James O. Young: Cultural appropriation and the arts
James O. Young: Cultural appropriation and the arts
复制标题
詹姆斯·欧杨：文化挪用与艺术
DOI：
10.1007/s10824-011-9137-3
复制
发表时间：
2011
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Marianna
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bicskei;Marianna
《文化挪用与艺术》（Cultural Appropriation and the Arts），作者：James O.杨，提供了一个分析性的，全面的概述有关文化挪用的伦理和美学问题。在他的专著中，杨解决了重要的文化相关问题，如文化成员，所有权和责任。杨从美学和道德的角度进行思考，旨在确定艺术领域中错误的和可接受的（反对的与非反对的）文化挪用类型。他得出结论，“文化挪用在美学上的成功比我们被引导去相信的要多”，“文化挪用在错误地有害或冒犯方面的错误比一些人反对的要少”（第152页）。开始，区分不同的参与者有助于对文化挪用进行定义，文化挪用被定义为非该文化成员（局外人）使用与该文化（局内人）有关的物品。杨对文化的概念有着非常广泛的理解，认为文化是具有足够数量的共同文化特征的人的集合。他的关注点仅限于整个文化被挪用的情况，而不是只有一个内部人士受到影响的情况。在一个文化重叠的世界里，挑战在于确定谁属于特定的文化，以及可以共同拥有什么类型的文化物品以及如何拥有。虽然杨承认文化所有权主要取决于特定文化的法律的制度，但他从哲学的角度审视了这个问题。杨讨论了一种文化是否可以拥有诸如风格、图案、设计、情节和主题等项目，以及这些项目是否可以被自由挪用。然而，这种讨论是不适当的，因为财产或知识产权的所有权合法地限于个人或一群人，而不是特定的文化;文化不能拥有任何东西。
Cultural Appropriation and the Arts, by James O. Young, provides an analytical, comprehensive overview of ethical and aesthetic issues concerning cultural appropriation. In his monograph, Young addresses important culture-related questions such as cultural membership, ownership and responsibilities. Thinking in aesthetic and moral categories, Young aims to identify wrong and acceptable (objectionable vs. non-objectionable) types of cultural appropriation in the sphere of art. He concludes that ‘cultural appropriation is aesthetically successful more often than we are led to believe’and that ‘cultural appropriation is wrongfully harmful or offensive less often than some people suggest’(p. 152). To begin with, a distinction of the different actors involved facilitates a definition of cultural appropriation, which is defined as the usage of items pertaining to a certain culture (insiders) by non-members of that culture (outsiders). Young understands the concept of culture in a very broad sense, as a collection of people with a sufficient number of common cultural traits. His focus is limited to cases of appropriation of culture as a whole, not when only one insider is affected. In a world with overlapping cultures, the challenge lies in identifying who belongs to a specific culture as well as what type of cultural items can be owned commonly and how. Although Young recognises that cultural ownership mostly depends on the legal regime of the particular culture, he examines this question from a philosophical view. Young discusses whether a culture can own items such as style, patterns, design, plots and motifs and whether these items can be freely appropriated. This discussion is, however, not appropriate in the sense that the ownership of property or intellectual property is lawfully restricted to individuals or a group of people, not to a particular culture; a culture cannot own anything.