Cultural Tariffs: Appropriation and the Right to Cross Cultural Boundaries

Why are some acts of cultural boundary-crossing seen as legitimate whereas others are repudiated as cultural appropriation? We argue that perceptions of cultural appropriation have formed in response to the emergence of cultural omnivorousness as a dominant form of high-statusconsumption. Boundary-crossing has become a source of cultural capital. Consequently, the right to adopt a practice from a culture that is not one's own is determined on the basis of the cost one is presumed to have paid. Cultural boundary-crossing is seen as legitimate only if the actor crossing has paid a sufficient cultural tariff. We test our theory in a between-subject (preregistered) experimental design, demonstrating that those who enjoy a privileged social position, as inferred from their social identity or socioeconomic status, have less normative latitude to cross cultural boundaries. This is explained by perceptions that these actors are either devaluing or exploiting the target culture. While symbolic boundaries and cultural distinctiontheories are inconsistent with our results, we find that Americans who are disenchanted about group-based social mobility are the ones most likely to be outraged by cultural boundary crossing. The imposition of a cultural tariff, we argue, is a form of symbolic redistribution.