Cultural reappropriation: the locution must be read precisely because it functions as a sort of battle cry, what Derrida called a mot d’ordre.
The other – who in this case is presumed problematically to be the more integrated – reappropriates some object called culture. However this implies the speaker has already appropriated this culture. The truth belied here is that culture is not something that inheres within an identity. Culture is the spirit’s materialization, shaking off anchoring to any single individual self-identity.
Or dialectically, identity, the I, is precisely that which is devastatingly divested and denuded, without inscription within culture.
One must ask, why must the other reappropriate, and why must the self clutch so avariciously? Why is culture spoken of here as cache, as a commodity?
The project should rather be what Derrida called for in Le Monolinguisme de l’autre: ‘une ex-appropriation…sans propriété’.
Why for that matter do culturist identitarians not speak rather or ‘ex-propriation’? Perhaps precisely because this would presume culture as  itinerant by definition and would annul the finger-pointing logic of ‘propriation’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s