Life in a Bollywood diaspora

Globalisation and the media shape our opinions and perception of the world in many ways. In particular, globalisation and the media can shape the way we identify with culture. When we move across physical boundaries, whether through migration or travel, we are likely to find ourselves in unfamiliar cultural environments. Indeed, many of us may find that these new cultural environments lead us to identify with our home culture in different ways. The purpose of this final blog is to assess how the views of our home culture change when we are abroad. In particular, this blog will examine how diasporic Indian communities use Bollywood to connect with India. It will be seen that Bollywood is not only used by diasporic Indian communities to engage with India but it is also a form of exilic narrowcasting. In this respect, it will be argued that society must exercise caution and not make assumptions about the effects globalisation and transnational media on diasporic Indian communities. In particular, diasporic Indians don’t necessarily enjoy Bollywood because it allows viewers to connect with their Indian homeland and be reminded of its traditional values. Instead, Bollywood might mirror the diaspora.

Diaspora denotes a ‘form of consciousness which is particularly compatible with transnational identities in the current era of late modernity and globalization’ (Dudrah 2002, p. 20). Dudrah writes that diaspora refers to an ‘interplay of migrant people, their successive settled generations, and their ideas in terms of a triadic relationship’ (2002, p. 20). This can be understood as meaning that there is a relationship between migrants, their home culture, their new culture and their ‘diasporic consciousness’. This triadic relationship moves between cultures to create a new, hybrid 'diasporic' culture (Dudrah 2002, p. 20).

Deterritorialisation, facilitated by globalisation, has created a new market for media outlets that ‘thrive on the need of the deterritorialised population for contact with its homeland’ (Appadurai 1996, p. 38). In the context of the Indian diaspora, Bollywood films are particularly appealing to Indian audiences living away from home. In fact, Verstappen and Rutten write that Bollywood filmmakers have developed a strong interest in diasporic Indian cinemagoers (2007, p. 212). Bollywood filmmakers have adapted their style to match diasporic tastes by dubbing Hindi films into English, editing down to shorter versions more acceptable to audiences accustomed to Hollywood feature lengths and including uncensored versions (Verstappen and Rutten 2007, p. 212 and Walsh 2006). Thus, instead of ridiculing Indians who live abroad Bollywood films actually appeal to and engage with these Indian communities by targeting the social and cultural identity crisis they may experience as well as feelings of longing and nostalgia for their Indian homelands (Dudrah 2010, p. 20 and Verstappen and Rutten 2007, p. 213). Verstappen and Rutten write that Bollywood ‘shows us an Indian fantasy about the diaspora’:

In this fantasy, India is the center of the world and the diaspora is its periphery. India is endowed with all kinds of desirable values such as purity, authenticity, and piety. The diaspora, on the other hand, is rich and free but corrupted and self-centered. These migrants can do everything that is forbidden in India, but still they crave for their long-lost homeland and often make sacrifices to reconnect with it (2007, p. 214)

The 1995 film Diwali Dulhaniya Le Jayenge (The Braveheart Will Take the Bride) was the first Bollywood film to target diasporic Indian audiences. The film tells the story of a young Indian woman living in England who is torn between an Indian man back in England and her father’s wish for her to fulfill an arranged marriage to a Punjabi man in India. However the Indian man living in England stays true to his Indian roots by refusing to elope with the young woman until her father approves as per Indian tradition. The film was extremely popular in the West and it has been argued that this popularity stemmed from the films focus on the ‘very roots of Indian culture’, reminding diasporic Indians to stay true to their Indian roots whilst living abroad (Khubchandani 2001).

However, such an interpretation does not recognise the diversity of diasporic culture. Are Bollywood films so popular with diasporic Indian viewers because they encourage diasporic Indians to reconnect with the traditions and values of India? Or, do diasporic Indian viewers watch Bollywood films to de-connect themselves from the diaspora? Verstappen and Rutten found that the Hindustani youths living in the Netherlands did not watch Bollywood movies because they wanted to ‘de-link from their own environment’ and reconnect with their Indian homeland (2007, p. 230). Instead, Bollywood helped them ‘live their lives in the Netherlands by making them feel normal’ (Verstappen and Rutten 2007, p. 230). This tells us that we must exercise caution and not make assumptions about the effects of globalization and the media in the context of diaspora studies. In particular, we must be careful not to assume that Bollywood appeals to diasporic Indians because it teaches them about India or encourages them to implement Indian traditions into their new life in the diaspora.  Instead, it is possible that diasporic Indian communities are connected to Bollywood because it allows them to engage with the struggle between modernity and tradition that diasporic Indian people experience when living abroad.

The struggle between traditional Indian and diasporic cultures is now been specifically targeted. Arguably, Bollywood is now been used as a form of exilic narrowcasting for diasporic Indian viewers to negotiate the divide between India and the diaspora. Narrowcasting occurs where a program or programming is aimed at a specific limited audience or sales market (Naficy 2003). Most Bollywood films that are popular amongst diasporic Indian communities are made in India and therefore not examples of exilic narrowcasting. However, an increasing number of films and programs are produced in the diaspora and specifically tailored for consumption by diasporic Indian communities (Naficy 2003, 53). For example, SBS has targeted the diasporic Indian community in Australia with its recent program Bollywood Star which gives ordinary Australian-Indians the chance to win a role in a Bollywood movie (SBS 2012). This program is an example of exilic narrowcasting as it attempts to negotiate the divide between India and the diaspora by combining Indian culture with elements of the new culture (i.e. reality television). Thus, SBS has found a niche market segment and has developed a program that is more specifically attuned to the characteristics of Australian-Indian consumers (Hannerz 1996, p. 74). These consumers want to experience a combination of modern or Western cultural elements and Indian cultural elements so as to mirror their lives in the diaspora. 

It is important to understand that globalisation and the media affect people in various ways. In the context of diasporic Indian communities, globalisation and an influx of new media technologies have enabled these communities to connect with their Indian homeland in diverse ways. Bollywood filmmakers have found a niche market in diasporic Indian communities and have sought engage with Indians abroad by targeting the social and cultural identity crisis they may experience as well as feelings of longing and nostalgia for their Indian homeland. However, whilst some people may feel that Bollywood teaches them about India and reminds them about traditional Indian values we cannot assume that this is the case for all diasporic Indian people. It is important to remember that many diasporic Indian people watch Bollywood films because they mirror their lives in the diaspora.

Reference List

Appadurai, A 1996, Modernity At Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Dudrah, RK 2002, ‘Vilayati Bollywood: Popular Hindi Cinema-Going and Diasporic South Asian Identity in Birmingham (UK)’, The Public, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 19-36.

Hannerz, U 1996, Transnational Connections: Culture, People, Places, Routledge, London.

Lata Khubchandani (2001), DDLJ Story Goes to the Roots of Indian Culture: Transcripts of the Interviews, retrieved 26 September 2012, <www.rediff.com/broadband/2001/feb/05trans.htm>

Naficy, H 2003, ‘Narrowcasting in Diaspora: Middle Eastern television in Los Angeles’, in KH Karim (ed.), The Media of Diaspora, Routledge, London, pp. 51–62.

SBS 2012, Bollywood Star, retrieved 27 September 2012 <http://www.sbs.com.au/shows/bollywoodstar/about/page/i/1/h/About/>

Verstappen, S and Rutten, M 2007, ‘Bollywood and the Indian Diaspora: Reception of Indian Cinema Among Hindustani Youth in the Netherlands’, in G Oonk (ed.), Global Indian Diasporas: Exploring Trajectories of Migration and Theory, Amsterdam University Press, pp. 211-33. 

Walsh, C 2006 'Bollywood focuses on opening up the West', The Guardian, retrieved 5 October 2012, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/mar/19/bollywood.india>

Kardashian kulture

This week is my final post so I thought I would top off my blogging experience with some good old celebrity gossip...

As Marshall comments, celebrity culture has been intensified in the last century (2010, p. 499). We are bombarded with information about their private lives in gossip magazines, paparazzi shots and interviews (Marshall 2010, p. 499). For example, we all know the Kardashians. Kourtney recently cooked breakfast for her new baby girl Penelope, Khloe was given a new puppy for her birthday and Kim recently divorced Kris Humphries after they were married for just 72 days. How do I know all this? Well, online celebrity gossip told me. 

However, thanks to the prevalence of social media, celebrity culture has recently taken a turn. In fact, celebrities can now present themselves online and no longer need Perez Hilton to tell the world about their lives. According to Marshall, self production is at the 'very core of celebrity activity' and is an important way of creating and presenting the 'celebrity persona' (2010, p. 39). Moreover, online self production has become an important benchmark for followers to also present themselves online. 

Kourtney Kardashian is a great example of celebrity self production. Not only does Kourtney have a Facebook page and  twitter page, she has a celebrity blog, her own personal blog and a mummy blog where she presents herself to the world as a beautiful and devoted young mother who can do it all....just like everyone else.  

Unfortunately, there really is such a thing as a Kardashian kulture....

Reference list:

Marshall, P.D 2010, The Specular Economy, Society, 47.

Marshall, P.D 2010,The Promotion and Presentation of the Self: Celebrity as Marker of Presentational Media, Celebrity Studies, 1.

Sita's licensing sings

I have decided to discuss an interesting film I saw this week, Sita Sings the Blues. 

Sita is an animated film written, directed, produced and animated by Nina Paley. The film is an adaptation of Hindu epic, the Ramayana. What I found most interesting about the film wasn't the storyline or its controversial reception but the licensing arrangement behind it. 

On her website Nina Paley writes:

Dear Audience,

I hereby give Sita Sings the Blues to you. Like all culture, it belongs to you already, but I am making it explicit with a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License. Please distribute, copy, share, archive, and show Sita Sings the Blues. From the shared culture it came, and back into the shared culture it goes.

This is a very unique approach. In terms of the copyright implications, the Creative Commons License does not mean that an artist is giving up their copyright (Creative Commons Australia, 2012). It simply means that their work can be used more liberally. Thus, it actually encourages user-generated content. 

As discussed in a previous post the digital, globalised world has brought intellectual property to the forefront. In particular, we have seen that copyright restrictions can severely the rights of users to publish, share or remix the work of others. 

In the case of Sita, the licensing arrangement encourages audience distribution. Thus, instead of telling people they can't share and punishing them if they do Sita encourages the audience to share (Question Copyright, 2009. This, in turn, benefits Nina Paley who has become a pioneer in the fight for the rights of global media users.

Reference List:

Question Copyright,2009, The Sita Sings the Blues Distribution Project <http://questioncopyright.org/comment/8503>

The Chicagoist, 2012, 'Sita Sings the Blues Sparks Controversy in Queens'<http://chicagoist.com/2011/07/21/sita_sings_the_blues_sparks_controv.php>.

Creative Commons Australia, 2012, 'About the Licenses' <http://creativecommons.org.au/learn-more/licences>

Sita Sings the Blues, 2008, <http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/watch.html>

The blogosphere of the public sphere?

Over the last 6 weeks I have become a serial blogger. Not only have I been blogging myself but I have been reading fellow student blogs and taking more of an interest in professional bloggers. All this reading and blogging has got me thinking, what is with blogs? Is there such a thing as a blogosphere? How is this different to the public sphere?

German sociologist Jürgen Habermas defined the public sphere as a 'network for communicating information and points of view . . . the streams of communication are, in the process, filtered and synthesised in such a way that they coalesce into bundles of topically specified public opinions'(1995, p. 360). The public sphere is closely tied to the media. New media technologies, in particular the internet, have provided unprecedented opportunities for people to communicate information and public opinion. 

Blogs are one method of contributing to the public sphere. Roggeveen has written that a blog is a 'platform to push out ideas, information and links to other sources'(2012). However, 'when many blogs form a blogosphere you get a living ecosystem to exchange and debate' (Roggeveen 2012).

As the clip above demonstrates, it is arguable that a healthy blogosphere may just be the key to a functioning public sphere  given the access they provide for minority voices and political dissidents. However, as Roggeveen highlights, whilst society has seen an increase in blogs this does not necessarily mean they contribute to a blogosphere (2012). If people blog in isolation there is no blogosphere of the public sphere. 

References:


Habermas, J, 1992,The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere – An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. 

Roggeveen, S, 2012, 'Is there an Australian Blogosphere?', Lowy Institute for International Policy, accessed online <http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2012/03/23/Is-there-an-Australian-blogosphere.aspx>

The Bollywood diaspora

Where people move across physical boundaries, whether through migration or otherwise, they often find themselves in a new and different cultural environment. This new environment may lead to different ways of identifying with their home culture. 

The concept of diaspora has been used refer to the 'large-scale migration or dispersion of people in general'(Moore 2012). Dudrah writes that diaspora means an 'interplay of migrant people, their successive settled generations, and their ideas in terms of a triadic relationship'(2001, p. 20). This means that there is a three way relationship between migrants, their new/home cultures and their 'diasporic consciousness' that moves between cultures to create a new, hybrid culture (Dudrah 2010, p. 20).

Bollywood cinema is an intrinsic part of Indian culture (Gowricharn, p. 2). Bollywood is not only popular in India but is also popular amongst Indians living abroad (Assisi). Dudrah writes that Bollywood films are an example of 'diasporic and global cultural texts' because of their engagement with Indian communities living abroad and the social and cultural identity crisis they may experience (Dudrah 2010, p. 20). 

Source: http://www.pukaarmagazine.com/?p=649 


For example, in the film Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge (The Braveheart Will Take the Bride)a young Indian couple living in England fall in love on a trip to Switzerland. However, the couple must deal with the woman's traditional father who takes her back to India to fulfil an arranged marriage. 

Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112870/

This film is an example of the diasporic nature of Bollywood as it engages with the struggle between modernity and tradition experienced by diasporic Indian people. 


References:

Assisi, F, 'Bollywood Culture Binds Global Indian Diaspora', Planet Bollywood, accessed online, <http://www.planetbollywood.com/displayArticle.php?id=051806123941>. 

Dudrah, RK 2002, ‘Vilayati bollywood: popular Hindi cinema-going and diasporic South Asian identity in Birmingham (UK)’, The Public, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 19–36.

Gowricharn, R, 'Bollywood in Diaspora', University of Tilberg, pp. 1-9, accessed online, <http://www.svmk.nl/pdf/bollywood_in_diaspora.pdf>. 

Moore, C 2012, Topic 3: Making Cultures: Diasporas and the Media, accessed online via D2L. 

Cookie v Copyright

This week I have focussed on the role that we, consumers, play in the media and how the online content we generate can be limited by law. 

The internet has become a space for bloggers, journalists and consumers alike to contribute to the media agenda(Singer 2007, p. 116). However, online user-generated content is severely limited by copyright law. Copyright law gives exclusive legal rights of ownership to the original creator of a work for a period of time (Australian Copyright Council 2012). Those who infringe the copyright of another are liable to punishment under Commonwealth law. 

Simply posting a clip on YouTube could mean you are infringing copyright. For example, a few years ago Canadian bureaucrat Dr Stephen Duckett refused to talk to journalists because he was eating a cookie.

In this first clip we can see “© CTV Edmonton” on the right of the screen. This means that the clip is owned by CTV Edmonton and protected by copyright. An internet user, inspired by the CTV clip, later posted a parody on YouTube. 

  
The second clip is an infringement of copyright law. 

In the context of online copyright infringement, how can the law balance the rights of copyright owners with the rights of users? Christou and Maurushat  argue that there are various legal defences that users may be able to rely on (2009, p. 2). However, it seems to me that this could be another example of media users being trumped by the omnipresent, copyright owning, media oligopolies.....

References:

Christou, Sophia and Maurushat, Alana, 2009, ‘Waltzing Matilda’ or ‘Advance Australia Fair’? User-Generated Content and Fair Dealing in Australian Copyright Law,  Media and Arts Law Review, Vol. 14, No. 1. 

Singer, JB 2007, ‘Bloggers and other “participatory journalists”’, in C Friend & JB Singer (eds), Online journalism ethics: traditions and transitions, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y., pp. 115–50

Australian Copyright Council 2012, An Introduction to Copyright Law in Australia, accessed online via <http://www.copyright.org.au/find-an-answer/>

The oligopolies behind globalisation

In my last post I wrote about the links between globalisation and the media. I attempted to argue that the media has not unified society into a 'global village'. I considered that the concept of a 'global village' was simply an example of Western homogenisation and, furthermore, that cultural and non-western media are playing an increasing role in the process of globalisation. 


However, after considering the current state of global media ownership I am reconsidering my argument. It seems that there are fewer individuals and organisations that control 'the media', leaving media industries highly concentrated and dominated by a small number of organisations who dictate the media agenda. 


Therefore, have we become oblivious to the oligopolies behind the media that have a stronghold on what we read, hear and see?


First of all, what is an oligopoly? 


In the context of the media, Steven (2003, p. 41) defines an oligopoly as 'where a group of the largest companies control the industry'. Steven writes that oligopolies can tactically agree on standards, regulations, division of markets and even prices within the confines of the law (2003, p. 41). Whilst Steven (2003) argues that there are various economic and political benefits as a result of oligopolies there are also many negatives. In particular, the media organisations who dominate the media market can decide whether or not to suppress media items that don't serve their own agendas or monetary interests. 

The clip above argues that the concentration of media ownership in the US has reached dangerous levels. The five companies listed above own more than 90% of the media holdings in the US which. Such market concentration results in these companies not only deciding what media we should consume but they also decide what media to leave out. It is arguable that it is what we don't see that is often the most important and we, the public, suffer as a result. 


Therefore, when we consider the links between the media and globalisation and whether we are living in a 'global village' remember the oligopolies....



References:



Steven, P 2003, The no-nonsense guide to the global media, 
New Internationalist, Oxford, pp. 37–59