Decolonizing branding: the fine line between appropriation and exchange
In an increasingly hyper-connected global market, the "inspiration" phase of creative direction has become a minefield. For decades, Western branding has operated on a logic of extraction, treating non-Western cultures as a limitless buffet of "exotic" aesthetics to be consumed and commodified. However, as consumer consciousness shifts, the industry is facing a long-overdue reckoning: the transition from colonial appropriation to ethical cultural exchange.
The power imbalance: defining the divide
The distinction between appropriation and exchange isn't just a matter of semantics; it’s a matter of power dynamics. According to research by Scherer (2022), cultural appropriation occurs when a dominant culture takes elements from a marginalized culture that has been systematically oppressed by that same dominant group, often without permission, credit, or compensation.
In branding, this often manifests as "Columbusing", the act of "discovering" something that has existed for centuries and rebranding it as a new, premium trend. When a luxury fashion house uses sacred indigenous patterns without engaging the community, they aren't just "paying homage"; they are engaging in what Young (2005) describes as "content appropriation," where the aesthetic is stripped of its sacred or social context to serve a profit margin.
Beyond aesthetics: the semiotics of extraction
Cultural exchange, by contrast, is rooted in reciprocity. It requires what Kravets and Sandikci (2014) identify as "collaborative agency," where both parties enter the creative process with mutual respect and shared benefit. It’s the difference between taking from a culture and creating with a culture.
For a brand, decolonizing its process means moving beyond the "mood board" phase. It involves:
Provenance and credit: explicitly citing the origins of techniques, patterns, or concepts.
Economic reciprocity: ensuring that the source communities benefit financially, not just through "exposure."
Contextual integrity: understanding the history behind the symbol. As Mould (2018) argues, when brands ignore the "subversive origins" of cultural expressions, they sanitize and dilute the very soul of the inspiration.
The designer’s responsibility
As marketers and designers, we are the gatekeepers of these narratives. Decolonizing branding requires us to dismantle the "Universal Design" myth, the idea that Western aesthetic standards are the default. By embracing "pluriversal" design thinking, as proposed by Escobar (2018), brands can move toward a model where multiple cultural worlds can coexist without one being subsumed by the other.
The goal isn't to stop being inspired by the world; it's to stop treating the world as a warehouse of free assets. True innovation in the 21st century won't come from better extraction, but from deeper, more honest collaboration.
References
Escobar, A. (2018). Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. Duke University Press. Link
Kravets, O., & Sandikci, Ö. (2014). Competence and Strategy in Cultural Appropriation. Marketing Theory. Link
Mould, O. (2018). Against Creativity. Verso Books. Link
Scherer, M. (2022). Cultural Appropriation in Contemporary Brand Culture. Journal of Consumer Culture. Link
Young, J. O. (2005). Profound Offense and Cultural Appropriation. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. Link
