introduction 19with the appropriator’s agency. Though I also subscribe to the notion of
appropriation as an intermediary practice linking the appropriator via
the appropriated artifact to the latter’s producer, I contend that the inter-
pretation of alien artifacts, such as Cameron’s Titanic by African cultural
producers, takes place very much on the terms of the latter. And as we see,
hermeneutic fidelity is not necessarily what individual appropriators are
aiming for, rather considerable re-significations are the order of the day.
Schneider (2006) arrives at a definition of appropriation “as a hermeneutic
procedure that, consequently, implies not only that cultural elements are
invested with new signification but also that those who appropriate are
transformed, and ultimately construct and assume new identities” (29).
While I am wary of identity talk (cf. Brubaker and Cooper 2000), the
notion of “transformation,” which derives from R icoeur’s hermeneutics,
matches the uncanny power of mimesis. Like the interpreting subject,
who is transformed through understanding, mimesis confers some of the
original’s qualities on the copy (and on its producer). In this sense, the
A f r ica n appropr iat ions I look at i n t h is book shou ld be v iewed a s “m i met ic
interpretations”—a coinage that combines mimesis with the notion of
appropriation as hermeneutic process.
Calling African Titanic remakes (and the like) appropriations allows me
to stress the agency their producers display vis-à-vis the source material.
All too often such appropriations have been dismissed under the rubric of
“cultural assimilation.” This terminology is problematic because it turns
African appropriators of non-African cultural forms into mere victims of
European or American “cultural imperialism,” despite the considerable
agency and creativity such practices of appropriation engender. Attribut-
ing agency to African appropriators, however, does not mean that their
appropriations necessarily subvert the alien “originals”—comparable to
the “writing back ” of postcolonial literatures (Ashcroft, Griffiths, and
Tiffin 1989). In an essay on the appropriation of the Western film genre in
Africa, Lily Saint (2013) argues along similar lines. She contends that such
appropriations “need neither be categorized as resistant nor as repressive.”
She continues: “Instead, they should be geographically and historically
situated to be understood on their own terms, re-conceptualized outside
of debates on authenticity and mimicry, and examined instead as critiques
or comments on those very debates” (211). This contention mirrors very