Authenticity

[BPL Esq]

Look up some data about how competitive the academic job market is in most STEM fields vs humanities/social sciences fields. To put it crudely, a lot of top people in STEM go work in industry, but all the top people in humanities/social sciences stay in academia. You may still think that it's all random and there are no standards involved regardless of the competitiveness, and I'm even inclined to agree about a handful of subfields. But I happen to be trained in analytic philosophy, which is a high consensus field, pretty much like most STEM disciplines. In any case, I wasn't trying to offer an argument, from authority or otherwise. I was just trying to explain why I can't be bothered to engage with adrianvo and his playground insults.

Understood. I did not intend to disparage you or your field. I didn't major in a STEM field. While I can certainly accept that there are some "high consensus" subfields in the humanities/social sciences, I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that those departments, at least in US universities and probably elsewhere, are generally non-scientific, dominated by the political left (such as it is in the US), and put to use toward their own political ends. To be fair, we shouldn't have ended up on this subject anyway, as admonitions to one another about reading/studying more are generally unhelpful, as are comments about being low-IQ, etc. Here's hoping we can all return to the original topic....

 

[radicaldog]

My own position is close to Scaifidi's -- be respectful of sacred symbols, be aware of the source of things, and be aware of when something is just a rip off of another's design (the third is what I mostly try to avoid with certain things, as I'm mostly interested in material effects, so I would not want to see a maker from a disadvantaged community be further disadvantage materially). But I'm trying to be more of a listener when it comes to discussions about the non-material effects, particularly if they're being raised by people from said communities.

I think this is almost too sensible. I find it hard to disagree. But for the sake of the argument, let me try: sometimes great art requires irreverence, even disrespect (there is a whole literature in aesthetics on whether moral considerations can detract from the value of an artwork qua artwork etc). Still, it's unclear whether that sort of argument could ever apply to clothes or jewellery. So maybe a viable position could go something like this: cultural appropriation of the mocking, uncouth kind is sometimes OK for the sake of artistic achievement, but this exception is quite unlikely to ever apply to jawnz.

 

[classicalthunde]

I’m really asking about whether this behavior is authentic to oneself.

I think the individual would need to answer that on a case by case basis, I think its tough to draw a single thematic thread through such a diverse number of people. Even just taking a sample of one:

- While not a lumberjack, I did grow up in New England in the 90s so I have a soft (no pun intended) spot for flannel. So I wear it a lot even through it doesn't necessarily correlate with my current region or profession
- I don't scuba dive, but I am a fan of the James Bond movies and one day would like to get my hands on a Submariner, plus I like its timeless design, the rugged nature of its build, and think the the bezel function could come in handy in a bunch of different ways
- I wear a lot of Patagonia (once again, 90s New England kid), but primarily because its comfortable, accessible, and is versatile. I'm not rocking a $500 Gortex shell to the grocery store on Tuesday but a black Patagonia fleece has definitely crossed over from 'specialized' item to general clothing. (and even so, a walking commuter in Seattle or Boston might have more need for a $500 Gortex jacket than someone in the wilds of New Mexico)
- I have a Barbour, I don't wear it hunting cause its not up to modern standards, I'm not an English country-side gentleman, but when you look at the core functionality of the piece (water resistant, warm-ish, lots of pockets, relatively timeless style, olive goes well with a lot of things) it make sense for me at this time as a jacket that straddles nice and utilitarian
- Same thing with golf/polo shirts...I think they have lost their specialized significance through a broad cultural popularity

with regards to the intent of your original question...I think it all boils down to "can the person reasonably explain why they like this item without resorting to its symbolism or what it might trying to infer about themselves"

tangentially related, in the late-00s and early-10s I used to live in a city neighborhood that had a weird mix of old timers and hipsters, my friends and I developed a "hipster test" which was essentially asking or inferring that someone was a hipster and then watching their response - if they freaked out and got all defensive, they were a hipster. If they ignored it, blew it off, or just said "whatever, man..." then they weren't a hipster, they were just being their authentic selves

I think that litmus test is kind of useful in this context

 

[dieworkwear]

I want to stress again that I’m really asking about whether this behavior is authentic to oneself.

I've personally accepted that I'm just a fashion guy who likes clothes. I used to wrestle with this question all the time (i.e. "how do my clothes reflect the 'real me'"). Then I realized I'm a guy who likes clothes and likes to play dress up, and that fashion can be its own identity. Even to casual observers, they know if they're looking at a guy who's playing "dress up" -- a "hip lumberjack" versus a "real lumberjack," to stay with this theme.

I also think people can have multiple and sometimes even contradictory identities. I'm not sure there's such a thing as a "true self." I think I've had the same personality over the course of my lifetime, but personality is different from identity. Someone can be calm or hot-tempered, but then maybe identify with different class, religious, or cultural backgrounds depending on their experiences in life.

 

[adrianvo]

I am tenured professor of political theory at a major research university. I published on topics closely related to those under discussion here in the top journals in my field. If I engage in banter on here it's to stave off lockdown anxiety. I am not going to start providing remedial education to someone who sounds like a confused Jordan Peterson fanboy.

Academia, especially the social sciences has experienced a steep decline since the 60s, and has become nothing but a leftist echo-chamber. There is absolutely nothing that this adds to your argument other than "I'm so smart and a professor, so your argument is invalid." Embarrassing mindset. No wonder academics have no status or credibility anymore.

I'll stoop to your level for fun as an exception:
If we're going to use academic credentials to strengthen our positions, so be it.
I am an economist who graduated with honors. I understand the economy and how society works - that's why I'm not a leftist. I work to create value, not diminish what value the west has.

I wouldn't call myself a fanboy of anyone in particular, but since you reveal your eagerness to bash JP, I'd like to see how your academic achievements surpass him.

My friendly suggestion is that this thread can only be productive or interesting if you put certain people on ignore and only reply to people who are contributing in a more serious way. (You can call that "canceling" or whatever, but this back and forth will go for many, many pages and will be largely pointless, whereas I think there are some people who can contribute something interesting, and thus the thread could be worthwhile.)

Feel free to do so. I wouldn't miss your breath down my neck at all. ?

To bring this to something that I've been thinking about a lot lately:

I like Native American jewelry and weavings, and I try to buy these things from actual Native American people. In Scafidi's paradigm, it would be wrong for a non-Native person to copy an NA design and sell it on the market because doing so crowds the market and lowers the price of such objects, which materially hurts an already disadvantaged group. Staying on topic with the OP's post, I would also consider such "rip-offs" as "inauthentic" (although I admit, I'm generally not that hung up on the idea of authenticity, I care about it in certain contexts).

However, I struggle with how I feel about the use of NA imagery or designs in other contexts. In Scafidi's paradigm, it's fine to use another culture's ideas in your own designs, and this is the sort of exchange of culture that makes the world more interesting (I would broadly agree with this). You just have to be sensitive to sacred symbols and not just "rip off" a design. Remix it in some way (again, I agree with this).

In the last couple of years, however, I've been reading some NA scholars here and there who have written about the use of NA symbols in fashion. The most obvious example is Ralph Lauren, a brand I really love. According to these scholars, such imagery or representation is usually added to make the item look more "naturalistic." Sort of like, "the earth is good, and so is this cardigan, I put a Native motif here so you will pay $1,000." Some have criticized this as further pigeonholing Native American culture.

My own position is close to Scaifidi's -- be respectful of sacred symbols, be aware of the source of things, and be aware of when something is just a rip off of another's design (the third is what I mostly try to avoid with certain things, as I'm mostly interested in material effects, so I would not want to see a maker from a disadvantaged community be further disadvantage materially). But I'm trying to be more of a listener when it comes to discussions about the non-material effects, particularly if they're being raised by people from said communities.

Curious if people have any thoughts about this here.

...and then you proceed to (somewhat) join the discussion.

While there are some links between "wokeness" and "the left", the current manifestation of wokeness is a US-inspired "progressive" movement whose essence is precisely not to talk about economic class. (Mixing threads) That's how super-wealthy and privileged Harry&Meg can be on the side of the Wokists/Leftists/Progressives.

"Some links"? Rather the exact same roots and origins. Where do you think the progressive movement sprung out of?
Super-wealthy and privileged people who are woke are usually born into wealth, in other words, they have never worked a normal job (or in some cases any job, ever). They tend to live in their own bubble, and know nothing of the struggles of normal people, and there are some people who use it as a façade for woke-points.

Today, it's hard to distinguish between those who truly are that way, and who are using the movement for their own self-interest. Milton Friedman's article from the 1970s in the NYT magazine gives an excellent illustration of this if you're able to read between the lines.

 

[radicaldog]

Understood. I did not intend to disparage you or your field. I didn't major in a STEM field. While I can certainly accept that there are some "high consensus" subfields in the humanities/social sciences, I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that those departments, at least in US universities and probably elsewhere, are generally non-scientific, dominated by the political left (such as it is in the US), and put to use toward their own political ends. To be fair, we shouldn't have ended up on this subject anyway, as admonitions to one another about reading/studying more are generally unhelpful, as are comments about being low-IQ, etc. Here's hoping we can all return to the original topic....

What makes academic expertise valuable is not its being "scientific" but its being the best available understanding of a given topic--not all topics are amenable to causal explanation after all, to simplify brutally.

It is also a myth that the Left dominates the humanities and social sciences, unless you think the Democratic/Labour party is the Left. Really, the dominant ideology of academia is a centre-left, superficially woke liberalism. (Do I think this explains things like the huge replication crisis in social psych? Yes. You can have that one. But it also goes to show that the scientific method/causal identification ain't all that. And don't get me started on the most comically ideological discipline of all: economics.) Radical leftists are more marginalised in academia than e.g. libertarians, who if anything are overrepresented relative to the population. Conservatives proper are even rarer than leftists, yes, but in the US at least they have many entire institutions just for them (whereas there is only one New School, by and large).

To bring this back on topic, I'll close with this: claiming the mantle of the left while pushing liberalism is cultural appropriation! Liberal wokewashers and reformist socdems should stop wearing socialist insignia

 

[BPL Esq]

It is also a myth that the Left dominates the humanities and social sciences, unless you think the Democratic/Labour party is the Left. Really, the dominant ideology of academia is a centre-left, superficially woke liberalism.

That's exactly what I meant by the "such as it is in the US" parenthetical. I don't believe that most humanities professors are revolutionary Communists, for example, but they are mostly "woke liberals" who take advantage of the largely non-scientific nature of their fields to try lending credibility to the woke opinions they'd like to pass off as fact.

I prefer that they keep appropriating socialist insignia. It makes it much easier to identify in advance people I don't want to talk to.

 

[classicalthunde]

But I'm trying to be more of a listener when it comes to discussions about the non-material effects, particularly if they're being raised by people from said communities.

Curious if people have any thoughts about this here.

Can you elaborate what you mean by non-material effects? Do you mean being offended or hurt by a cultural artifacts rise to broad popularity?

I'm not too well versed in Native American art/culture, but I do think of a particular palette and certain geometric designs when I think of Native Americans (particularly in the Southwest), and I do enjoy the aesthetics of it.

I've always liked the designs Wes Lang did for the Grateful Dead Spring '90 releases. I wanted to get one of the merch t-shirts with the skull and headdress at the time, I like the colors and the "Americana-ness" of it, and how it served as an 'understated' Grateful Dead piece compared to loud tie dyes. I never ended up getting one of but I wonder if I had would I feel comfortable wearing it now...

 

[dieworkwear]

Can you elaborate what you mean by non-material effects? Do you mean being offended or hurt by a cultural artifacts rise to broad popularity?

By "material effects," I mean someone is hurt materially. So, let's say you're a Native American person who makes rugs. Someone then takes your design, makes them in China, and imports them into the United States. Since it can be very difficult for a consumer to know who made something, it can be difficult for even people who care about "sourcing" to figure what they should pay. So now even the price of "authentic" goods goes down, which materially affects you (e.g. you get less money).

By non-material effects, I mean anything that doesn't have to do with the material world. So it hurts you in other ways that have nothing to do with food, housing, health, etc.

Some non-material effects already stated in this thread: wearing something that's disrespectful of a sacred symbol. No one is materially hurt by you disrespecting a sacred symbol; it's just not a nice thing to do.

But outside of sacred symbols, I think things are a bit trickier.

Here's an example of a non-material effect that I'm personally not that sensitive to. A few years ago, a white college student wore a Chinese dress to prom. That sparked outrage and the meme "my culture is not your costume." Although my family is from Vietnam, I personally didn't think it was a big deal for that student to wear the dress (I suppose in the US, all East Asians get lumped together, so I can kind of claim it's "my" culture). I personally don't want to see people live in cultural silos -- I would like to see more sharing of culture. And to the OP's point, we are so far along in globalization, "authentic" sourcing is not that easy anyway, as many things we think are pure examples of a culture are a result of many years of cross-cultural fertilization.

A few years ago, I spoke with a friend of mine, who's a professor of sociology. We talked about some of these non-material effects. The gist of it was: some people simply don't like seeing their culture appropriated, especially by a dominant group that has historically oppressed them. This history may have lingering effects today, and such cultural practices are a way for "insiders" to bond with each other. That effect gets diluted when "outsiders" appropriate it.

On this specific issue of NA culture, I was reading about how such uses of NA motifs pigeonhole NA artists and culture. Here's an example:

This is a NA bracelet made for the Fred Harvey Company, which was a chain of restaurants and hotels in the early 20th century that ran along the Santa Fe railway. During this time, white people came into the Southwest through the Santa Fe railroad and purchased NA items in museum shops. So they'd buy a bracelet like the one you see above and bring it home as a souvenir.

The crossed arrows -- a motif common in this field -- is not something that NA artists typically made for themselves. For about fifty years prior to the Fred Harvey Company, NA makers made jewelry for themselves and their own community. They decorated such things with conchos or crescent-shaped symbols, which have meaning in their culture. But white tourists wanted more obvious Native American motifs, such as bows and arrows. So makers put them on the bracelets, rings, and necklaces -- it's what sold.

This continues today. Many NA jewelers are reluctant to make such designs because they feel it's corny and pigeonholes NA culture into a "naturalist" thing (sort of like teepees, bows and arrows, etc). And it reinforces negative stereotypes of NA culture (e.g. "noble savage"). Many NA artists will make stuff like this

Or even more modern designs:

But for some, they can't make a living off modern designs because the market still expects a very specific "Native American look." (Even the above are very "Native American looking." So some complain that while they can make a living off making bracelets decorated with bows and arrows, they're pigeonholed in this way as artists. Whereas white painters aren't asked to constantly recreate Renaissance paintings of fruit bowls and Jesus, Native Americans are expected to promote this "naturalist" view of their culture.

That said, I'm still reading about this subject and would not consider myself an expert on it. Just curious about it since I like NA jewelry and weavings, and obviously fashion, so I've been reading about the intersection of these things. I may have misrepresented these scholars' arguments (I can try to dig up the names and papers later), but that is my recollection.

 

[adrianvo]

What makes academic expertise valuable is not its being "scientific" but its being the best available understanding of a given topic--not all topics are amenable to causal explanation after all, to simplify brutally.

Translation: Covert narcissism.

Please, o' holy academic, explain to us marsupials how the world works in 30 IQ-language. Only leftist professors can read anything above that, obviously.

It is also a myth that the Left dominates the humanities and social sciences

This is a plain lie and you know it. I don't think you're this stupid or this deep in denial. The only field of "science" that is more leftist than those are probably gender-studies.

And don't get me started on the most comically ideological discipline of all: economics

That's rich coming from a political scientist ?
Economics has no ideology. Numbers are indifferent to whether you vote for Crook #1 or Crook 2#. It is among other things a tool to predict which financial decisions lead to the best outcome, or rather, which choices can create the most (financial) prosperity.

There were plenty of leftists at my school during our days as students, however, most of them dropped out or strayed away from the left as soon as they started working and grew up a little.

To bring this back on topic, I'll close with this: claiming the mantle of the left while pushing liberalism is cultural appropriation! Liberal wokewashers and reformist socdems should stop wearing socialist insignia

I sympathize with you, and understand how you don't want to be associated with all of them. However, we all know that all of those paths leads to the same pile of poo.

 

[radicaldog]

That's exactly what I meant by the "such as it is in the US" parenthetical. I don't believe that most humanities professors are revolutionary Communists, for example, but they are mostly "woke liberals" who take advantage of the largely non-scientific nature of their fields to try lending credibility to the woke opinions they'd like to pass off as fact.

I see. This is increasingly true in Europe too -- after all I'd say at least a quarter of my direct colleagues did their PhD in the US. To be honest, though, I think most of the relevant academics don't really accept a simple fact/opinion dichotomy. They (we) simply (or rather, more complicatedly) claim expertise. I don't think a typical social theorist purports to speak with the same epistemic confidence of a chemist; but that doesn't mean they should accept that their considered views on society have the same epistemic status as those of a random person who lacks the relevant expertise. If they (well, we) were clearer on that point there may be less mutual distrust and misunderstanding.

On the appropriation of socialist insignia, maybe you're right. After all I can tell the difference anyway, by now.

 

[radicaldog]

Economics has no ideology. Numbers are indifferent to whether you vote for Crook #1 or Crook 2#. It is among other things a tool to predict which financial decisions lead to the best outcome, or rather, which choices can create the most (financial) prosperity.

Oh yes I forgot about the awesome predictive power of economics. Great track record for all to see there.

If you're genuinely interested in this issue though, you could do worse than start with this simple text by one of the world's greatest authorities on the epistemic status of economics (and no, not a leftist). Seriously: it's a really interesting little retrospective essay because it shows how the author gradually changed his mind about the epistemic status of econ, especially re: its empirical credentials, partly as a result of continuous engagement and debate with major economists.

Less serious spoiler alert that will bring us back on topic: some actual scientists have some reason to complain about cultural appropriation by economists

 

[adrianvo]

Oh yes I forgot about the awesome predictive power of economics. Great track record for all to see there.

If you're genuinely interested in this issue though, you could do worse than starting with this simple text by one of the world's greatest authorities on the epistemic status of economics (and no, not a leftist).

Last I checked, politicians with zero work experience ran countries, not economists.
Sure, some are financial advisors, but what is good financial advice worth when you can virtue signal to further your own career?

In what world is a philosopher "one of the world's greatest authorities" on economics? You're joking right??
I'm not even going to check whether he's a leftist or not - makes absolutely no difference.

Spoiler alert that will bring us back on topic: actual scientists have reason to complain about cultural appropriation by economists

He-he-he-he, wink-wink-wink ????

It doesn't take a genius to identify the anti-white/western bias that cultural appropriation carries - but it took an economist to point it out to "actual scientists", indeed. Perhaps studies with an objective focus on reality has its advantages, Mr. Actual Scientist.

 

[Bromley]

I just listened to the podcast, "Test Kitchen" (itself fraught and scandal-laden), which is about the toxic work environment and systemic racism at Bon Appetit magazine. Perspectives from various test kitchen chefs are presented and discussed. Some chefs categorically didn't like being assigned dishes/recipes from their native or ancestral regions, as they felt like they were being pigeon-holed. And others categorically didn't like not being assigned dishes/recipes from their native or ancestral regions, as they saw themselves as especially qualified to do that work.

There are a lot of obvious appropriation/racism no-nos, but I think a lot of this stuff is really personal to those who might be offended. I think that's why the gray area can be tricky to navigate for people who wish to be conscientious, but I think it's still always worth trying to be conscientious.

How about that contemporary Japanese stuff that's like, American WWII bomber jackets hand-painted with kill tallies? That's a real mindfuck.

 

[FlyingHorker]

For my own culture, I can't think of many circumstances where I felt it was appropriated. The closest I can think of is Justin Trudeau cosplaying, but that was more cringeworthy and goofy than anything.

Indian influences are vast in menswear, and culturally whitewashed enough to not have many connotations these days.

I definitely avoid Native American motifs in clothing, even if I feel like they look really cool. They're 100% a marginalized group in Canada and I can't think of any clothing brands headed by Native people that sell those.

With Indian influences, my interpretation is that it was generally voluntary exchange between markets and cultures.