Re: IWW piece on Iranian labor situation
On Apr 17, 2007, at 10:31 AM, B. wrote:
Western exoticization/fetishization of the “Orient”
Speaking of which, inspired by some polemics on another list, I came =
across this excellent analysis of the appeal of that old list =
favorite Arundhati Roy the other day. I was very impressed, and am =
looking for a pretext to have the author on the radio sometime soon.
Doug
SOAS Literary Review (2) - July 2000 http://www.soas.ac.uk/soaslit/issue2/TOOR.PDF
INDO-CHIC: THE CULTURAL POLITICS OF CONSUMPTION IN POST- =
LIBERALIZATION INDIA Saadia Toor (Cornell University)
‘Canned Culture!’, screams a cover headline from one of India’s =
leading weeklies. ‘After burgers, Cielos and cellulars, it’s time for =
cultural consumerism’ (Outlook, April 9, 1997). If one needed any =
more testimony to India’s coming-of-age as a late capitalist society, =
the emergence of a nascent culture industry as reflected by this =
headline and others like it =97 the cover story is entitled ‘The =
Merchandising of Culture’ =97 is an important indicator that India has =
‘arrived’ on the international economic-political scene; and none the =
worse for wear after its almost half a century of Nehruvian =
’socialism’, either. Under the watchful eye of the IMF/World Bank, =
India began to liberalize and ‘reintegrate’ into the world economy in =
1991=9692, but it is only recently that the ideology of global-local =
capitalism has managed to construct the level of hegemony1 that =
allows a globally-oriented capitalist consumer culture to truly =
manifest itself in Indian society.
This cultural consumerism has resulted in a curious phenomenon: =
whereas formerly India was integrated into the global culture2 =
industry as a ‘producer/exporter’ of cultural commodities =97 or the =
raw material for what became cultural commodities in the West3 =97 in =
the form of exotica, it is also increasingly their consumer =97 or at =
least a certain class of emerging capitalist elites is: ‘yuppies’ =
with disposable incomes unlike any experienced by previous =
generations of largely austere socialist India. This is heralded by a =
change in how India and its inhabitants are now ‘imagined’ or =
represented on the world stage, but one which includes vestiges of =
past representations refashioned into what I will call the New =97 one =
is tempted to say ersatz =97 Orientalism4 and what the New York Times =
has recently referred to as ‘the new Indo-chic’ (August 30, 1997).
[…]
The New York Times article cited above brings up many of the issues I =
will attempt to address within this paper, including the importance =
of India as an ‘emerging market’ and the increasing role of the =
diaspora in fashioning ‘Indian’ identities both at home and abroad. =
Indeed, the proliferation and circulation of these cultural artefacts =
points out that the new ‘Imagined India’ (Inden 1990)7 is =
‘indisputably chic’, both at home and abroad. What is happening here? =
How can we explain this metamorphosis which retains vestiges =97 and =
which plays on important aspects of =97 the older Orientalist =
representations of India as the exotic Other, particularly since the =
most avid consumers are a certain class of Indians themselves? Part =
of the answer of course lies in the vagaries of the global cultural =
industry and Indo-chic can be seen as only the latest trend in an =
economy of planned obsolescence characteristic of late capitalism. =
Another part of it lies, as I have hinted, at the new role of India =
as a significant emerging market on the global scene =97 and this, in =
fact, is what the Times article concludes.
The aspect that I find most fascinating is the importance of this New =
Orientalism to the identity formation of the new young urban class in =
India,8 particularly the relationship between class habitus and taste =
as it explains the construction of a new aesthete within and by this =
class (Bourdieu 1984). Note that I am talking about a new class (or, =
it can be argued, class fragment/faction) which does not exactly map =
on to the generic ‘middle class’ which researchers on modern India =
are so fond of evoking and which is the darling of everyone from =
political scientists explaining the stability of ‘Indian democracy’ =
to market researchers interested in emerging markets. This class of =
young professionals is very different from the generic Indian middle =
class because it is a new phenomenon (definitely a product of =
liberalization), both demographically young and urban in location, =
self-consciously cosmopolitan in orientation.
[…]
It is interesting to note that unlike previously, when it was the =
space of the exotic Other and cultural commodities which signified =
this space were consumed mainly in the Western hemisphere, India is =
no longer a passive node in this political economy of desire. If =
Orientalism past was a manifestation of the ‘Occident’s’ will to =
power over ‘the Orient’, the New Orientalism rehearses the same =
relationship but with a crucial difference: today the production- =
circulation-consumption circuit in the case of these cultural =
commodities originates and culminates in India. There is, however, a =
crucial period of mediation by the ‘West’, where the commodities are =
circulated, and then sanctioned by cultural critics as authentically =
‘Indo-chic’. The diaspora features prominently in this process; the =
critics validating this authenticity are usually intellectuals of =
Indian origin. Arjun Appadurai figures prominently in the Times =
piece; Salman Rushdie is another classic example.12 Or else they are =
specialists in ‘South Asia’ as an academic discipline: Nicholas =
Dirks, head of the South Asia Program at Columbia, is the other =
authority cited by the Times. Without this ’seal of approval’, I =
would argue that the fate of these cultural commodities and hence =
their ‘biography’ (Appadurai 1986) would be remarkably different. =
That is, they would not signify the right blend of exotic modernity =
to Indian consumers, and their consumption would not confer the right =
amount of prestige. However, this process of signification has not =
gone uncontested, as ‘Indian-ness’ becomes embattled territory and =
the debates heat up over what constitutes an ‘authentic’ Indian =
identity.
[…]
The interplay between global/local forces both in the sense of =
economics, and in terms of a politics of identity is strongly =
evidenced by the hype surrounding Arundhati Roy. In fact, it =
exemplifies the ways in which the New Orientalism is articulated and =
used within the global cultural industry, and most importantly, how =
Indians themselves are turning the Orientalist gaze back upon =
themselves.
Since Roy was signed on by Random House, It has been virtually =
impossible to escape the hard-sell for her first novel, The God of =
Small Things, freely hailed as the best Indian novel =97 and possibly =
even the best English novel ever written =97 by the press in India and =
abroad. The award of the 1997 Booker Prize just added some more =
sparkle to the Arundhati sensation. Marketing for the book has been =
dominated by glossy photographs of a very photogenic Roy, wispy =
tendrils of hair framing eyes that stare dreamily out. One publicity =
poster for the book has a four-foot image of Roy’s face, beneath =
which is the caption ‘Set to be the publishing sensation of the =
year’, leaving much ambiguity as to whether the referent is Roy or =
her book, which is not mentioned even by name. The strategy is =
clearly one which plays into the Indian beauty myth, recently =
bolstered by the simultaneous success of two Indian women on the =
international beauty scene as Ms World and Ms Universe, 1996, =
followed by another title in 1997.16
Moreover, Roy crosses over into the world of academic chic as well, =
being the postcolonial ’subaltern’ subject par excellence =97 brown and =
female =97 exemplifying postcolonial resistance by writing back in the =
language of the colonizer himself. It is in this avatar of the =
vanquishing heroine that she is hailed in India as well; and given =
the fact that this year was the 50th anniversary of Indian =
independence, it was considered highly appropriate that a ‘daughter =
of India’ should put India on the map of contemporary English =
literature.
Roy’s photographs and her lifestyle also made good copy in the Indian =
press, as did the ’story’ behind how the book happened to command =
only the biggest advance for a first novel in the history of =
publishing. India Today published its first interview with Roy right =
after the release of her book, and included excerpts from it. From =
the title =97 ‘Flowering of a Rebel: The woman who never obeyed the =
rules, scoffed at convention and was chased by controversy, now finds =
herself on the edge of literary stardom’ (ITI, March 15, 1997: 72) to =
the tone in which the article itself is written (in the genre of a =
thriller, complete with details of how she got to the edge of this =
stardom) =97 one can see the construction of a star personality:
It is better if we first get this out of the way, that she is truly =
beautiful. How beautiful? Here’s a story. The brother of her friend =
met his friend who said publishers were paying all this money to an =
unknown girl for a first book not because she is bright (mind as =
sharp as a gutting knife) but because she is beautiful. That =
beautiful (ibid.).
The article continues in this tone of hushed awe and mystery to talk =
about just how much of a storm of a book it was =97 which is all about =
who called whom to set up the publishing deal. Frontline’s London =
correspondent summed up the ’story-line’ thus: ‘A feisty, independent =
woman receives a mind-boggling amount of money for a first novel and =
is catapulted into instant stardom’ (August 8, 1997). Frontline, a =
weekly which, unlike India Today, for example, is not self- =
consciously a part of the ‘yuppie press’ in India and takes itself =
very seriously as a rule, mentions that ‘[m]ost of the profiles [of =
Roy in the British press] portray Roy as an outcast who had lived in =
slums all her life, until emerging to produce a perfect first =
novel’ (ibid. 102). Of course, it is also important in this rags-to- =
riches tale of stardom for her to have been ‘a rebel who once lived =
in a squatter’s colony’, and who had women weightlifters for friends. =
We are told that she is happier in the company of such select friends =
‘than sipping wine demurely over cocktail chatter’, that she is =
‘unconventional (drinks, swears, wears what she wants)’ (ITI March =
15, 1997: 73); in fact, she is everything that the new generation of =
young urbanites would want to be.
After she won the Booker prize, India Today featured Roy on its cover =
with the title ‘Princess of Prose: by winning the Booker Prize, =
Arundhati Roy gives Indian writing in English global acceptance’. The =
cover story was more revealing: ‘Arundhati Roy brings recognition to, =
and opens up a global market for, Indian writing in English’ (ITI, =
October 27, 1997). And in fact, that is what it is all about: the =
marketing of postcolonial fiction in the West (within the academy as =
well as the general readership) as the new publishing ‘trend’, as =
representative of an ‘authentic’ third world experience, and hence =
more ‘vibrant’, more ‘lush’, more ‘multicultural’ than the ‘more =
prosaic, although undoubtedly worthy, novels the other authors =
[shortlisted for the Booker] had produced’ (Frontline, November 14, =
1997). In India, while the Booker Prize was seen as a way for India =
to wag its thumb at the ‘West’, Indian writing in English was itself =
the subject of much controversy, sparked off in no small way by =
writer/literary critic Salman Rushdie’s declaration that work by =
Indian writers in English was ‘the most valuable contribution India =
has made to the world of books’ (Rushdie 1997a: 60), exemplified by =
the fact that the anthology of Indian writing co-edited by Rushdie =
(1997b), includes only one writer whose original work was in an =
Indian language. In his introduction to this anthology, Rushdie =
asserts that ‘the prose writing =97 both fiction and non-fiction =97 =
created in this period by Indian writers writing in English is =
proving to be a stronger and more important body of work than most of =
what has been produced in the 16 “official languages” of India; the =
so-called “vernacular languages,” during the same time’ (ibid.). To =
an older generation of Indians, this was a preposterous claim which =
completely elided the depth and range of Indian writing.
I argue that this claim is part of a reconstitution of ‘hegemony’, in =
the Gramscian sense, by a new elite and its organic intellectuals =
like Rushdie which is urban, cosmopolitan, and more integrated into =
the international capitalist system than any previous generation of =
Indians.
[…]
Roy talks about her encounters with Rushdie on television programmes =
in the US where they appeared together as part of the publicity for =
her book. Rushdie is said to have complained that ‘The trouble with =
Arundhati is that she insists that India is an ordinary place’, to =
which she responds, ‘Well, I ask, “Why the hell not? It’s my ordinary =
life […] I don’t want brownie points because I’m from India.”‘ =
Rushdie is ‘disappointed by her refusal to describe India as =
exotic.’18 But the novel itself, and its attendant publicity, belies =
this refusal. The literary editor of a New York weekly claims that =
‘The book has proved that Americans could be persuaded in millions to =
buy and read books by exotic novelists other than Garcia Marquez and =
Amy Tan’ (ITI October 27, 1997: 20). GOST [The God of Small Things] =
continues to be on the New York Times bestseller list, even beyond =
the expectations of ‘industry insiders’ (ibid.).
The structure and content of the novel itself are interesting to =
deconstruct, because of how well they exemplify the qualities Adorno =
isolated as characteristic of the culture industry, in particular the =
‘predominance of the effect’ (Horkheimer and Adorno, op. cit. 125): =
the almost obsessive use of stylistic features like randomly =
capitalized words =97 what one critic has called the prose’s ‘tweeness’ =
=97 the self-conscious coining of catchy ‘turns of phrase’ =97 what =
Adorno would dismiss as ‘well-planned originality’ =97 the cleverly =
disguised but ubiquitous stereotype. The intertextuality =
disparagingly referred to by Adorno as characteristic of the culture =
industry is reflected in the way the narrative uses filmic devices =
(Roy is also a screenwriter). The writing zooms in and out of =
scenarios, and the descriptions of the scenes are also heavily filmic =
in quality. This presents a slightly different issue from the one =
criticized by Adorno, where novels are ’shaped with an eye to the =
film’; here, the novel incorporates the camera’s eye.
Also, in terms of content, the book makes use of the metonymic slide =
between India and a certain forbidden sexuality, which has its =
precedents in such canonical English novels as E.M. Forster’s A =
Passage to India (1924), and ‘Raj’ bestsellers such as M.M. Kaye’s =
The Far Pavilions (1978).
[…]
In GOST, the forbidden occurs at two levels: one is in the form of an =
inter-caste affair, the other is the incestuous love of the twin =
protagonists. The displacement in this case is geographic/cultural: =
GOST is set in Kerala, a state whose multi-layered cultural heritage =
=97 a result of centuries of interaction with Arab and Chinese =
tradesman, Jews, Syrian Christians, Dutch and British colonizers =97 =
its tropical climate, and its as-yet-unspoilt natural beauty, is =
‘Other’ even for most Indians. As a testimony to its potential as a =
marketable commodity within India, it should be noted that, over the =
past couple of years, it has featured on tourism shows made by and =
for Indians,19 broadcast over satellite television, and it has been =
the chosen locale for an Indian remake of Laura Esquivel’s Like Water =
for Chocolate, telecast as a serial over the India-based but Rupert =
Murdoch owned satellite television network Star TV.
It is also worth pointing out, even if just as an aside, that one of =
the pivotal moments in the plot of GOST revolves around a Communist =
demonstration, and that the Communist Party is derided at various =
points throughout the novel.20 Aijaz Ahmad notes in an otherwise =
favourable review of the book that this is only possible given the =
hegemony of neo-liberalism in India at this historical juncture =
(Frontline, August 8, 1997: 103=964). This hegemony is so extensive =
that political parties at both ends of the spectrum often find =
themselves in consensus and grappling with similar economic agendas =
when in power.21
Even if one admits that Roy may not be using these metaphors as a =
conscious attempt to play the market, the question of authorial =
intent becomes moot when there is a field of meaning already =
constructed for Indian cultural artefacts in the global cultural =
economy. The ‘disjunctures’ in this global cultural economy =
(Appadurai 1990) are evident in the fact that this field of meaning, =
which encodes Indian artefacts as exotic and hence desirable, is not =
limited to ‘the West’ anymore. Indians (both within and outside of =
India) are increasingly the ones turning the Orientalist gaze back =
upon India, almost as if looking at themselves through ‘Western =
Eyes’, leading to a cultural cannibalism of sorts.
[…]
It is also instructive to examine the social biography (Appadurai =
1986) of GOST in the period since its ‘conception’/production. As =
Appadurai puts it: ‘For [the illumination of the concrete, historical =
circulation of things] we have to follow the things themselves, for =
their meanings are inscribed in their forms, their uses and their =
trajectories’ (ibid.). Thus humans encode things with value and =
meaning, but it is only in their circulation and consumption that it =
is possible to see the ‘politics of value’ at play. Although at some =
level GOST and Roy =97 signifiers of Indo-chic =97 circulate as signs =
independent of social and historical context in the system of signs =
(as per Baudrillard’s analysis) that is the culture industry, at =
another level, their decoding by various people is very politically =
and historically contextual.
On the one hand, GOST is one among many commodities over which =
‘tournaments of value’ are contested in the urban Indian milieu. It =
has also become part of a debate on the status of English in India =
sparked off in no small part by Rushdie’s statements on its behalf, =
where it is either the language of necessity in an increasingly =
global economy and a polyglot country, the marker of status (a =
hangover from its colonial history), or India’s way of asserting its =
presence in the new world order. The response to Roy’s winning of the =
Booker Prize, as presented in Indian magazines and weeklies, revolves =
around the postcolonial moment of success =97 like beating the English =
at cricket. ‘The Empire writes back’, as that seminal book on =
postcolonial theory declares. In fact, leading Indian weeklies (in =
English) declared Roy’s success nothing short of a victory for India. =
All this has fed a certain nationalist pride, even though Rushdie =
tries hard to disclaim it when asked what constitutes ‘Indian’ =
literature: ‘one must separate Indian in the literary sense from =
Indian in the nationalistic sense because a literature that becomes =
subservient to nationalism gains all kinds of problems as a =
result’ (Rushdie 1997a, op. cit.). Shades of the Luk=E1cs-Brecht debate =
over art and politics (Bloch 1977)? Perhaps. But what does Rushdie =
mean by this statement, and later, when he talks of a ‘particular =
kind of Indian experience’ (ibid.)? It is the experience of urban, =
middle and upper-middle class India, united by its cosmopolitanism =
and its familiarity with English.
It may seem paradoxical at best or contradictory at worst to assert =
that both a cultivated cosmopolitanism and a self-exoticism define =
the new urban elite in India today. In fact, the two are =
dialectically related in the sense that the cosmopolitan identity =
requires both the status markers associated with the ‘West’ (e.g., =
fluency in English, to the extent that the latter can be seen as a =
luxury good), and the East (e.g., expensive ‘ethnic’ jewelry or =
clothes) because both provide important cultural capital. Also, the =
reappropriation of the identity of the exotic Indian is only possible =
because such encoding existed within Orientalist discourse to begin =
with. Thus ‘ethnic’ Indian artefacts are valuable for the Indian =
elite precisely because of the signification they embody in the =
‘Western’ imaginaire. I would suggest that this not be read as a =
totalizing assertion about the new ‘Indian’ aesthete, one which gives =
all agency only to the ‘West’. In fact, I am claiming that the nodes =
in this signification are complex and play off each other in =
significant ways: thus NRIs [nonresident Indians] seem increasingly =
to be the mediators of authentic India for the ‘West’ =97 as =
intellectuals, film-makers, and even simply by virtue of being an =
increasingly visible presence in the cultural landscape of their host =
countries =97 as well as active participants in the creation of a new =
aesthete, one which holds an appeal for an increasingly cosmopolitan =
young urban professional class in India. I believe this is an =
interesting case study of the construction of taste such as that =
elucidated by Bourdieu (op. cit.), although it is one which is much =
more dynamic because it is still under construction.
[…]
However, what do we do when the ‘concrete, identifiable’ artist =
herself becomes a commodity, such as Roy has become? It is impossible =
to abstract the sale of GOST from the publicity posters of Roy; it is =
Roy that carries the ‘aura’ (Benjamin 1968) in this case, not so much =
her artistic production. In fact, one could argue that the cultural =
commodity being produced, circulated and ‘consumed’ is also not GOST =
but Roy as the authentic postcolonial female subject, embodying the =
(post)modern pastiche that makes Indo-chic simultaneously ‘new’ and =
‘Orientalist’.