Crossposted at WireTap Magazine
On its newest cover , Ms. Magazine, a feminist publication that focuses on women, politics and culture, has represented a white woman in the form of South Asian religious iconography. With several arms each managing different tasks, the image appropriates South Asian gods and goddesses, many of which are depicted with multiple arms to signify varying roles and omnipotence.
The cultural appropriation of South Asian culture has become an increasingly popular trend, one that is often met with little resistance by mainstream communities. After all, isn't it a kind of flattery to have one's culture utilized in advertising, picked up by celebrities and influencing mainstream popular culture?
Actually, no.
The problem with the commodification of culture in this careless manner is that it's dangerous for South Asian and diasporic communities – it presents South Asian culture as a complete, fragment-free, unified category. What we wind up with is more Orientalist perspectives circulating through movies, magazines and stores, more South Asians having to answer for an entire group of individuals about everything from food to yoga, and more ignoring national, gendered, class and sexual differences within the community.
Furthermore, the appropriation of culture is a small and insignificant step in the process of "having arrived" in society. Bindis may have been acceptable for Madonna and Gwen Stefani to wear, but South Asian women who have worn them in public have faced racist acts of violence in their communities as a result. An oversimplified understanding of culture has not done anything for a larger racial justice movement and has surely done nothing to stop the stereotyping of a community.
I also find it completely unacceptable for a feminist publication to blatantly marginalize women of color as a result of their appropriation of culture. It is a reminder of the divided nature of the feminist movement, and the continued tendency of white feminists to participate in the exoticization or "Othering" of women of color.
I'll leave you with an excerpt and link to Sandip Roy's "My Kitsch is Their Cool ," an excellent article published in ColorLines about the effects of appropriating South Asian culture:
"When I first came to the U.S., Americans asked me about that 'dot on the forehead.' Now, Madonna wears a bindi. Bollywood borrows Hollywood plotlines (well, two or three for one three-hour film). Now, the Kronos Quartet reinterprets Bollywood composer R.D. Burman. Birthday cards are reproducing old kitschy Indian matchbox covers. Body-hugging T-shirts worn by gay guys in the Castro say “San Francisco” in Devnagari script. There are even Bollywood appreciation classes at universities. My kitsch has become their cool. Of course, not everything has been alchemized into cool. My big, fat Indian wedding might be hot (“I want one,” a gay man with a Southern accent told me at my neighborhood lesbian bar while sipping a sweet cocktail), but it doesn’t mean the Indian cabdriver, the 7/11 clerk or the Gujarati storeowner are any more acceptable."
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Ms. Magazine Appropriates South Asian Culture.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15016
While I understand the concerns about cultural appropriation and Orientalism, as a Hindu I don't find this particular cover offensive. I don't feel the use of the imagery in poor taste. In fact, I find it quite appropriate in this context. Like much other religious iconography, it allows one to convey a dense collection of information in a single 'unit' -- in this case, that the modern women is expected to be as capable as a deity in the context of managing daily life, even though that expectation is inappropriate for a 'mere mortal'. I wouldn't be surprised to encounter a similar cover on an Indian publication, actually -- most Hindus don't adhere to the same sacred/secular split that Western Protestant culture does.
(Incidentally, the analysis above fails to distinguish between Hinduism and South Asian culture; while there is great overlap between the two, many Hindus are not of South Asian background.)
I also find it completely unacceptable for a feminist publication to blatantly marginalize women of color as a result of their appropriation of culture.
I don't see how this is marginalizing women of color. Yes, they are appropriating imagery from a religion, but they are only making a quip at the "superhuman" multi-tasking woman who does all of these things at once (like Vidya said above).
Are you suggesting no marginalized religion/culture ever be referenced in art and/or the media? Would you be happier if they referenced a more typically western religion like Christianity? I completely agree that we should be concerned about the commodification of culture, but certainly not in the context of this cover.
Oops, my apologies. That wasn't meant in response to Vidya!
Where the Heidi Klum ‘costume’ is a very clear cut example of ignorant appropriation( she should have at the very least understood more than the visual presence of Kali) I am not sure if the Ms. Magazine cover is as much appropriation as it is simply a visual image of a point. The woman depicted is not being called a goddess and other than her multiple arms there are no other examples of religious iconography in the image. Her hands are not displaying any mudras, there are no sacred symbols, there is nothing else other than the arms. I don’t get the feeling Ms. Is trying to ride the Slum Dog Millionaire / Bollywood train here. My opinion is in no way meant undermine the issues that arise when a culture/identity is painted with a broad brush and only the ‘fun stuff’ and stereotypes are extracted by people with the blind power and privilege to do so.
On that note, were there no other, non-celebrity, examples of south Asian commodificaiton that could gave been used in this piece? Its seems focused on gay men. Maybe next time the author could give the gay men mentioned in the article a voice or some form of personhood instead of just being depicted negatively as ignorant, consumer driven queens.
I disagree with your assessment that the image doesn't reference religious iconography. I study South Asia and have consumed a lot of religious imagery from both Hindu and Buddhist backgrounds, although not even a tenth of what someone who is native to the culture would be exposed to. For me, this image is very obviously a goddess/bodhisatva representation, regardless of what she is holding. The way she is positioned, the way she is holding the objects is as recognizable to me as the posture of Jesus on the cross is to most people from the US.
I'd compare the image to this one (link goes to Feministing post about "crucifixion" rape awareness campaign). The woman pictured is not nailed to a cross, isn't bleeding, isn't wearing a crown of thorns, isn't male. We still understand her to be taking the place of Jesus and it was controversial because that imagery wasn't arguable. I think the Ms. cover is just as unarguable.
You definately have a point. But I think the key word in your response is "unarguable." It seems to me that the use of religious images--from *any* religion--is inevitably weighted, i.e. it is meant to carry a point beyond a direct 1:1 correspondance. And this only works if the audience has a familiarity with the cultural background. Like you said, you study South Asia, and have a fairly intimate understanding of Hindu/Jain/etc iconography. In the West...maybe not so much. The rape/crucifixion image works in the West because of how thoroughly saturated the general culture is with Christianity. To get back to your word, the link between that image and Jesus is "unarguable"--from a Western standpoint. "We" (Westerners) have a culturally-conditioned reaction to the crucifixion image--we understand that the image is meant to convey suffering and sacrifice. But if someone has little knowledge of Christianity, not only would they not make the same connection to suffering, but might not even realize that there is a connection to Christianity at *all*. The connection isn't just arguable--there's nothing to argue about. How can you "cheapen" an image that has no emotional value in the first place?
It just doesn't seem like the magazine cover is referencing anything in the common Western cultural psyche. The connection between a multi-armed, multi-tasking woman and a goddess icon is "unarguable" to you. But I don't think that there is even a connection to argue about in the first place for a lot of Westerners.
I should have been clearer. It really not just the multi-armed thing, just like the Christ-image isn't just someone spreading their arms widely. It's subtler features of the image that really trigger the comparison for me, the specific positioning of the arms and hands in relation to the woman's body, how the items are placed in her hands, the types of objects. They call on the bodhisattva image as clearly as the draped cloth in the Italian advertisement call up a Renaissance depiction of Christ on the cross.
And on to this: How can you "cheapen" an image that has no emotional value in the first place?
I mean, damn, way to dismiss the emotions of Hindu and Buddhist Americans. Granted, they're not the majority and they're mostly non-white but this type of image has real emotional value. Not to you. But to a lot of people who are also human, it calls on images of the divine and that should be done respectfully.
I don't think that the editors of Ms. intended to be offensive, nor do I think that this image is particularly terrible. It just feels like people taking elements of the art of an "exotic" place without really thinking about how it would fit in the context of their image or how it might affect people from said exotic place. Same cultural appropriation tone deafness that's standard practice when dealing with "the East".
I think the other two commenters here are analyzing the image itself without the context of an entire history of colonialism and racism that the OP is trying to point out here.
So, to the OP... YES.
When did the US colonize and discriminate against India?
The US does not encompass the entirety of the Western world. Whether the US government was directly involved in the colonisation of South Asia or not is irrelevant in this discussion. Please remember that the world extends outside your borders.
Except that Ms. magazine is a US magazine. Were it a British one I could see your point.
The alternative is that everyone in the West is collectively responsible for Britain's colonization of India. That's roughly 1/2 the world's population you want to saddle. Heck, the US is itself a former colony of Britain.
The US and the UK are considered as practically sibling countries by South Asian and east Asian countries (see Hetalia for more non-pc shenanigans). Also there is the fact that the US is made up of ex-Brits, Poles, Italians, Irish, etcetc. To say that "My country" didn't colonize "your country" although we did colonize some others near you and tried our best to get profited from the whole colonization deal is a bit disingenuous.
This is balderdash. Both wholly inaccurate and stunningly racist. The UK is a sibling of the US? Only if sharing the word "United" also made us a sibling of the USSR.
The US has never colonized any country, and certainly couldn't have profited from it. Moreover, your argument that the US is made up of "ex-Brits, Poles, Italians, Irish, etcetc." is essentially, saying, "Yes, everyone in the West is responible for the colonization" of India." Seriously, I don't think the Poles & Italians had more than 3 colonies between them, and if anything the Irish were themselves colonized by the British. (Just ask an Irishman what he thinks of the Brits). Why not just say 'white people are Satan spawn' and be done with it? This is crazy talk!
How difficult is it to wiki US colonization of Philippines? Was the history you learnt so lacking in truth that you never came across this fact? Your response has me literally shaking in anger because of its ignorance and smug self-righteous vitriol.
First of all, I didn't say that I thought of the US and UK as siblings but that that is the opinion of people living in my country and the neighbouring ones and if have never come across this opinion, I am stunned at your lack of exposure.
If anyone is doing crazy talk, it certainly isn't me. Please research some of your country's history before coming on here and labeling other people as racist for spelling out a truth that *YOU* have never heard before.
And how is anything that I said racist? Was it racist to say that UK and US are considered to be siblings? Why? UK always plays second fiddle to US policies. It is renowned to be a little brother that is incapable often times of making its own decisions when it comes to international politics. No one said that the US colonized India, but the point is that US is one of the countries that benefited greatly during the colonial times.
And to equate US's colonization by Britain to the sort of colonization that went on in Asia is trivializing the genocide that happened in that continent. Britain fought wars with the US. It massacred its Asian colonies.
I am appalled by your ignorance and lack of sensitivity. I don't think I want to engage in any more arguments with someone as unaware as you.
I'm sorry if my comments left you "shaking" but I think much of what you said is objectionable, and untethered from fact. Sometimes racism/prejudice is based on misconception, or lack of knowledge, and that may be the case here. I never compared and I certainly don't minimize Britain's subjugation of Asia and Africa and the Carribean. But you certainly can't blame the US and all white people everywhere for what Britain did; that is simply wrong. Imagine an American blaming all Asians for Sept. 11th. While some Americans do it, that is just racist. Some key facts to consider:
***Colonization: I said we never colonized any country, not that we didn't have any. All of our "US Territories" (with the exception of Hawaii) were acquired through war, and we've granted all of our territories the right to be independent if they desired. Except for the Philippines they haven't wanted to do so.
***Genocide: The Brits started, and Americans continued, what became the near total genocide of Native Americans.
"The US has never colonized any country, and certainly couldn't have profited from it. "
This is the most ridiculous statement.
Apart from... the U.S. being predicated on racism and colonization, and the Philippines and mentioned how about Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam, St. Thomas, & Federated States of Micronesia.
Oh and there is all of our inteventionalist 'lets replace your leader' practices in South America and the Middle East.
You should be concerned if you are thieving from oppressed cultures, intentional or not, as part of the practice of actually trying to end oppression rather than wrap it up in Jungian theory.
This is PC gobbledygook. With the exception of Hawaii these were gained through war, and as I'm sure you know we've granted them rights of self-determination. Of course being a US Territory is a pretty good deal (especially compared to Spain whom we replaced) which is why, except for the Philippines, they declined.
Interventionism and gunboat diplomacy are inexcusable, but its a far cry from colonization. If you question that look consider the genocide that Insomniac references.
While the US has committed its share of foreign policy mistakes & crimes, recycling inaccurate history does nothing to improve US' foreign practices.
How magnanimous of the US to after gaining territory through war to 'grant' a group of people self determination. I really think that argument bolsters the points of colonialism.
Interesting. I'm actually a scholar of colonial discourse and the history of racism, so I'm pretty aware of it. But this particular example certainly doesn't seem to draw strongly upon those themes or histories. The mere referencing of a non-Western/non-Christian theme doesn't necessarily equal appropriation. There's no cultural power imbalance being evoked here (save for the implied on between women and men), and the finished image doesn't present the cultural reference (if one indeed takes it to be such) in a way which slights or ridicules it.
The Bitch column accuses the creator of the image of being uneducated about Hindu and South Asian religion because the woman doesn't have the same number of arms as the goddess. Perhaps, this indicates that it is not intended as a representation of the goddess, but as a visual image of an overworked, multi-tasking mom.
I agree that images like Sotomayor on National Review, or Heidi Klum dressed up for halloween are offensive, but as Jeff said above, this image has no overt religious imagery other than a woman with many arms.
The writer of Bitch column is wrong about eight hands. There are many different versions of the multi-armed goddess.
I have an almost identical Indian cartoon from the 50s. It's meant to be a comment on the growing workload of today's woman.
Clichéd imagery, yes. Offensive, no.
The Bitch column amazes me with its ignorance and general carelessness about the appropriation of this religious image. It very much resembles the goddess Kali in the Hindu religion, with the positioning of the arms, the general shape, etc. Honestly though, I'm not surprised that publications like Bitch and Ms. Magazine don't seem to care that they are engaging in appropriation. And we wonder why feminism is seen as a "white" thing.
So... we're not allowed to use symbolism that derives from something religious/cultural if we are not ourselves part of that culture/religion? Is that what you mean (I want to know if I understand this correct)?
As an atheist, does that mean I cannot speak English since so many words and sayings have Christian origins? Also many phrases origin from ancient Greek mythology (and damn! My philosophy degree which rests partly on the use of ancient Greek terms and icons must be so offensive). On the other hand: As a Scandinavian I guess I can now demand that all use of Viking-imagery in the US stop and desist? (If that is correct, then I especially want all those moronic images of Vikings with horned helmets banned - Vikings did not have horns! ... although that is a misrepresentation that is also common in Scandinavia). And hey... I have been part of hip hop culture throughout most of my life, but it really origins from somewhere else, so am I really allowed? I also did kung fu as a kid, but that's East Asian, not Scandinavian, so does that make me racist? What if someone painted me as a fake-viking (with stupid horns) helmet-wearing kung fu-practicing and rapping philosopher? Would that be like, totally racist?
I don't see how this image is meant to or in any way capable of demeaning Hindus or spreading hatred or bigotry or reinforcing racism or... So could you please explain whether this really means that you mean that no one can ever use any kind of reference to anything that derives from something that one is not a part of?
My falafel is from Palestine, my clothes are probably made in China after maybe Italian design, my music is from the USA (although partly influenced from Africa), my language is influenced by all-over, my number system is Arabic, my bourbon is from Kentucky although it is influenced by Scottish whisky and has a French name, I was born in Continental Europe but my philosophy is more "anglo-saxon" although combined with ideas from places that have been colonized by anglo-saxons (and others) but they themselves used Continental European philosophers in their emancipation theory, I live in the US but I did not help build it nor did I grew up here, and in the place I grew up I was also an immigrant. Am I a bad person if I am influenced by all these many things and use them in my daily thinking and communication?
Racism is, in my opinion, a system of dominance. It is NOT being influenced by other cultures. Actually, to avoid the latter, we'd need to do things that would constitute the former.
nrj02004, I enjoyed reading this here since I'm used to coming across these sorts of articles on Racialicious instead of Feministing. Unfortunately, I think some of the defensiveness here illustrates why that's the case. Cultural appropriation seems like a complex and tricky topic, and flat-out insisting it's not a problem doesn't lead to very useful conversations about it.
What exactly makes something "cultural appropriation"? I find a lot of Indian art beautiful, enjoy Bollywood soundtracks, etc. Is this bad to do now because I don't come from that culture myself?
I think one part of the cultural appropriation puzzle is how you (general 'you', not you specifically) treat the rest of the culture that music and art comes from. If you only appreciate the art but treat the people who created that art as dirty, then that's problematic. And from the reading I've done, that's not a hypothetical situation, that's an attitude that's very real.
Like, "Oh, what a lovely sari, I'm going to wear one, but keep those dirty Indian people away from me, they and their food stinks."
That, and pretending like you've discovered something or that you're doing something great for this obscure group because you're making their culture mainstream.
Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me.
Both Alixiana and Backofthebus Eleven, thanks.
I saw the magazine cover as an homage to its very first issue (the 1971 insert into New York Magazine). See: http://nymag.com/news/features/46167/
As a Hindu and a South Asian, I didn't find myself offended by this, as it seems to be taking one of the meanings of the multiple armed goddesses and creating an analogy with the modern woman.
I would have been offended if someone had used a Ganesha image to market beer (oh wait, they did!) or use an imagery simply for the dramatic effect and offer no associative value (oh wait, they did that too...).
I don't have a problem with Tantra shirts, Ganesha on cars or even Om underwear. It's kitschy and tongue in cheek.
Also, Vidya's point about not all Hindus being from South Asia rings true (Indonesia is a notable example). Also, South Asian culture is not just Hindu culture. There is a rich heritage of Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Jainism and little traditions peppered throughout the region.
NOTE: Since I suck at html tagging and have made stupid errors with providing links, here is the corrected version. In case it doesn't work too, these are the links:
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/001550.html
http://veganworldwidenews.blogspot.com/2009/07/burger-king-offends-hindu-lakshmi.html
As a Hindu and a South Asian, I didn't find myself offended by this, as it seems to be taking one of the meanings of the multiple armed goddesses and creating an analogy with the modern woman.
I would have been offended if someone had used a Ganesha image to market beer (oh wait, they did!) or use an imagery simply for the dramatic effect and offer no associative value (oh wait, they did that too...).
I don't have a problem with Tantra shirts, Ganesha on cars or even Om underwear. It's kitschy and tongue in cheek.
Also, Vidya's point about not all Hindus being from South Asia rings true (Indonesia is a notable example). Also, South Asian culture is not just Hindu culture. There is a rich heritage of Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Jainism and little traditions peppered throughout the region.
In reponse to: Ms. Magazine Appropriates South Asian Culture
Maybe this is just a publicity stunt for Ms., but that is ok ...]
Does religious imagery belong to anyone exclusively?
Some have pointed to recent instances of National Review and Heidi Klum who seem to have used the imagery in a less than respectful fashion (on whom the disrespect reflects, is another question). I don’t think they claimed to be representing the religion or its true meaning. They simply used the images to draw attention to themselves and their views.
In the case of Ms. I don’t even see what is disrespectful about the cover art. Nor does Hindu imagery have a corner on representing women as multitasking or over-tasked. Furthermore, Hindu mythology is replete with stories of those who questioned, mocked and challenged the wisdom, divinity and even the humanity of those who count among its gods and goddesses. Afaik the only thing you are forbidden to do to is step on a god/dess or an image of one. Same courtesy is extended to people, paper, pencil, books, brooms, food and probably most tools.
With the metaphor Ms. was going for there does seem to be a certain level of understanding of the culture the image is taken from, better than some other people. I think insomniac's reply is rather telling since apparently it matters what the image is used for. Personally I agree that using an image for advertising cheapens the image regardless of its original meaning.
Off hand I don't see how this would harm people or reinforce racist bias. Also I would argue that this particular image is common enough in the US that people would understand the metaphor, though would only be aware of the original as "some Hindu god". Unfortunately the correct motivation or appreciation of the culture one is borrowing from doesn't always alter the impact of the image you end up creating.
I'm not particularly familiar with literature on the subject.
Have you read any Joseph Campbell?
That woman is as light as a few Indian friends and relatives Of mine. How do you know her ancestry? Is it listed on the inside cover with credits?
As someone who can pass for many things, I find it offensive that we still see each other as so separate.
We're mixing people
We are all one
Get over it, better yet,
join us.
clarifying what I mean by "us" before a firestorm starts-
People who are "multi-cultural" or "multi-ethnic" or "multi-racial"
I can't find a larger image of the cover, but from the one linked above, I did at first assume she was South Asian, actually. So I found it odd that the OP seemed sure she was white.
thanks for the post, it's deffinately an interesting article. I will be a regular visitor from here on out.
- iintense
Also, I should point out that most Hindus don't believe deities actually have a plethora of limbs. It is an ancient iconographic style for depicting god-like power, and modern Westerners find it odd because it attempts to depict multiple activities which would normally be perceived as happening in a linear fashion in a single 'moment' of an image/figure (remember, in many Indian theologies, 'divine time' in not linear, but instantaneous/simultaneous).
Therefore, a Hindu or Buddhist looking at the MS. cover may -- as I do -- see the borrowing of a visual device, and not of the image of a deity per se.
(This cover is also being discussed right now on a major South Asian / diaspora blog, and, skimming through the comments, virtually all take no offense at the image.)
Hi.
Wanting to understand the point of view of those who are theoretically insulted by the Ms. cover, I've read several blogs following your line of argument. The comments are totally consistent, with the significant majority of commentators not seeing the mortal offense committed here.
America is a fusion culture and always has been. Goddess archetypes are deeply embedded in our unconscious minds as a positive and relevant life force.
Truthfully, I'm as concerned about 'thought police' looking over my shoulder, as I am committing an unintended cultural offense in my own writing.
My response to your post is online. Thanks. Anne
http://www.anneofcarversville.com/annes-smart-sensuality-blog/2009/7/19/trying-to-satisfy-the-official-but-self-appointed-feminist-g.html?SSScrollPosition=281
I was following the debate about this cover for a couple days before I decided to chime in on my blog (http://youngfeministadventures.blogspot.com/2009/07/have-you-heard-ms-is-using-religious.html).
I'm on the side of cultural appropriation bordering on racism. I do not think it is appropriate for Ms. to picture a white woman in a pose associated with Hindu goddesses. It is showing the cultural insensitivity that is prevalent throughout the United States.
While yes, it does show how mother's have a wide range of demands placed on them and their (amazing) ability to multitask, I think Ms. could have done a better job at picturing this. Just because this image is prevalent throughout society does not mean that it was not appropriated and it is not an excuse to continue this form of cultural insensitivity/racism.