Cultural appropriation in the Naga context
Veroli Zhimo
Several fashion labels have been in hot water over claims of cultural appropriation of Naga textile and materials over the past few months. Globally too, top fashion labels and designers are being chastised for their missteps around cultural appropriation which cause deep harm to Indigenous cultures. But, despite the outrage and the backlash, not a day goes without news reports on such cases. Why is this?
Part of the answer is that clear rules prohibiting the harmful exploitation of Indigenous designs simply do not exist. As a result, designers are in the dark about what is acceptable and what is not when borrowing from Indigenous cultures. But while cross-cultural influences are nothing new and they enrich our world, there’s a boundary of respectfulness that needs to be set.
When the ‘Tribal Crafts India’ brand ripped off the Ao Naga ‘Tsüngkotepsü’ shawl and listed it on the Amazon shopping site, the shawl retailed for Rs 9,000 (The Morung Express, September 4 issue). That’s a lot of money for a shawl, but the problem is not just economic injustice. Misusing traditional designs has moral, social, cultural and at times, spiritual ramifications on the culture it is ‘borrowed’ from.
Naga traditional designs and symbols, like most other Indigenous cultural materials, do not serve a purely aesthetic function — they have meaning, and failure to appreciate that is hurtful for those who have struggled to ensure their culture’s survival over generations.
Cultural appropriation can be loosely defined as any process through which the elements of a given minority culture, such as symbols, artefacts, genres, rituals, or technologies, are used by members of a different culture outside the original cultural context. Not limiting itself to the fashion industry, it cuts across many industries and walks of life and represents the act of ‘stealing’ stories and values from cultures and peoples’ heritage, and leaving the people out of the story entirely.
And while, there is no clear legal definition of the phenomenon, there are a few things to question while trying to determine if something is culturally appropriated or not—is the design used outside of its traditional context; is there a power imbalance; was there any involvement, acknowledgment or permission asked of the source culture; did it cause social, economic or cultural harm?
Another point of worry is that there are no laws when it comes to protecting traditional cultural designs among other creative expressions from offensive use. While copyright law protect products of creativity, most traditional forms of creativity — like designs, songs or stories — fall outside of its scope.
So, how can the Naga people protect themselves from cultural appropriation?
This is where the state government can step in.
Earlier in the week, Chairperson of the Nagaland Handloom and Handicrafts Development Corporation (NHHDC) Ltd Miathou Krose told this newspaper that the corporation has been considering formulating a textile policy or even a regulatory authority so that issues of cultural appropriation do not crop up again (The Morung Express, September 4 issue).
Acknowledging that the state has gone straight to promotion and the commercial aspect of marketing products without the protection that is required, the chairperson was firm in asserting that Naga textiles cannot be used ‘cheaply,’ as these cultural materials are sacrosanct to the Naga society and form the very basis of Naga identity. Krose also said that the matter would be taken up to the highest level in the government and at the same time, emphasised that tackling the issue would require collective effort not only from the government but the communities’ contribution as well.
In this context, Nagaland’s policy-makers should seriously consider the NHHDC’s proposal for a state textile policy or regulatory authority to ensure that protection is extended to traditional cultural expressions. It needs to send a clear message that disrespectful ‘borrowing’ from the Naga Indigenous culture is unacceptable.
In the meantime, tribal organisations in the state also need to contribute to these efforts and maybe consider taking a page from the Chakhesang Women Welfare Society’s effort to protect the Chakhesang shawls under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.
Indigenous peoples need to have control over their own culture. If current trends are to continue, without legal protection, the vicious cycle of appropriation and issuing apologies will continue unabated.
Comments can be sent to vzhimolimi@gmail.com
