Ethics paper

1

PHIL 213-13

04 February 2020

Cultural Appropriation in Fiction

On January 21 of 2020, Flatiron Books published a novel written by Jeanine Cummins

titled American Dirt. In this novel, a Mexican woman flees cartel violence and undergoes great

difficulty and stress with her young son, seeking safety and opportunity across the border in the

United States of America. Cummins was inspired by the plight of the modern migrant trying to

find a new life in the United States, and all of the difficulties they face while undertaking this

quest in the modern age of border walls and “detention centers”. A large-scale marketing effort

virtually ensured the novel’s success, with endorsements from Oprah Winfrey, Salma Hayek,

and a number of other celebrities and influential people. When it was finally available to the

public, however, a number of issues were raised with the novel. Chief among the complaints was

this: a white author, who was neither a migrant nor a Mexican, wrote a “blockbuster” novel

about the struggles about a migrant Mexican. This paper will analyze the ethical issue

concerning whether or not a fictional novel about a real culture or traumatic situation should be

written by an author who cannot claim either experience. By examining the issue from the

utilitarian and Kantian perspectives, this paper argues that it should be allowed.

The act-utilitarian would look at this issue by asking a simple question: does the good (or

happiness) from this action outweigh the bad (or unhappiness)? While the question is simple, the

answer is difficult to calculate. One could consider that the popularity of the novel increases the

visibility and awareness of the problems migrants face today, which would be a good thing,

especially if it in turn increased the aid and understanding that they receive as well as the efforts

by the public to force politicians to take action to improve conditions at the border and rewrite

what many consider to be unfair and immoral immigration laws. In the same turn, some of the

messages in the book may perpetuate unfair stereotypes and decrease true understanding of the

individuals it purports to try and sympathize with, thereby doing them harm. It also affects those

readers who happen to be Latinos, or migrants, or in some way connected to these demographics,

causing them direct distress and unhappiness due to the insensitivity of the white-filter the author

portrays her story through. It is almost impossible in this instance, however, to determine

whether the good or bad from this action is the greater, and even were it possible, it would take

years to determine from careful study of events that directly result from the publishing of this

novel.

Followers of Kantian philosophy look past the utility of the action, and instead focus on

the intent of the action. If the act of writing this book were good, that would mean it was written

with the right intention, or “good will”. If the author had written this book solely for the sake of

writing a book to make money, that would not be an act of good will. However, that was not the

author’s intention. She has stated that her intention when writing this book was to shed light on

the troubles of migrant Mexicans, and to show her readers that these migrants are individuals

with unique stories, not merely a mob of nameless people trying to gain entry to a country and

resources not their own. This demonstrates an act of good will, writing the book because it was

the right thing to do, or her duty. Even if the execution was poor, her intention was good, and

therefore morally or ethically correct. This leads to another element of Kantian philosophy, the

categorical imperative. For a categorical imperative, what rule ought to be followed is one that is

good, can apply universally, and has no internal contradictions. If it was wrong for the author of

this book to have written it, then works of fiction detailing cultures or experiences ought not to

be written by anybody who has not experienced them. This seems fine, as all works would be

written only by “experts”, but deeper analysis reveals a flaw in this reasoning. If all works of

fiction were written only by experts, there is a risk that there would cease to be meaningful

fiction dealing with real world situations, or real world cultures. If only migrants could write

about migrant experiences, their books would be about the actual migrant experience, not fiction.

It would also be difficult to justify historical fiction, as nobody alive today can claim to have

experienced the slavery of the early Americas, or the European renaissance, or feudal China. If a

distinction was made for historical fiction however, where the civilizations, cultures, or

experiences of the time are no longer relevant for any currently living, that would devalue the

experiences of the dead and assume that only the experiences and feelings of the living matter, as

the main argument against a writer creating fiction about another’s culture or experience is

disrespect or harm to those individuals.

It’s difficult to convincingly argue that only people who have experienced something can

write about it. From a utilitarian perspective, it’s almost impossible to determine the morality of

the act as it is nearly impossible to calculate its overall consequence. The book in question may

have caused upset for members of affected communities, but it may also work in their favor, as

well as bring some measure of joy and satisfaction to those who read it. From a Kantian

perspective, the intention of the work was good, and therefore its consequences are largely

irrelevant. Following, a rule that would disallow writers to create fiction about things they

haven’t experienced is internally contradictory and makes itself pointless. It was ethically

acceptable for Cummins to have written about the minority experience, and unacceptable for her

work and others like it to be censored.

Works Cited

Hernandez, Daniel. “’American Dirt’ was supposed to be a publishing triumph. What went

wrong?” The L.A. Times, 26 January 2020,

www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2020-01-26/american-dirt-publishing-latino-

representation. Accessed 30 January 2020.