, B. (Director) & LaFleur, M. (Director). (July 17, 2013). Mo’ Butter, Mo’ Better [season 2, episode 1]. In Lexton, L. (Producer), Here Comes Honey Boo Boo. Silver Spring, MD: TLC. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7N8MPMrseE
Hall, S. (2001). “Foucault: Power, Knowledge, and Discourse”. in Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader, ed. M. Weherell, S. Taylor, & S.J. Yates (London: Sage Publications), 72-81.
Peters, M. (Writer), Stockert, A. (Writer), & LaFleur, M. (Director). (January 6, 2013). A Very Boo Halloween [season 1, episode 11]. In Lexton, L. (Producer), Here Comes Honey Boo Boo. Silver Spring, MD: TLC. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHvJSc5QpCo
Ridenhour, C., Shocklee, H., Sadler, E., & Drayton, W. (1988). Don’t Believe the Hype [Recorded by Public Enemy]. On It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back [12” vinyl]. New York City, NY: Def Jam. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vQaVIoEjOM
Boundary between cultures are perhaps more abstract than the highly abstract concept “culture” itself. But when the breach of such boundaries goes far enough to constitute cultural appropriation, the case often becomes quite clear. By definition, cultural appropriation takes place when one culture borrows or imitates values and embodiments of other cultures superficially (Rogers, 2006, p.475). In other words, one culture takes the appearance of other cultures without their substance. Cultural appropriation is a partial form of cultural communication, as it is undertaken on unequal playfield. While in cultural exchange interactions between cultures are reciprocal—meaning both cultures give and take, in cultural appropriation the dominant culture exploit the subordinate cultures without reciprocity, permission or even proper representation, to the degree that the subordinate cultures are provoked to protest (Rogers, 2006, p.477).
The recent Hollywood film Aloha is one such example. The film tells the triangle story between one white man, who is a military contractor and two white woman on Hawaii. With the narrative the native people seem to have no quarrel. However, when the untitled film completed its production and the crew decided to take the title ‘Aloha’, Native Hawaiians get really upset (Kellener, 2015). These natives are not Americans and Japanese who call Hawaii their home, but Native Hawaiians known as Kanaka Maoli, the native indigenous Polynesian people who inhabited the land before the Colonial Era. (Mock, 2015) Aloha is a word that possesses profound meaning in their culture. The first part of the word, alo, means the front of a person, and the second part ha means our breath; put together, the word connotes the exchange of breath of life when people meet and communicate in front of each other. (Mock, 2015)
But Hollywood has no care for such exchange. Aloha is taken away from the people who coined the word and hold it sacred, only to be disposed as the title of a typical Hollywood romantic comedy. Such act could be tolerated if the narrative actively engages with Native Hawaiian culture and delve into the significance of the word. Unfortunately, it did not. The three principal characters are all white, and Hawaii is no more than the exotic land where their love story takes place. The title and narrative and casting of the film shows Hollywood’s total disregard for Hawaiian culture’s substance while exploiting its appearance. Native Hawaiian writer Janet Mock (2015) comments incisively on the matter, “What’s difficult about being from Hawaii is that everyone has a postcard view of your home.” Indeed, for the mass the cultural image of Hawaii has long been that of a beautiful, carefree, almost otherworldly paradise. What Hawaii really is under that face, they care as much as the Hollywood wise guys do.
This is not Hollywood’s first offense of cultural appropriation on Hawaii. The 2011 The Descendants, like Aloha, cast all its principal characters with white actors/actresses and featured Hawaii as an exotic sight like its protagonist George Clooney. In fact, Hollywood made quite a habit of cultural appropriation ever since its existence. The acclaimed classic All Quiet on the Western Front(1930) tells the story of World War I on the German side with American actors, and without a single German word; likewise, the cultural monument Milk(2008) tells the story of the first open-gay elected official with a straight-straight cast. Challenging this tradition of cultural banditry are auteurs like Clint Eastwood, who made two films about the battle of Iwo Jima, one from the American side and the other from the Japanese side—and with a pure Japanese cast. This contrast renders both alarms and comfort. Hollywood knows how to rightly represent other cultures, and when it does it makes wonderful films. However, the problem that plagues the industry is that too many filmmakers do not care enough to portray other cultures authentically. It is the high time for the industry to realize that cultural appropriation is devoid of meaning and culture, and movies devoid of meaning and culture are bad cultures—in the end, people watch films because they communicate the experience of humanity, which is culture.
Rogers, R. (2006) “A Review and Reconceptualization of Cultural Appropriation,” Communication Theory, 16, 474-503.
In the introduction of Richard A. Rogers’ 2006 article, “From Cultural Exchange to Transculturation: A Review and Reconceptualization of Cultural Appropriation,” the author defines the concept cultural appropriation as, “the use of a culture’s symbols, artifacts, genres, rituals, or technologies by members of another culture” (p.474). This interpretation of cultural appropriation may appear similar to the concept of “cultural exchange”, but upon closer examination, these two phenomena are quite different from one another. The main difference between cultural appropriation and cultural exchange is their varying degrees of cultural reciprocity. That is to say, in the case of cultural exchange, the cultural groups in question exhibit a give-and-take of cultural elements. This process stands in stark contrast to that of cultural appropriation, in which one cultural group extracts certain elements of another group’s culture without reciprocation.
Rogers expounds on his definition of cultural appropriation by citing Merriam-Webster’s definition of “appropriation” as, “’to take or make use of without authority or right’ (p.61)” (Rogers, 2006, p.475). Rogers is asserting that cultural appropriation is an act that is performed without permission. It is within this context of cultural appropriation that we will examine the recent success of Caucasian hip-hop artist, Iggy Azalea. Is Iggy Azalea’s chart-topping album, The New Classic, a blatant appropriation of Black culture on her part, or is Azalea simply an artist and entertainer, trying to provide consumers with what they demand?
In the 2015 article, “White echoes: Rap, race and Iggy Azalea,” written by Chris Richards for The Washington Post, Richards opines that Iggy Azalea’s music is “an empty white echo,” merely imitating the style of Southern Black hip-hop artists (Richards, 2015). He goes on to say that the popularity of Azalea’s single, “Fancy,” begs the question: “Who does hip-hop belong to now?” Richards is suggesting that the recognition of Azalea’s work by the consumer public, as well as potentially the Grammy awards, signifies an appropriation of Black hip-hop culture on the part of Azalea. Richards points out that the Grammy awards, considered the gold standard for success in the American music industry, tend to correspond to sales trends (Richards, 2015). Richards argues that the commercial success of Azalea’s music goes beyond monetary value; it threatens to challenge the value of authentic hip-hop culture by celebrating an obvious and shameless imitation.
Some attribute the rise of Iggy Azalea to forces beyond her control, arguing that her ascent to stardom is not the product of a conscious cultural appropriation on Azalea’s part, but rather larger cultural forces have led to her success. The Guardian writer, Stephanie Convery, in her 2014 piece entitled, “In defense of Iggy Azalea: on racism, naivety and a twisted cluster of exploitation,” claims that “Iggy Azalea is the inevitable product of neoliberal capitalism” (Convery, 2014). Convery cites Azalea’s involvement with notable hip-hop star, T.I., an African-American male from Atlanta, as evidence that Azalea considers herself within the bounds of traditional hip-hop culture. As Convery puts it, “Azalea thinks she is making art,” while T.I. and the other producers behind the scenes of Azalea’s music “know they’re making money” (Convery, 2014). It’s not that Iggy Azalea is appropriating Black culture for her own benefit; rather, Azalea is being used and promoted (albeit willingly) to fill a particular demand, and therefore generate capital.
Personally, I find it hard to separate Iggy Azalea and her music from the idea of cultural appropriation. Hip-hop as an art form is firmly rooted in the Black American experience. Yes, it is true that certain white individuals have had life experiences that cause them to relate more to Black American culture than to their own, but the fact remains that Iggy Azalea is not one of those people. There is no reason why Iggy Azalea, or someone like her, cannot enjoy hip-hop music and appreciate its message, but there is a line between appreciation and appropriation. Iggy Azalea, while her intentions I believe are not malicious, is doing more harm than good to the art of hip-hop. All I know is, I’d hate to be sitting next to Kanye West when Iggy wins her first Grammy.
Rogers, R.A. (2006). From Cultural Exchange to Transculturation: A Review and Reconceptualization of Cultural Appropriation. Communication Theory, 16, 474-503.