The arguments favoring versus condemning cross-cultural appropriation grow from very different conceptions of art, artists, and cultures. Legal scholar Rosemary Coombe [1993] has identified two seemingly opposing bases for the defense of and arguments against intangible cross-cultural appropriation, which she calls “possessive individualism” versus “cultural essentialism.”
“Possessive individualism” is the Western Romantic ideal of the artist (writer, composer, choreographer) who takes all ideas to which “he” has been exposed, and through force of will, discernment, and creativity brings forth a new work. If the work becomes highly regarded, it is a result of “his” genius.
“Cultural essentialism” implies that each person belongs to a single cultural tradition from which that person draws most of their identity or “voice,” and that the strength of their identity, the integrity of their voice, is diminished when others use elements of that tradition in their own voices. It relies on the equally Romantic ideal of a homogeneous “people” or “culture” which jointly create and own artworks, stories, and styles.
There are important reasons why members of less-dominant groups (and I don’t necessarily mean ethnic minorities – this could pertain to women in our broader current culture) may use themes or styles from the dominant culture without causing harm. The most fundamental is this: The dominant culture is promulgated broadly – in some cases, has been forced on Native Americans and Australians, or on Africans brought to North America as slaves – and members of these less-dominant groups also belong to or “own” elements of the dominant culture.
_________________
Coombe, R.J. 1993. The properties of culture and the politics of possessing identity: Native claims in the cultural appropriation controversy. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 6(2): 249-286.