SUSTAINABILITY AS A DECOY FOR CULTURAL APPROPRIATION

Sustainability as a Decoy for Cultural Appropriation

By: Sofie Laursen In this article, I examine how the concept of sustainability is being used by the fashion industry as a decoy for cultural appropriation. I investigate how fashion brands use recycled materials, especially African-American quilts, to justify appropriation in the name of sustainability and how these quilts are a controversial example of a culture, whose visual identity is being exploited. As the fashion industry is beginning to think about more sustainable practices, some brands use sustainability as a buzzword to mask their use of cultural appropriation. I will investigate quilting practices and develop a framework of the visual exploitation of African-American quilt culture.

It has been argued that every system has its blind spot. The current fashion industry emits 1.2 trillion greenhouse gases annually (Foundation 2017). Considering this, the world is beginning to think about circular means of production, where the concept of waste does not exist. “Circular” refers to a concept from Michael Braungart and William McDonough in Cradle to Cradle (Braungart & McDonough 2009 [2002]), which implies that not everything has to be produced from something new, but instead designers should think about using other resources like recycled materials to make new products. Deadstock fabrics, vintage rugs, and quilts are just a few examples of this concept. This shows a radical improvement in the incorporation of recycled materials into clothing design and production, and according to Ellen MacArthur, “brands are in a good position to market new models as an attractive and fashionable option” (Foundation 2017:33). On the other hand, one needs to look more critically at these new, sustainable business models and ask where the materials come from and who made them. The fashion industry does not ask this question. Instead, it uses sustainability as a buzzword to point out it’s contributions to this discourse.

Similarly, the industry does not hold its producers accountable for cultural appropriation or cultural insensitivity. One needs to understand the origin of cultural appropriation to determine whether a culture is being exploited or not. Susan Scafidi defines cultural appropriation as “taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artefacts from someone else’s culture without permission. This is especially problematic when the source of the community is a minority group that suffers a history of oppression” (Scafidi 2005). In the fashion industry it is striking that brands use cultural appropriation to promote themselves and profit from the exploitation of minority cultures. Susan Scafidi defines cultural appropriation as “taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artefacts from someone else’s culture without permission. This is especially problematic when the source of the community is a minority group that suffers a history of oppression” (Scafidi 2005)

Peter Shand’s article, “Scenes from the Colonial Cultural Appropriation, Intellectual Property Rights, and Fashion” (2002) investigates the industry’s appropriation of cultural heritage. Shand argues that “the initial phase of modern cultural heritage appropriation was underscored by the Enlightenment and Empire, during which all the world was made over to fit the intellectual, economic, and cultural requirements of first Europe, then the United States” (Shand 2002:52). According to Shand, these “exotic” cultures were displayed by the white, privileged colonialist, thereby making them available for appropriation.

Tangible and Intangible Expressions of Culture

In 2003, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) published a book on intellectual property, genetic resources, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions. In this book, WIPO argues that expressions of traditional culture can be both tangible and intangible; an example being African American quilts depicting Bible stories in applique designs. The underlying traditional cultu-

re or folkloric knowledge from which the expression is derived is generally intangible. A quilt may depict an old myth or symbol and is part of the underlying intangible “folklore,” as is the knowledge and skill used to produce the quilt, while the quilt itself is a tangible expression of that folklore (World Intellectual Property Organization 2003).

Furthermore, intellectual property is defined as creations of the mind, including, “inventions, literary and artistic works, designs, symbols, names, and images used in commerce” (World Intellectual Property Organization 2021). I argue that the fashion industry uses the concept of sustainability to co-opt these cultural objects and profits from the reproduction of these intangible expressions. In light of this, it is significant to assess why it can sometimes be problematic to upcycle old materials.

African-American Quilt Culture

According to Elsa Barkley Brown, who published a study of the history of African-American women, a group’s cultural aesthetic is not that different from their political and economic aesthetic. When looking at material cultures like quilt-making, we can illustrate a way of ordering the world (Brown 1989:925-926). Quilts have a full heritage and are made by women who contributed to settling America and whose families’ histories are sewn into that specific object, which has been passed on to generation after generation. In light of this, it is important to assess the exploitation of vintage African-American quilts, and consider whether it is okay that these quilts are seen on white people.

Modens mønsterbrydere (DR)

The Danish Broadcasting Corporation (DR) produced a 4-part series entitled Modens Mønsterbrydere (Fashion Industry Pioneers), featuring Danish designers and design students who insist on making room for sustainability, diversity, and slow processes while cultivating craftsmanship and tradition (DR 2020). I focus on two episodes highlighting Danish fashion designers Line Sander and Bettina Bakdal.

The production team of this series brought in lector Maria MacKinney-Valentin from the Royal Danish Academy, whose primary research fields are gender, identity, history, and theory. Bringing in an academic like MacKinney-Valentin was supposed to contribute to the credibility of the show’s themes, but MacKinney-Valentin merely generalizes about the history of quilts in the US - that these quilts are loaded with traditions and rituals, and are an important part of the history of African-American quilt culture. But instead of pointing out the cultural insensitivities in this upcycling project, she focused more on how women have always used recycled materials back then, and how they turned these materials into beautiful textile art. But she forgets to ask critical questions about these new business models. What happens when you make profits off African-American quilts? Why is it acceptable to take cultural objects and appropriate them in the West without acknowledging the history of slavery and violence that is part of that colonial history? Why is colonial history excluded from fashion history and fashion education at design schools? Why do designers and educators continue to disconnect colonial history from sustainability and ethics in fashion?

Line Sander is a Danish fashion designer, educated at Design School Kolding in 2012. In this series, Line Sander presented her take on “this year’s Christmas stocking”, which is made of an African-American quilt rug from 1871. The pattern of this rug is highly characteristic of the traditional African-American pattern called “Grandmother’s Basket.” The pattern on this rug is characterised by small baskets with names written above. The names tell us that this particular quilt is a community quilt, made by hand. On the back of the rug is feedsack fabric, typically used as quilt backing at that time. Sander’s “Christmas stocking” is an example of appropriating the visual identity of formerly enslaved people. It is problematic when wealthy, white people have a cut-up African-American quilt hanging in their living room with no understanding of its significance. Even though Sander points out the origins of the quilt during the series, she still chooses to sew Christmas stockings from it. She puts her own spin on it by sewing small patches on the original rug, making it something more “exotic.” Quilt culture is a sacred practice, and the rug is a symbol of a violent African-American history. Objects such as these are used as a way to visually express African-American stories and should not be used as appropriated products to be resold for profits.

The Danish fashion designer Bettina Bakdal, who is featured in another episode of the series repurposes existing materials like vintage scarves, and puts her own spin on the pieces that she makes. With this approach, Bakdal appreciates the craftsmanship and aesthetic of every single scarf, but in contrast to Sander, the origin of the scarves is not from

a marginalized culture. They are upcycled materials made by big fashion houses like Hermès, Yves Saint Laurent, and Dior. This example illustrates that there is a difference in whose material culture and objects can be incorporated, up-cycled, re-used, repurposed,and then sold for profits again.

Bode

Bode is a New York-based fashion brand of luxury menswear that expresses a sentimentality for the past through the study of personal narratives and historical techniques (Bode 2021). In 2019 Emily Adams, the designer behind Bode, presented her menswear collection featuring vintage, African-American quilts. Notable pieces were a one-of-a-kind workwear jacket made from a “Log Cabin” quilt from the early twentieth century and a one-of-a-kind workwear jacket made from a “Crazy Quilt.” This collection of work-wear jackets is a prime example of how fashion brands appropriate the visual identity of marginalized people. These pieces are sold for $1,668, but this economic profit is by no means benefitting African-American quilting culture. Once again, up-cycling and sustainability are being used to legitimize a brand’s appropriating actions.

Unfortunately, brands like Bode are not the only examples of how fashion appropriates marginalized cultures. Within the discourse of sustainability, exploitation continues to occur. Why does this persist? To answer this question, it is important to understand a development in the history of fashion theory before the late twentieth century. In 1904, sociologist Georg Simmel argued that “classless societies and tribes do not have fashion” (Simmel 1998). This assumption is Eurocentric and perpetuates colonial exploitation; these tribes are considered to be outside of the fashion system, which implies that fashion only exists in capitalist, Western societies. This presumption still persists today, which is important to keep in mind when investigating how brands understand the concept of intellectual property.

Copyright Legislation

According to the World Intellectual Property Organizations, this is not the first time that the cultural identity of hand-made textile is used to benefit major corporations. Indigenous peoples and traditional communities have expressed the need to protect their designs embodied in hand-woven or hand-made textiles (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2003). WIPO argues that cultural heritage does not belong to the public domain and should be recognised as intellectual property. Copyright laws try to make provisions for the protection of cultural heritage works and works inspired by traditional cultural expressions. WIPO argues that the preservation of cultural heritage is important, as well as recognition of the moral rights of the original author (World Intellectual Property Organizations 2015:2-3). An initiative like the Maasai IP Initiative Trust Ltd (MIPI), which ensures the Maasai Peoples’ cultural brand, demonstrates a way of ensuring the recognition of cultural heritage.

A report published in 1995 by Erica-Irene Deas presents the study of the protection of the intellectual property of Indigenous people. According to this report, “heritage” is all that belongs to the distinct identity of a group, which is theirs to share if they wish. But it has been argued that Indigenous groups do not view their heritage in terms of property. Thus, it can be argued that heritage is a grouping of relationships rather than economic rights. So, the protection of heritage as intellectual property using copyright laws is inherently unsuitable (Daes 1997). Yet this interpretation also ignores the colonial exploitation of non-Western cultures. In light of this, designers and brands should not put a price on cultural practices by making a profit from a culture’s sacred objects. This begs the question; how can the fashion industry do better?

Conclusion

The fashion industry uses the concept of sustainability as a justification for appropriating cultural heritage of marginalized communities by making a profit from their unclaimed or unregulated labour and creativity, which reinforces colonial exploitation. Since brands often mislead consumers, the power of change lies outside of this system. As consumers, we need to start asking more critical questions of the fashion industry and hold everyone (the design schools, designers, brands, media) accountable for their actions. Sustainability is important and we need to rethink the way that the fashion system operates. But we also need to understand that sustainability and decoloniality, or respect for cultural heritage are interconnected and need to be part of fashion education, industry and consumer practices.