Counteracting cultural appropriation in the Sacatepéquez Mayan community
Pervasive cultural appropriation has been a continual obstacle for creative economy of local communities. An account of cultural misappropriation is given on this text, based on the Sacatepéquez Mayan community fight for claiming a re-appropriation of their own culture.
Cultural appropriation, is defined by the Oxford Dictionaries (2018) as “the unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the costumes, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society by members of another and typically more dominant people or society”. Particularly in the 21st century, cultural appropriation is often considered harmful, and to be a violation of the collective intellectual property rights[1] of the originating, minority cultures, notably indigenous cultures and those living under colonial rule (Fourmile, 1998). It can be referred to as cultural misappropriation, and understood, according to Galchen and Holmes (2017) as “expressions of ignorance or aggression, when objects, ideas, lived experiences or points of view are not so much examined as exploited and performed”.
Cultural appropriation has been debated across numerous sectors, and the fashion industry is no exception. For several decades, some fashion brands have commercialized and profited from the ancient heritage of indigenous cultures, often without consent, acknowledgement or compensation. These brands, when confronted, often argue that they get inspired by other cultures, appealing to cultural appreciation rather than cultural appropriation. They claim that the use of unique cultural symbols is an effort to recognize and pay homage to that specific culture.
However, there is a thin line between appreciation and appropriation. The cultural misappropriation in Guatemalan communities exemplifies how damaging can cultural appropriation be, calling upon not to confuse it with cultural appreciation. This distinction should be further discussed as a first step to guaranteeing a true inclusion of minorities into the creative economy.
While appropriation, as mentioned above, is seen as harmful, appreciation is not. By appealing to appreciation, what fashion companies are doing is morally detaching from a clear act of plagiarism. Re-appropriation movements claim that appreciation is not possible when it directly harms a specific culture. These voices are important to counter appropriation activities disguised as appreciation ones.
The case of the Mayan Weavers of Sacatepéquez
The Mayan culture has been one of the many cultures around the globe that have suffered the impact of cultural appropriation. The Guatemalan Mayans have endured the theft and co-optation of their textiles for years, both from foreign corporations and domestic non-indigenous designers. From local Guatemalan brands, however detached from the Mayan culture, to multinational high-couture brands, the Mayan culture has been trivialized as a simple trend in fashion, rather than respected within their original cultural context. Often, the original meaning of these cultural elements is lost or distorted, and such displays are often viewed as disrespectful. While disdaining this important culture, brands that profit with Mayan culture face no legal or economic consequences. Profits for Mayan communities on the other hand, remain marginal and their culture disdained.
Exogenous actors take elements of Mayan culture in order to satisfy fashion trends and select what is more convenient for the market. They take into consideration the market demands, but not the communities’ perspective, intellectual property or their participation in the same market. In words of Elizabeth Martínez, member of the Mayan community (as cited in Crisafulli, 2017) “white culture has found a way to use the Mayan culture as something exotic, something different, but they have failed to accept it as a whole. Instead white culture has picked apart the Mayan culture, it has adapted many of its traditions without asking for permission”.
Various Mayan communities have risen their voices to claim the re-appropriation of their culture. This has been particularly relevant within the weavers communities, which have had an active participation since the early 2000’s. Weavers represent a large part of the artisan activities and have ancestral techniques for completing their art. Whereas art is considered in the Western thought from an individualistic perspective, it is not the case in the Mayan weavers community. Their art is ancestral, and they have a shared baggage of techniques, symbols and other elements. This fundamental diversion in the conception of intellectual property, represents a major challenge to the current intellectual property rights framework, since it has not yet effectively implemented means of protection for communities’ intellectual property rights.
While the Mayan culture represents a huge economic asset of Guatemala with over 87% of the tourist sector relying on elements related to it (Bolaños, 2018), the Mayan people remain unprotected and with no means to profit from their own culture. Mayan weavers face huge economic pitfalls, not being able to get raw matter from fair markets and having few tools for accessing large markets, contrary to other international players. For example, weavers face a high cost of thread, due to the industry’s monopolistic practices. They also face more obstacles for exporting their crafted products than any big business.
If added to these economic pitfalls, they have to confront the stealing from their culture, they have ever-decreasing opportunities to achieve a dignified life. The market ground will be an ever unequal one if no legal consequences are to be faced by those who profit from cultural appropriation.
Action for claiming re-appropriation of Mayan cultural elements
Confronting this reality, by 2014, women from AFEDES (Women’s Association for the Development of Sacatepéquez by its acronym in Spanish) gathered enough motivation to initiate a litigation process to demand the state to generate the needed regulations for protecting indigenous peoples’ art. Among other things, they promote the existence of a patent for the Mayan weavers’ community property rights. By doing so, they attempt to claim their intellectual collective property and thus re-appropriating their own culture. AFEDES’ leader, Sandra Xinco (as cited in Picq, 2017) stated “It is not just about a handmade piece of cloth, since our hand-woven products are made based on our nations’ worldviews, philosophy and history. They speak about inspiration, but really it is cultural appropriation and we must begin to see it as stealing”.
They also attempt that with this recognition, the community will have more elements to compete on a fair ground. The community designated representatives to negotiate on their behalf with companies seeking to use their designs, and manage the distribution of funds back into the community. The Maya community would have more autonomy and control over their heritage and culture, thus alleviating two major hardships the community faces: cultural appropriation and dispossession. Angelina Aspuac, from AFEDES, states “They call for tourists to come to the country and they use us as bait. Our clothes, our culture, our work, but none of the money they make is returned to the indigenous communities. This is what we’re denouncing with the patent.”
The prevalence of this kind of cultural appropriation and plagiarism led 189 delegates from indigenous communities from around the world to gather in Geneva in June 2017, and convene a special committee within the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to ban the appropriation of indigenous cultures around the world. This and other kinds of efforts lead to the view that in cultural policy frameworks, particularly in Latin America, cultural rights are a source of legitimacy. Unfortunately, in Guatemala it is not the case, as cultural rights are disregarded and not taken as a fundamental right to be protected.
Acknowledging a multi-parties compromise for counter-acting cultural appropriation
Even when Guatemala became a signatory to the 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (which in its article 7 and 8 explicitly states the protection and promotion of cultural expressions of women and minorities), it has done little effort in this regard. Guatemala must strengthen the state-civil society relation, actively enable civil society participation, promote, cultural policy innovation and strive for consensus building regarding relevant cultural issues for the communities.
Whereas the international efforts are important and have made considerable progress in the last decade, the role of the Guatemalan state is crucial for the recognition of the cultural rights of Mayan communities. National law should protect community rights, acknowledging their cultural heritage. Acknowledgement is more than necessary as “heritage exists only because it is named as such” (Chappaz-Wirthner & Hertz, E. 2012). The inclusion of collective property rights in national law, as well as recognition of indigenous peoples as authors (individuals and enterprises are already recognized as such), would be a first step towards achieving a fair ground in property and market rights. However, the role of the state must limit not only to this but to enhance better holistic policies, that include Mayan communities as Guatemalans, providing them with economic and social benefits. It must ensure equal and just access to market to these communities, like facilities for exports and just access to inputs.
The support that international organizations have given to smaller organizations and the attention they have directed to collective intellectual property rights, is beneficial, but these actions are not enough. A wider view, that is not restrained by individualistic conceptions of intellectual rights, is needed. Embracing the communities’ conception of collective intellectual creations is the first step, deepening the discussion about how to incorporate this notion into the current intellectual property rights framework. The WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore is undertaking this task, striving for the effective protection of traditional knowledge and cultural expressions.
Finally, a wider movement that includes a larger part of the population must take place. While advocating for better legally binding instruments is necessary, it appears imperative to appeal to better practices in the fashion industry. Designers, artists and collaborators of the industry must be included as key actors in the effort to make cultural appropriation within the fashion industry unacceptable.
To truly widen the local development pathways as international development agencies denote, this issue must be promptly addressed. Cultural appropriation is not only stealing elements of a culture, but it is also a barrier that hinders economic and human development amongst several peoples. Cross-sectorial efforts must collaborate further to make the voices of Mayan weavers heard and make less and less accepted the misappropriation of any culture in any society.
[1] Collective intellectual property rights is hereby understood as the rights conferred to members of a given community that share common traditional knowledge, giving them the exclusive right over their shared creation (WIPO, 2018). This conception is still to be adopted in Western legal frameworks and its concept is still under discussion.
[2]According to the WIPO, traditional knowledge (TK) is a living body of knowledge passed on from generation to generation within a community. It often forms part of a people’s cultural and spiritual identity; while traditional cultural expressions (TCEs), also called “expressions of folklore”, may include music, dance, art, designs, names, signs and symbols, performances, ceremonies, architectural forms, handicrafts and narratives, or many other artistic or cultural expressions.
References
Bolaños, M. (2018). Turistas visitan Guatemala por cultura Maya y Tradiciones. Prensa Libre. Retrieved on November 2 from https://www.prensalibre.com/economia/inguat-gastara-q65-millones-para-promover-al-pais-a-nivel-internacional/
Galchen, R. and Holmes, A. (2017) What Distinguishes Cultural Exchange from Cultural Appropiation. The New York Times. Retrieved on November 6, 2018.
Lexico (2018). Lexico Dictionary powered by Oxford, consulted on https://www.lexico.com/definition/cultural_appropriation
Martínez, M (2017). After years of cultural appropriation Mayan weavers want legal protection for their heritage. Global Voices. Retrieved on November 2 from https://globalvoices.org/2017/09/25/after-years-of-cultural-appropriation-mayan-weavers-want-legal-protection-for-their-heritage/
Picq,M. Tejedoras Mayas Proponen Ley de Propiedad Intelectual Colectiva (2017) Intercontinental Cry. Retrieved from: https://intercontinentalcry.org/es/tejedoras-mayas-proponen-ley-de-propiedad-intelectual-colectiva-2/
UNESCO (2005) The Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions https://en.unesco.org/creativity/convention
WIPO, Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property, retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/briefs/tk_ip.html
