 |
 |
 |
 |
Who cares?
An academic look at
apathy
and South Asian stereotypes in Mass Media
“While South Asia’s influence on and portrayal in Western culture has a long, varied history, South Asian-Americans [themselves] have only just begun to make a blip in pop culture.” [Vera Chan, The Contra Costa Times] For almost a century the American entertainment industry has defined the South Asian image to the non-Asian world. Most often, those with little exposure to, knowledge about, or understanding of South Asian people themselves have crafted this image. A consequence of this has been a tradition of limited and unbalanced portrayals of Asians in the entertainment industry. Traditionally, the South Asian American community has reacted to clichéd representation and ethnic stereotyping with apathy, echoing the political stance taken by many South Asian Americans. This tradition is marked not only by disinterest on the part of South Asians towards clichéd portrayals, but also the acceptance and tacit approval of the portrayals set forth. It is apathy on the part of the South Asian community, and not malicious intent on the part of mainstream media, that has kept South Asian stereotypes in the media for so long. But simply speaking out against offensive characterizations is not sufficient to eradicate them. In order to bring about more positive representation and the further integration of South Asian Americans in mainstream American media, the South Asian community must depart from traditions of apathy and un-involvement, and move more positively to educate, inform, and craft our their identity. “American mainstream pop culture has long borrowed and reworked South Asian images without much input from South Asians themselves,” writes Vera Chan of The Contra Costa Times, in an article about Hollywood clichés. [Chan] The Media Action Network for Asian Americans speaks of Asian American stereotypes as “…restrictive Asian portrayals that are constantly repeated in the mainstream media… The seemingly incessant recurrence of these depictions—coupled with the paucity of compensating images—marks them as stereotypes.” [MANAA] It is widely held that the first South Asian stereotype put forth by the entertainment industry came in the “classic” movie Gunga Din (1939). In the movie, an Indian water-carrier (the movie’s namesake) confirms his loyalty to the British by warning them of an impending Indian nationalist attack. Subsequently Gunga Din is killed in the nationalist onslaught, “sacrificing” his life for the British. This characterization set the tone for Asian portrayals in the media for decades following, and has since come to be known as the “Gunga Din stereotype,” in which Asian characters affirm their loyalty to their white superiors, and consequently their goodness, by sacrificing their lives so the white characters may live. [MANAA] South Asians were largely absent from the American media for the following decades, with the exception of brief stints of 1960’s spirituality fueled fascination with India, and Beatles inspired homage to Sitar legend Ravi Shankar. Decades later, a growing fascination with South Asia fueled a new breed of characterizations, exemplified positively in the 1982’s “Gandhi” (a work particular ahead of its time in that it featured South Asian leads); and negatively in 1984’s “The Jewel in the Crown” and “The Far Pavilions.” Many South Asian Americans embraced the negative early 1980’s portrayal of South Asia, despite the fact that “The Jewel in the Crown” and “The Far Pavilions” featured an almost exclusively non-South Indian cast (perhaps even more egregious is the inclusion of several actors, including a female lead, in “brown-face” makeup). The later 1980’s took the South Asian characterization another direction, highlighting South Asians as extraordinarily intelligent and docile. This cliché is typified in the “Short Circuit” movies, with American actor Fisher Stevens’ portrayal of a South Indian scientist. Other similar portrayals of the late 1980’s were often racially and ethnically ambiguous, but consistent with the docile intellectual, portrayed as students and professors using a caricatured “Indian” accent. These late 1980’s portrayals signaled the beginning of an era of “humorously” clichéd characterizations, which paved the way for the stereotypes of the 1990’s. The next decade signaled the creation and consolidation of the mainstream media’s current set of South Asian stereotypes, as South Asians became more prevalent in American society. As Nazli Kibria notes in “Not Asian, Black, or White? Reflections on South Asian Racial Identity,” in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, South Asian Americans “…moved from being a relatively invisible and benign presence to one that is increasingly visible….” [Kibria, pg.81] Underlying this ongoing transformation are structural shifts within the South Asian American communities. The two key shifts that Kibria highlights are population growth and socioeconomic diversity. The number of Asian Indians (the largest ethnic component of South Asian America) grew 125.6% in the 1980’s; and along with this growth came a shift in the socioeconomic makeup of the South Asian immigrant community. “In the immediate aftermath of the 1965 Immigration Act,” Kibria notes, “South Asian immigrants to the United States were largely professionals who were sheltered by the privileges of their class status from the most blatant forms of racism against nonwhites in the United States.” [Kibria, pg.81] But while this, the “second wave” of South Asian immigrants was composed primarily of doctors, academics, and professionals, by the late 1980’s South Asian immigrants were primarily nonprofessionals. [Varadarajan, pg.333] This “third wave” of often-unskilled immigrants brought socioeconomic diversity to the spectrum of South Asians in America, leaving a significant portion of South Asian Americans in the lower and middle classes. Consequently, more South Asians began seeking their livelihoods in more “visible” enterprises, such as the operation of convenience stores and driving taxicabs. The stereotypes of the South Asian taxi-driver and convenience store owner have since become engrained in the landscape of American pop culture, and the less-than-flattering portrayals have stigmatized South Asian Americans as a result. It is interesting to note the disparity between social niches and media stereotypes in this regard, as Hollywood has picked up on only a narrow sector of South Asian Americans to adopt as their media stereotypes. Typically the entertainment industry has chosen to caricature newly immigrant, lower class South Asians. This begs the question, why is it that only lower class South Asians become characterized and clichéd? Why not wealthy, well established South Asians as well? After all, there are other industries that South Asian immigrants are strikingly more prevalent in. One need only look to the hospitality industry, as “…slightly more than 50 percent of all motels in the United States are now owned by people of Indian origin… If you bear in mind that Indians constitute less than 1 percent of America’s population, the conquest of this economic niche appears extraordinary.” [Varadarajan, pg.36] Even in the face of this disproportionate representation within an occupational niche, the media has yet to caricature motel owners. The answer to this seems to lie in the fact that the occupational clichés pushed by Hollywood are those most visible to other segments of society, as opposed to stereotypes of South Asian professionals who tend to be less accessible to the masses. All in all, it is telling that the South Asian American community’s reaction to misrepresentation, the propagation of stereotypes, and the continued plundering of South Asian culture by Western media and pop culture has been so tepid. Of the 90’s stereotyping and pop culture’s fascination Angelina Malhotra-Singh writes, “We’ve neither lauded the annotated borrowing nor (aside from a few fundamentalists policing Xena, Warrior Princess) protested the pillaging.” [Malhotra-Singh, p.30] In “Brownsploitation!” an article from India Currents detailing American cultural imperialism, Malhotra-Singh postulates that the basis for this tepidity is that the exploitation of South Asian culture seems to be out of the focus of most South Asian Americans. Of this community psychologist Bina Parekh notes for many South Asians in America “…cultural imperialism is a term associated with the colonial times, with the British. As economically successful immigrants, it just doesn’t apply.” [Malhotra-Singh, p.30] This rings true of a large segment of the South Asian American community, that is, they simply don’t recognize the clichéd characterizations and stereotyping as exploitative. For many South Asians, simply seeing representation of their culture and people in the media is a thing of wonder, and such they fail to recognize the detrimental effects of media-promoted stereotypes, as evidenced by the community’s approval (granted to some degree tacit) of early 1980’s miniseries “The Jewel in The Crown” and “The Far Pavilions.” A key factor in the South Asian American community’s tradition of apathy, both politically and in the face of media misrepresentation, is the economic success enjoyed by second wave, post 1965 immigrants. “Considering the standard of living many of us enjoy,” Sarvan Singh writes in “The Politics of Apathy,” “why rock the boat? Things seem to be pretty good for many Asian Americans. A foreign sedan in the driveway of a nice home fully equipped with a set of parents appears to be an enviable lifestyle.” [Singh, course reader pg.321] Singh proceeds to note that as early as 1980, Indian-Americans had a median wage twenty-five percent above the national average. And, while this figure has tapered off some over the past two decades due to the third wave of South Asian immigration current figures remain among the highest of all ethnic minorities. “How do we maintain and ensure this social prosperity?” Singh asks. “Some believe the answer is detachment. Asian Americans have a tendency to look at the world with tunnel vision. The notion that if we concentrate solely on ourselves, things will work out in the end.” [Singh, course reader pg.322] This tunnel vision is at the heart of the South Asian American community’s apathy, and it is pervasive to a majority of the social strata of South Asian immigrants in the United States. These immigrants lack a veil of privilege as their excuse for political apathy, but still hold to their sense of tunnel vision, even in the face of egregious racial hostility and unflattering media portrayals. It seems they too hold to Singh’s ascription, that their success will result from concentration on themselves, and by turning a blind eye to what surrounds them. Another important factor in their apathy is the notion that if they “rock the boat,” they will bear the brunt of social stigma, and often fear the repercussions of such. This apathy has affected not only out representation in the media, but more seriously our political representation as well. “But, by social abstention and political apathy, Asian Americans remove themselves from the governmental decision making process. This habit of isolationism can do a significant disservice to those who practice it. Public action sustains social well-being.” [Singh, course reader pg.322] This social well-being is a broad construct, reaching from changing middle-American attitudes towards South Asians to bettering representation in mainstream media. Unfortunately, this apathetic social phenomenon has left the South Asian American community without a collective political voice, and out of the arena of social change. Furthermore, the non-participatory stance that has largely defined our community’s history in this country is what has allowed our portrayals to remain clichéd. Bina Parekh writes, of South Asian media representation, “It doesn’t need to be intelligent. It doesn’t need to be accurate. Since we’re not exactly playing cultural police, they can distort and market the hell out of us.” This rings true for the broader minority spectrum in the United States, as Parekh points out. “Minorities which make the most noise about political correctness…have been more successful at raising awareness than have Asian-Americans, who more often than not prefer to concentrate on their economic status rather than their image in the American cultural landscape.” [Malhotra-Singh, p.32] This is shaky ground, though, as has been demonstrated by some who have attempted to “make noise” thus far. An interesting point of contention is the character Apu Nahasapeemapetilon, the Indian convenience store owner on the Fox animated sitcom “The Simpsons.” Reactions to this characterization vary from embracing him simply for being South Asian to scorning Fox for their anti-South Asian bias in creating such a character and perpetuating such a negative characterization. Rita Chaudhry Sethi writes that the reflection of the “…greedy, unethichal, cheap immigrant” stereotype in popular culture, “gives it credibility, thereby reinforcing the image.” [Sethi, p.240] She in turn speaks mockingly of the “purported political sensitivity” of “The Simpsons,” suggesting that the reinforcement of the stereotype is somehow insidious and out of place on the show. Others cite “The Simpsons” as more enlightened than most in depicting South Asian Americans, especially on prime time network television. Debasish Mishra, executive director of the Washington, D.C. based India Abroad Center for Political Awareness, cites, “If you were to watch Apu for just one show, you know it’s a stereotype. Anyone who watches it regularly, [knows] it’s a very developed character.” [Chan] Furthermore, Angelina Malhotra-Singh, in “Brownsploitation!,” notes that while Apu has “…angered some with his heavy accent and stereotypical job…Apu and his nephew Sanjay are often the brightest and least stereotyped characters on a show known for taking pot shots at white Americans of every class and creed.” [Malhotra-Singh, p.32] From either perspective, it is clear that Apu is of significance to the subject of South Asian American media representation, as for more that a decade now he has held his place on a prime time network series (Apu is the most frequently appearing South Asian character on any domestic series ever). What this illustrates is key: care must be exercised in the community’s criticism of media representations, to ensure that the criticism put forth is grounded and accurate. In fact, it is often incorrect to accuse the media of racism for their characterization of South Asians, and politically active members in the community are often to quick to do so, as there is a marked difference between racism and ignorance. Pallavi Sharma, in “My Jedi-Knight Fantasy,” states of George Lucas (who for decades now Lucas has been criticized for not including more minorities in his “Star Wars” epics) “…I don’t think Lucas would intentionally villafy any ethnic community, nor do I think he would think his audience naïve enough to not notice the stereotyping.” [Sharma, course reader pg.294] Sharma raises a particularly interesting series of points. First, it is often the case that stereotypical racial characterizations are unintentional. And, while this does not rule them out as perpetuating stereotypes, it does key the community on the fact that it is ignorance that fosters these unflattering characterizations. Second, Sharma cites of Lucas something that seems to ring true of all of Hollywood: it is doubtful that the media expects its audience not notice the stereotyping present in its works. Given such, it seems quite clear that these stereotypes continue to be propagated due to obvious media ignorance of South Asian people, customs, and culture. Furthermore, the onus is on us as a community to educate. Demanding reform without offering assistance makes little progress, as others are still forging our characters. The media is a reflection of our society, but not always a flattering one. But the misrepresentation of South Asian Americans hasn’t been motivated by malice, so hostility towards those promoting such stereotypes is not the appropriate response. Sreenath Sreenivasan, co-founder of the South Asian Journalists Association and Columbia University assistant professor takes a more pragmatic view towards the portrayals of South Asians. “You shouldn’t get upset (after) complaining for years there has been no representation for Asia,” Sreenivasan says. “Now you finally have the representation, you’re going to get the good and the bad.” [Chan] So what response on behalf of the South Asian American community is appropriate? In order to foster syncretism, it is necessary that we take a further step and educate those borrowing from South Asia’s rich cultural heritage on just what they are borrowing. It is through cultural syncretism that community may be built, as it is a steppingstone to cross-cultural understanding. The positive potential of this reaches far beyond that of better media characterization; that is this syncretism is a means to bring an end to the stigmatizing of the South Asian American community in other arenas. Finally, it is up to the South Asian American community to help craft its own media image. CNN producer Senain Kheshgi adds, “…the community needs to support its upcoming generation of artists more fully, since they are the most likely to change stereotypes.” [Chan] In a Screen Actors Guild report, ‘Casting the American Scene,’ the sheer lack of representation is easily seen. The report counts 15 South Asian “Indians” out of 8,239 television characters from 1995 to 1998. Rounded off, the percentage is closer to zero than one, even though people of South Asian descent make up approximately 1% of the population of the United States. [Chan] According to Sonia Nikore, casting director for NBC, this is less a reflection of an insidious inclination for the industry to keep South Asians out than that of a lack of roles for South Asian actors. The easiest way to provide more positive roles, Nikore cites, is for more South Asians to write their stories. Changing the attitude of the South Asian American community towards the “unconventional” occupations of writing and acting is the first step in changing the stereotypes.
|
