Keywords

1 Introduction

In recent years, the fashion industry has been questioned on numerous occasions for issues regarding “cultural appropriation”. Although the phenomenon is not new, social networks and online media have certainly fueled reactions of different communities towards these controversies. Nowadays, it is possible to understand the scaling and consequences of these cases in decisions such as those taken by the Mexican Government in 2020 where, after condemning actions from brands like Carolina Herrera and Louis Vuitton, it has approved the “General Law to Safeguarding the Elements of Culture and Identity of the Peoples”, aimed at protecting the native culture from possible copies incurred by fashion brands.

As these controversies demonstrate, the relationship between fashion and cultural appropriation is quite complex. This complexity is given because fashion has, by definition, several characteristics that refer directly to the same concept of cultural appropriation; to the meaning of appropriation and to that of culture.

On one hand, fashion is also part of the cultural phenomena, some even including it in the field of the arts [1]. It is an expression of collective identities, and hence, it has been understood as a manifestation of popular culture. Cultures’ history demonstrates that fashion appears in stratified civilizations where social identity is an important factor for exclusion. These socializing characteristics within fashion are clear with the configuration of groups through the dress: communicative happenings such as The Black Shirts in Italy, Blue in Spain or Gray in Cuba; of ethnic minorities; or, in a more contemporary way, the different “urban tribes”: the mods, the heavies or the goths. All of them movements with a certain identity that fill the popular culture with content.

On the other hand, regarding appropriation, it is possible to find that the origin of it is usually imitation and that, precisely fashion, at its foundations, is exactly that: emulation. George Simmel explained in his Fashion Philosophy: “Fashion is the imitation of a given example and satisfies the demand for social adaptation; it leads the individual upon the road which all travel, it furnishes a general condition, which resolves the conduct of every individual into a mere example. At the same time, it satisfies in no less degree the need of differentiation, the tendency towards dissimilarity, the desire for change and contrast” [2, pp. 67–68]. Thus, a phenomenon can be called fashion to the extent that it is imitated and, therefore, copied by others.

But the issue with imitation is not limited to fashion as a sociological phenomenon. Years after Simmel’s reflection, during the 50s, prêt-à-porter will be born as a way to start manufacturing fashion at a large scale to reach the masses, while getting inspiration and nurturing itself from the haute couture. Since then, the fashion system began to be understood as a pyramid where the cusp, represented by the luxury sector, fed the rest of the segments. By the end of the 20th century, the evolution of this model gave space to the so-called low-cost fashion, where brands were inspired by or simply copied other brands in the sector. As a consequence, nowadays is possible to find issues of “intellectual property” along the industry, where the line between copying, appropriation and inspiration is usually very thin [3].

Cultural appropriation, then, is part of this relevant debate in fashion, adding nuances of great interest. These nuances, that can be found along this article, also respond to an era of greater multicultural sensitivity and a capacity, through social networks and digital media, to provide any individual with channels to voice that sensitivity. All of this leads to question the phenomenon of cultural appropriation in fashion and its echo in the online world, with the consequent impact for brands.

This article will seek to present the relationship between cultural appropriation and fashion brands’ reputation in the digital context, based on the analysis of two cases that emerged from digital landscapes and that have supposed a reputational crisis for their respective firms. It is pertinent to mention that, since the academic bibliography referencing this subject is still scarce, this research also includes non-academic texts in which the authors’ points of view resulted interesting and relevant for the present paper.

After the analysis, some conclusions that place cultural appropriation and its link with fashion are listed with the aim to help the fashion sector to better understand the dimensions the issues of cultural appropriation in the digital environment have acquired.

2 Theoretical Framework on Cultural Appropriation

Cultural appropriation is a complex discussion with many nuances. It has an historical, legal, ethical, and ethnographic dimension. From the normative point of view, to define cultural appropriation is necessary to know first the origins of the term. The phrase is strongly related to that of cultural heritage, that first appeared in the terms of international law in 1907. Later on, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) further developed it after World War II in the wake of protecting cultural landmarks in the case of an armed conflict [4].

Nowadays, UNESCO keeps the definition developed in the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, that defines cultural heritage as places on Earth that have an exceptional universal value because they are an irreplaceable source of life an inspiration that belongs to humanity [5]. however, the organization not only limits cultural heritage to monuments or objects, stating that lived expressions that have been inherited throughout history and that will pass on to future generations are also considered to be part of this heritage.

The two types of cultural heritage are further defined by the Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage Project: The tangible cultural heritage are all those material objects that belong to a culture while the intangible cultural heritage refers to expressions, practices and knowledge of said culture. Some examples of the latter include languages, designs, techniques, rituals, social manners, celebrations or performing arts that have been trespassed through generations becoming symbol of the culture [6].

It is from the concept of cultural heritage that cultural appropriation originates. In its most basic definition, cultural appropriation is “the act of taking or using things from a culture that is not your own, especially without showing that you understand or respect this culture” [7]. Although this definition is proper, there are deeper layers of meaning as to what cultural appropriation is.

Vézina defines cultural appropriation as “the act by a member of a dominant culture of taking a TCE [Tangible Common Equity] whose holders belong to a minority culture and repurposing it in a different context, without the authorization, acknowledgement and/or compensation of the TCE holder(s)” [8]. In this case, the element appropriated is a tangible one. However, for purposes of this paper, this definition will also embrace intangible cultural appropriation since is what is often appropriated in fashion (production techniques, words, marketing messages).

Vézina’s definition introduces the roles of the dominant culture versus the minority culture. This is particularly important since one of the main characteristics that will define whether a cultural element is being appropriated or not will be the position of the culture that is victim of the appropriation [9]. As she explains, the repurpose of this element in a different context, without authorization nor compensation is also part of the cultural appropriation scheme.

This answers the question as to why not everything is cultural appropriation. While it is true that along the years humanity has exchanged cultural elements, Shand argues that appropriation of cultural heritage could be traced back to the Enlightenment ages where, due to the intellectual, political and economic dominance of Europe, all types of tangible cultural heritage items were looted from the indigenous populations and exchanged among colonials, regarding of the way they were obtained [10]. The deeper and sensitive meaning that cultural appropriation carries for those minorities whose culture is being improperly used is evident after understanding the history of those peoples.

Furthermore, cultural appropriation might not only be inappropriate because of the reasons previously stated. There are also several cases that show how cultural appropriation can be detrimental to that community in economic terms. In Guatemala, for example, a community of almost one million artisans are at risk because of the new layout of the fashion industry: fast fashion can do a garment similar in looks to that of an artisan, in a shorter period of time and at lower prices, jeopardizing the market share of said artisans when selling goods to tourists [11].

To simplify this, the Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage Project provides the definition of what they call misappropriation. Similarly defined as cultural appropriation, misappropriation can involve also a high economic harm when it “leads to profiting from the use of a cultural expression that is vital to the wellbeing and livelihood of the people who created it” [6].

2.1 International Legal Framework on Cultural Appropriation

In addressing the numerous implications associated with what is understood as ‘Cultural Appropriation’, it is important to approach its legal definition and to understand if there is a unanimous regulatory framework that could provide the academy with a better understanding and application of the term.

The definition of Cultural Appropriation made by the Oxford Dictionary [12] is developed under the scope of two main elements, ownership and creative or artistic forms, themes, or practices. The above-mentioned elements, due to their nature, suggest a wide and complex legal framework related to intellectual property (IP). As jurisdictions and legal systems worldwide may differ from one to another, and there is a lack of uniformity in the enforcement of legal remedies when it comes to protect intangible assets [13], the intellectual property landscape may fail to provide a common ground in Cultural Appropriation.

Most of the steps that have been taken in order to establish a common ground on the matter have been done in the legal courts [14] and by global institutions that have tried to provide a shared but not legally binding definition. For the purpose of presenting ‘Cultural Appropriation’ in all of its dimensions, the following Table 1 presents a brief summary on the main different legal approaches that have been made worldwide:

Table 1. Legal approaches on cultural appropriation
Full size table

As shown on Table 1 most of the legal instruments that have been developed to safeguard the property of intangible assets related to cultural representations are not legally binding and do not have international enforceability. Additionally, most of the actions taken on a legal level fail to provide a wider perspective on culturally related issues such as oversimplification, racial or cultural misrepresentations, etc.

2.2 Cultural Appropriation in the Fashion Industry

‘Cultural Appropriation’ in the fashion industry is a more interesting issue as it can manifest itself throughout multiple practices. As Ayres argues, the line between appropriation and inspiration in the creativity process is hard to clarify. This is why she proposes a definition of Cultural Appropriation as “an umbrella term that encapsulates different degrees of borrowing, ranging from inspiration to the theft” [15].

This is why the fashion industry has been the subject of many accusations regarding cultural appropriation. According to Shao, the issue with fashion and the use of cultural tangible or intangible symbols relies in the fact that, besides the offensive tone or the economic consequences, appropriation in fashion can also lead to stereotyping or oversimplification of a culture: when the appropriator takes an element from a different culture than its own and uses it in a way that decreases the value and the meaning for the person whose culture has been appropriated [16]. In a way, it could be said that the element is commoditized.

Singh-Kurtz also raises the question as to when cultural appropriation in fashion is considered as such. The topic is often subjective, and the confusion can present itself in entire garments, accessories, particular elements, the naming, etc. [17]. Therefore, for the purpose of better understanding of the present study, three main categories regarding cultural appropriation are proposed:

  • Appropriation in design: when cultural appropriation is infringed by adding or using intangible or tangible cultural heritage elements of another culture to or for a specific piece, garment, fabric, or complement.

  • Appropriation in naming: when cultural appropriation is infringed by using an intangible cultural heritage spoken element of another culture to name a brand, line, collection or garment.

  • Appropriation in communications: when cultural appropriation is infringed by using intangible or tangible cultural heritage elements of another culture in the communicational strategy of a brand.

Appropriation in design is the most common case of cultural appropriation in fashion. One of the many examples is the Louis Vuitton Men’s Spring 2012 collection that featured fabrics with a typical Maasai square pattern [18]. Regarding cultural appropriation in fashion and naming issues, Singh-Kurtz highlights a particular case where Kim Kardashian faced backslash after naming her body shape wear line Kimono, a word used to name a traditional Japanese garment [17]. An example for appropriation in communications is the Dior ‘Sauvage’ Parfum campaign that depicted a Native American dance. Despite the company working with an indigenous advocacy group, the outrage was due to an oversimplification of the Native American culture [19].

Furthermore, fashion, being a creative field, can take inspiration and examples from many cultures, therefore is necessary that firms install certain protocols to address any type of accusation of cultural appropriation that could affect the company in terms of losing high profile partners or margins and profits [20].

The following Table 2 provides a sample of cases of cultural appropriation in the fashion industry, the type of cultural issue and the area of infringement.

Table 2. Cases of cultural appropriation in the fashion industry
Full size table

2.3 Fashion and Reputation in the Digital Context

In the context of digital media and social networks, anyone who feels attacked by a cultural appropriation issue has a megaphone in the social media to condemn. Companies nowadays are exposed to unprecedented scrutiny through the Internet and a 24-hour news television channels [21].

As we have pointed out in previous works: “Another change in the digital era consists of ‘consumer-to-consumer’ conversations, where users are empowered to express their views, and this has created a ‘new equality in communication” [22].

This is why brands are, more than ever, exposed to reputation issues. Effects of the consumer’s role as communicators could be positive or negative for brands’ reputation. Positive as segmentation, direct communication from brands to consumers, engagement and loyalty can be reinforced. Negative, as crisis can arise “with just a small amount of information. It is crucial for companies and organizations to understand the role of processing information and continuing interactivity in times of crisis” [22].

With the social media, companies are facing more communication crises than ever. This is why Aula suggests that four strategies exist in regards of protocols companies should follow with social media: absence, presence, attendance and omnipresence [23]. The first three suppose from no participation whatsoever, to an active listening but no interaction to a complete participation. Omnipresence, however, is the most recommended for positive outcomes while managing online reputation because it suggests a dialogical interaction with the stakeholders [24].

Many years ago, traditional crises where characterized by different parameters, compared to those characterizing today’s reputational issues. With the zenith of social media, those parameters have drastically changed through increased pace, scope and impact [25], meaning they become viral more quickly. Berger and Milkman state that anger is the most common and viral emotion online [26], Ott and Theunissen suggest its permanence is due to a “long tail”-like effect [24].

This kind of reputational crisis takes brands to consider the impact of reputation just as powerful as its financial one, in the sense that reputation generates economic benefits for the firm. To support this observation, according to Brown and Perry “financial performance counts only for 38% to 59% of the unexplained variance of reputation” [27] where “reputation could represent an intangible asset” [28].

The definition of reputation has been interpreted in many ways, considering the context and situation. Benjamin Franklin once said, “It takes many good deeds to build reputation, and only one bad one to lose”. As Mr. Franklin said, reputation is a matter of being subtle on what actions are taken.

More than two decades ago, Fombrun & Van Riel took the task of developing a common definition for corporate reputation due to the inconsistencies found on the subject among the different disciplines. For an integrative view of corporate reputation, they took the following definition: a collective representation of a firm’s past actions and results that describes the firm’s ability to deliver valued outcomes to multiple stakeholders. It gauges a firm’s relative standing both internally with employees and externally with its stakeholders, in both its competitive and institutional environments [29, 30].

In fashion, reputation is a business, an asset as long as it is good. This means that brands that have favorable reputation have more loyal customers that are more dedicated and that buy a broader range of products [31].

Barnett, Jermier & Lafferty gave an updated view on Fombrun & Van Riel’s take, stating that corporate reputation is the “observers’ collective judgments of a corporation based in assessments of the financial, social and environmental impacts attributed to the corporation over time” [32, p. 34].

According to these definitions, corporate reputation has three main characteristics: it is built over time, it is based on the judgment of stakeholders and is usually evaluated in terms of how the company performs on different environments, both competitive and institutional ones.

3 Comparative Study of Two Fashion Cases Related to Different Dimensions of ‘Cultural Appropriation’

As proposed throughout the paper, the relationship between fashion and culture has many dimensions. The following comparative study provides examples of the types of dialogues companies can engage with communities that carry historical and ancestral traditions. These cases will provide the bases to understand that ‘Cultural Appropriation’ in the fashion industry can go beyond the appropriation of tangible or intangible assets and that it can lead to having an offensive tone or to the stereotyping or oversimplification of a culture.

The two following cases will be assessed from three main perspectives: the context of the crisis, the corporate brandFootnote 1, the media impact and the crisis management. The above-mentioned perspectives will provide us with the main lengths of Cultural Appropriation in a digital context.

3.1 Carolina Herrera and the Appropriation of Traditional Mexican Patterns

Crisis’ Context

In June 6th, 2019, the fashion brand Carolina Herrera presented the look book of its Resort 2020 collection under the creative direction of Wes Gordon, who had been appointed for the role almost a year before. Behind the inspirations for said collections were the founder of the brand’s own life, that had Venezuelan origins that later translated to New York’s Upper East Side lifestyle. The resulting collection, then, was the perfect mix between the color and patterns of Latin America with the occasion dresses the clients of the brand required [33]. Some show notes mentioned the sunrises in Tulum, the dances of Buenos Aires or the colors of Cartagena as the sources of the color palettes used [34].

However, four days after the presentation of the collection, on June 10th, 2019, the Cultural Minister of Mexico, Alejandra Frausto, sent a letter to Carolina Herrera, the designer herself, and to Wes Gordon, asking them to publicly explain the arguments behind the use of elements whose origin recedes in local Mexican communities of Tenango de Doria (in Hidalgo), Tehuantepec (in Oaxaca) and Saltillo (Coahuila) [35].

According to Friedman, there were some social media comments reflecting a backlash against the brand. Towards the Venezuelan designer specifically on Twitter and against Gordon, mostly on the Instagram post of the collection on his personal page. These comments featured several claims regarding the theft from Mexican culture [34]. Another factor for the maximization of the crisis was the publication of an Instagram post about the subject from popular account @Diet_prada, alleging that Carolina Herrera was not the first brand to borrow typical Mexican original designs to use in their garments [36].

It is important to stress that in no way the fashion house collaborated along the design, production or communications process with any individual from any of the communities they got their inspiration from.

Corporate Brand

See Table 3.

Table 3. Carolina herrera’s corporate brand
Full size table

Crisis Management

The crisis had high impact along the major news and media outlets, such as The BBC, The Guardian, ABC News, NBC News, CNN International, The New York Times, AP News, Reuters, as well as fashion-focused media platforms like The Business of Fashion, The Cut, The Fashion Law, among others, that published the news across their channels.

In response to the crisis, creative director Wes Gordon stated that the collection was meant as a tribute to Mexico, rather than the intention of stealing from its culture. Later on, in an interview for Vogue Magazine, the designer reminisced about the controversial issue alleging that while the collection was designed with the best of intentions, sometimes intent does not matter. Furthermore, the designer recognized that he had learned a lot from that process and that “…the moral of the story is that we live in a very different world right now, and we have to respect and understand [other cultures]. That old model of taking an inspiration trip and finding things as you go is very difficult to do in 2019” [37]. On the side of the Mexican government, a law to protect this cultural heritage from being plagiarized is being resolved [38].

3.2 Gucci and the Balaclava Knit Jumper: Cultural Unawareness of a Racially Charged Design

Crisis’ Context

On February 2019, Gucci went viral on Twitter when users of the social network brought attention to a Balaclava Knit Jumper part of Gucci’s fall-winter 2018 ready-to-wear collection for resembling blackface imagery [39]. The product lasted on Gucci’s physical and online stores for approximately one year without raising any controversy.

Blackface dates to the Nineteenth-century and started originally in the United States. It started as a form of theatrical make-up used by non-black performers to provide a caricaturist representation of black individuals. The practice gained popularity even extending across the globe to Britain. In both the United States and Britain, Blackface was most commonly used in the minstrel performance tradition [40]. Early white performers in blackface used burnt cork or shoe polish to blacken their skin and exaggerate their lips, often wearing woolly wigs, gloves, tailcoats, or ragged clothes to complete the transformation. The personification in a caricaturist way of black individuals spread stereotypes of racist images, attitudes and perceptions worldwide.

Given the history of slavery in the United States and the social and political movement of reinforcement of civil rights [41] that took place during the 21st century, Blackface became a symbol of the misrepresentation of the African-American community in entertainment and a symbol of cultural offense that shaped the perceptions and prejudices about black people in the United States [42].

Corporate Brand

See Table 4.

Table 4. Gucci’s corporate brand
Full size table

Crisis Management

The first tweet related to accusations of racism against Gucci was published on February 6th, 2019. Even though the Twitter user did not identify herself as a Gucci costumer, it caused reactions of Gucci adepts all over that social network. The tweet has as of this date, up to 7.6 thousand responds and 17.1 thousand likes.

External media was very much involved in the crisis. Local and international newspapers as well as Tv channels and other relevant media later replicated the news of Gucci’s scandal.

The actions that Gucci took following the beginning of the crisis can be summed up, as follows:

Just one day after the allegations of racism began, on February 7th, 2019, Gucci issued on Twitter (the social network where the crisis began) a public apology stating:

“Gucci deeply apologizes for the offense caused by the wool balaclava jumper. (…) We consider diversity to be a fundamental value to be fully upheld, respected, and at the forefront of every decision we make. We are fully committed to increasing diversity throughout our organization and turning this incident into a powerful learning moment for the Gucci team and beyond.” [45].

On that same day, Gucci confirmed that the item had been immediately removed from their online and physical stores. That same week, Creative Director of the brand, Alessadro Michele, sent a letter to Gucci’s 18.000 employees from his personal email. The letter explained that the Balaclava jumper was a “tribute to Leigh Bowery, to his camouflage art, to his ability to challenge the bourgeois conventions and conformism, to his eccentricity as a performer, to his extraordinary vocation to masquerade meant as a hymn to freedom”. He also expressed how sorry he was for evoking a racist imaginary and added “But I am aware that sometimes our actions can end up with causing unintentional effects. It is therefore necessary taking full accountability for these effects”. Michele said that through his work he wanted “to give citizenship’s right to the traditionally marginalized, to those who felt unrepresented, to those that history silenced or made believe they were worthless. My aim, in which personal and political are intimately interwoven, has always been to turn the pain into a chant.”

One week later, on February 12, 2019, Gucci’s CEO Marco Bizzari gave an interview to the newspaper WWD. On such interview, Bizzari attributed the mistake to cultural unawareness. He also admitted “The lack of knowledge of diversity and the consequent understanding are not at the level we expected, despite all the efforts we did inside the company in the last four years”. Marco Bizzari also stated: “(…) our company, being a global company, is a mirror of society. The need for greater awareness and understanding is everywhere. The risk we could face is that anyone would not take this matter as serious as it is. We need to educate ourselves to make sure this does not happen again”.

As informed by the Washing Post, on March 2019, Gucci announced plans for scholarships in partnership with schools across the globe, from Accra, Ghana, and Lagos, Nigeria, to Mexico City and New York [46]. The company set aside $5 million to invest in community programs in 10 North American cities, including Atlanta, Detroit, New York, Toronto and Washington. The initiatives add up to the formal policy that allows employees to spend company time volunteering in their communities. Gucci is also hiring a global director for diversity and inclusion, and it has formed an advisory council that includes model Naomi Campbell, racial justice activists, academics and a sprinkling of celebrities [47].

4 Conclusion

The comparative study of the above-mentioned cases as well as the theoretical framework presented throughout this paper, provide us with the two main aspects to identify in cases of Cultural Appropriation, (i) the offensive behavior, language, images or representation of a culture or community, which can include the oversimplification or misrepresentation of such culture and; (ii) the economic exploitation of traditional cultural expressions without giving proper recognition to the community. The former ultimately contributes to the perpetuation of historic patterns of oppression of cultures greatly affected by colonization and prevalent white western domination.

As complex as it is, the lack of legal tools that address all the dimensions of Cultural Appropriation becomes the base to a thin line between the creative world and the economical exploitation of cultural traditions. This compass of Cultural Appropriation is extremely important for the fashion industry, as the inspiration and nourishment from different cultures and realities in the creation process of the fashion houses is the key of an ever-evolving fashion industry.

Adding up to an already complex dynamic, the digital context and a globalized audience with new stakeholders and new conversations between brands and consumers, reputation crisis derived from Cultural Appropriation require a more detailed perspective and attention from fashion companies. In the digital world, Cultural Appropriation goes beyond an intrinsic relationship between the fashion brand and the affected community but rather, involves a demanding audience that expects from the brands faster call to actions and answers that please everybody.

Is it enough to implement diversity within the management structure of fashion companies or should companies go further to prevent a crisis? Unfortunately, there is no clear path when approaching the fashion creation process inspired from a cultural tradition, because with the fast paced evolution of the world, what is not seen as an offensive behavior today can be offensive tomorrow.

What seem clear now is that with the increase of social media, a more direct and transparent dialogue between fashion companies and consumers is fundamental. Fashion companies should keep a dynamic focus aligned with the corporate values and the company’s strategy in order to understand the cultural dynamics engaged with a more globalized audience.