Plato’s own use of mimesis has to be understood in a similar vein: throughout the text,
he speaks via the figure of Socrates, his deceased teacher, rather than speaking himself.
Many authors, though, do not distinguish between mimesis and mimicry and tend to use
both concepts interchangeably. However, as both differ in terms of the cultural functions they
perform, it makes sense to differentiate them. “In mimicry, the dominant function is that of
mischievous imitation—the kind of imitation that pays ironic homage to its object. Mimesis
(although its function has always been disputed) usually refers to a wider process of represen-
tation that involves the mediation between different worlds and people—in essence between
different symbolic systems” (Huggan 1997/1998: 94).
Earlier anthropological writing about “primitive” thought, such as James Frazer’s (1978
[1890]) theory of “sympathetic magic” and Lucien Lévy-Bruhl’s (1922) concept of “mystic
participation,” sought to come to terms with forms of thought and symbolic action in which
similarity and mimetic behavior feature prominently. Tilman Lang (1998), who wrote a
dissertation on Walter Benjamin’s concept of mimesis, says that Benjamin was familiar with
Lévy-Bruhl’s work. However, it is not known whether he read Frazer’s work as well.
Interestingly, Markus Verne (2007) has launched a critique on the concept of appro-
priation (Aneignung in German) on a similar account.
However, Jonathan Friedman (1990b: 161), who equates appropriation with consump-
tion, points out that Congolese and Westerners, due to different “superordinate strategies of
identification of self and world,” appropriate for different ends: “Congolese internalize what
is outside of themselves in order to become more than what they are.... Modern westerners
appropriate what is outside of themselves in order to become what they are not” (161). I am
not convinced of this binarism and would criticize it.
It is important to keep in mind, though, that the selling and buying of cultural property
also occurs in African societies (Röschenthaler 2011).
For research that is rather concerned with the appropriation of more mundane con-
sumer goods and technology in African societies, see Beck (2001), Hahn (2004), and Spittler
(2002). See also Kohl (2001) for a summary of earlier studies of appropriation processes in
anthropology.
