Yes,
the Vogue Empowerment video was definitely skewed, it only spoke of sexual choices, in
relationship, outside of relationship, with respect to consent, judgment of
women on the basis of her choice of sex. Yes, it was largely about issues
related to sex, her presence within a relationship and even about the
misconstrued idea about fidelity and extra-marital affair. Yes, she does not
for once talk of a woman’s identity in terms of her professional choices and
the sexism and bias she has to face in every such professional endeavor. Her
choice to be part of something she believes in, or her choice to not coerce to
the hegemonic decisions imposed on her. Her choice to follow a field or belief of her choice, and how choices are created or exercised, (but then the video was a 'short' film) The fact that the video is commissioned
by Vogue makes it even more suspect. A magazine that only speaks to rich women
of a particular class, a magazine that is abominably responsible for creating
impossible beauty standards and then naturalizing them as desired. For
airbrushing women and photoshopping their airbrushed skins to remove any speck
of reality from it, and then making women aspire to these ‘models’ of beauty,
perfection and ideal. And basically creating beauty and presentation as the
only relevant qualities to possess in life for any women, that which defines
their worth and respect in society. What is also extremely problematic is this
extremely niched and ideologically and even ethically misguided magazine
appropriating images of tribal or poor women in their video, only through their
photographs taken in various other magazines, never once bothering to engage
with them more personally. There are unarguably several problems in this video,
and the video makers, Homi Adjania, and its participants who have otherwise
come out strongly to talk about women’s issues so long as pertaining to them,
have to be informed of the people that might have been offended by their
apparent “goodwill” message in the video. Yes, they have to evolve, develop
their stunted knowledge and advised to move beyond this arrested rhetoric of
sexual choice. But to call it sick, I personally feel is highly discouraging,
condescending and even mean. Their perceptions are limited, misconstrued and
ill understood, however, I also believe at the same time that the intention per
se is not worth admonishing and dismissed. It is playing the intellectual card,
discriminating on the grounds of understanding the subtle nuances better than
the others and then instead of helping them to understand it through
constructive criticism downrightly berating them for what it was seeking to
stand for.
Don’t
get me wrong, I am not in favor of Vogue and the kind of lifestyle and thinking
it endorses. I think it is ethically callous and irresponsible for them to
create unreal standards of beauty and direct all their content space towards exploring
the means and methods for women to become prettier, attractive and be more
presentable in world, and constantly reiterate through such limited approach of
the paramount importance of these categories. But there are arguably such
people too who might buy Vogue not to get ambushed by its obscenely impossible
beauty standards but to take tips of fashion from it or maybe get the right
kind of makeup or hairstyle. Now would you also tell me, that these women who
invest their energies in only trying to look great, and define their lives
around that, have to be berated, bullied, and reprimanded for having interest
in things that are more superficial, or would you rather instead try to
convince and educate them? When we speak of Feminism, we often forget that
there are several women who refuse to even acknowledge this term, and we often
give a simplistic argument for them being stupid for not understanding the
political implication of the term, and therefore being too naïve to understand
their own complicity in patriarchy. We often overlook the fact that they might
have felt doubly bullied, if at all they tried to appropriate feminism and side
with its politics without completely understanding it, both from the men who
wrongly interpret the cause and action of feminism and in fact by the better
informed and educated feminists themselves who are more readily given to
condescension that is available to them through the power of knowledge and
information. “Knowledge is power” Foucault has famously quoted, and power is
toxic, it is the bane of human existence. While we always wish to locate the
negative exploits of power in the ‘other’ we often overlook our own implication
in this power game: in our own exploits of power to assert an ego, an identity
that sometimes is also limited to self-fulfilling agenda for identity and image
formation. Feminism is definitely not merely an intellectual movement, and if
it remains to be, it will surely be a defeat of its very founding purpose. But
before we go ahead to convince men to understand it, we, who consider ourselves
intellectually more nuanced, who have understood the political nature of the
power of knowledge and knowledge making, who have sisters, mothers, aunts and
friends who don’t understand their own subjugation in several relationships
with the men in their lives and have consented to this subjugated status are to
be taken together to see the fruition of feminism in its principal. Political
movements such as these should be inclusive and cannot be formed with the ‘us’
and ‘them’ categorization. What we are resorting to then is another kind of
parochialism, an intellectual parochialism, which might not be seemingly threatening
enough yet because it is in its nascent form of development.
Adichie’s
novel, Americanah is reflective of
this age of heightened intellectualism, that instead of including everyone into
a shared dialogue of political issues such as gender, race and class are
engaging in exclusivist opinion forming. The dedication to these causes is
rather zealous and often times encroaches the territory of one category over
another, by imposing the vocabulary of one over the other, often confusing the
pragmatic and essential difference between the two and thereby problematizing
the politics of both the categories. Her protagonist, Ifemelu is in fact
disillusioned to the armchair activism practiced by her boyfriend Blaine, his
friend and his sister, who are supporters of the larger cause of racism, but
are individuals are mean to Ifemelu and dismissive of her opinions funnily
enough about her own experience of racism in the country. She discusses race in
her blog, while Adichie discusses gender in the narrative surrounding Ifemelu,
trying to understand it through its interactions with the overlapping category
of race. Americanah beseeches its
readers to extend their perceptive and interpretative capacities to allow a
holistic overview of a situation and stock taking before making hasty judgments
and commitments to an issue without much deliberation. In this age of
heightened political awareness and a social rewarding and positive
reinforcement of appreciation for having a politically “correct” and “proper”
opinion has further caused for a non-committal hypocrisy to emerge, that is far
more corrosive to any political movement than outwardly and visible opposition.
There
is in fact overabundance of opinions, an excess of political stances, and at
the same time a dearth in willingness to listen, to converse and to form a
dialogue. What such an environment then creates is a confusion of excess information
with an ever decreasing compassion for those who do not understand the nuances
of certain political subtleties that are so imposingly naturalized into us as a
norm that we often don’t even consider it abnormal or out of the ordinary to
consider for a deeper intellectual engagement. It is also an age of heightened
ego formations, with social media platforms such as facebook and twitter being
the narratives of our stories, the stories of our lives, opinions and
perceptions. We have friends who are often not really friends, acquaintances
from different caste, class, creed, gender, race, religion, etc, relatives,
both younger and older to us, our teachers and our students, and this forms a
very diverse and intellectually varying salad bowl. And while I strongly
believe it is a medium of empowerment, I also believe it is one of the most
rapidly actualized social revolution. Democratization of information and
opinion formation has inarguably given space to people of a certain class with
access to internet, and with this newfound platform they should exploit their
rights to voice their opinions. But what we also should have learnt with this
freedom of intellectual articulation is compassion, and the age old wisdom and
virtue of listening. What the blitzing speed of internet does is rush us up to
make a response in time enough for it to be heard and acknowledged. And this
divests it with critical understanding that comes with involved engagement with
it.
What
we all must remind ourselves is the simplicity of the principle that infuriates
and agitates us: the denial of individuality, subjectivity, agency of
self-articulation and even compassion towards difference. This is common across
our tirade against issues related to sexism, classicism, racism, caste-ism and
other isms. The separate identity markers of class, race, caste are always in a
palimpsest with the issue of gender, simultaneously working, and therefore
calling for a differential model of understanding, instead a strait jacketed
approach; but the basic and the simplest kernel of the matter remains to be the
same: lack of understanding and compassion and a disavowal of the voice of this
‘other’, as also imposition of one ideal of thought over another. I am often
asked what makes academics useful in the world, what can a few writers who are
spatially, temporally, geographically, socially and culturally separated from
their readers might have to offer in contemporary times? Do the conferences we
hold, the seminars we attend and the papers we present and publish have a
bearing in the larger cause of a contribution to humanity by virtue of which it
might be deemed as a legitimate payable profession? I say yes, because of the
only reason that we have an access to a wider knowledge base than the others,
that through our readings we might have equipped ourselves to make more
informed opinions if not always more correct. It might not be the duty of an academician
to give answers to society’s problems, nor would s/he like to assume such a
self-aggrandizing role of being the ‘unacknowledged legislators of the world’
as Shelley quoted in his Defense of
Poetry, and credit might be given to them to get over this self-assuming
authority over opinion formation or even legislation. But it is certainly the
expectation from an academician, by the very virtue of the essential purpose of
the field itself, for a pluralization of opinions to exist and converse with
each other in a dialogue to allow new ideas and approaches to emerge. And in
this light the response of a few academics to the mistakes made by the
filmmakers of the Vogue Empowerment video or the ‘India’s Daughter’ documentary
earlier this month has been rather disappointing.
I
am very certain that the voices we are so readily eager to dismiss as naïve and
incompetent, often do not want to remain so, if sufficiently and
compassionately directed (that is if one really wishes to do so, and also allow
them a chance), they might consider an alteration in their approach, a more
nuanced and a more informed manner of looking at things and being conscious of
it in the future. It might not materialize, they might not listen, but then, to
have a constructive dialogue is to allow for change to be conceivable. But to
deem them irremediable is a defeat of the very purpose of raising awareness.
While voicing resentment is absolutely necessary, this resentment should not
become exclusivist and solipsistic. If we wish to mobilize on issues such as
feminism, we might just do disservice to the frail attempts by movies as the
one made by Vogue, or the documentary about Nirbhaya that was similarly
vehemently criticized earlier. While the information reservoir of both these
filmmakers might be limited, and their commissioning authorities extremely
suspect and cringe-worthy, I am merely thrilled for them to at least start to
begin making the noise with the platform given to them. We as literary and social
critics can in fact make for these misguided and flawed attempts more pruned,
and self-conscious. The ‘us’ and ‘them’ parochialism then based on the relative
access to intellect and information of one group over another has to be given
up in the favor of extending the boundaries of the ‘us’ to include as many
people as possible for social change to be possible.