This week’s edition of Time Magazine includes a cover story about the world’s next great economic superpower: India (via the News Tab). The cover features a worker from the industry that Americans are most familiar with. She is a representative from the ranks of those much abused call center workers. Similar to Manish’s fine entry, The Anatomy of a genre, I thought I’d take a shot at examing the nuances of this cover picture.
<
p>
The next time a call center worker calls me about signing up with the Dish Network, I am going to pay a lot more attention…and flirt a little.
I don’t have a problem with the exotified cover– it’s marketing, people. They have to sell to the lowest common denominator, to the cheap seats. So if some halfwit in Idaho (sorry Saheli 😉 ) picks up this magazine and this is the picture of India that they get, and start to incorporate into their diversity consciousness, then so be it. It’s a hell of a lot better than more turban jokes or ignorant questions about if “the dot” means coffee is ready. So I say show our people as beautiful, hard working, intelligent… whatever it takes. Pile up some mangos behind that girl and put mehndi on everything that will hold still. We may be tired of these marketing “signature India” items, but the fact is it’s done a lot to improve the mainstream (ignorant) perception of indians than ever in the past. So yeah, pass me my “curries” and spices and I’ll ride my elephant off into the sunset, because it’s better than being accused of being talibani or called the stock variety of offensive brown racist names.
Hmm.. I thought the TIME article was about India and its people and not specifically about people of Indian origin living in the US.. (correct me if I’m wrong.) so what’s the big deal if they want to show some person with an unique Indian attire (bharatnatyam is not practised anywhere else.. ). And India is REALLY different and foreign in many aspects for US. Isn’t that a fact??.
Do India and its people go to work looking like that? No. Isn’t the duty of a NEWS magazine to report things accurately? If I want exaggeration and fiction, I’ll pick up US Weekly.
In my day-to-day interactions, what gets emphasized is the fact that we are of brown origin, not that we’re living in the U.S. At worst, we are total foreigners who and just visiting/are newly arrived (“Your English is so good! And you barely have an accent!”) at best, we are still murkily other. This cover others us even more, even if it’s about a story in India. When I walk around and people think “India!” and NOT “California!” or “America!” then yeah, it’s going to affect me.
Dharma Queen – Exactly. Though you said it much more conscisely than I did.
In the Asian version of the cover, their chins are held high and their posture is erect. They’re young and they look well rested. They are definitely walking with purpose and at a decent pace. It would all be far more threatening to American sensibilities than the Bharathanatyam babe.
In terms of visual literacy and whatnot, I find it interesting that they are walking in an easterly direction (at least if one holds right as east, left as west), and that there’s a mountain in the background (mountains at one’s back being good feng shui, I think). Maybe there’s more nuance in TIME cover design than I originally thought. That, or I’m reading too much into things.
Actually I liked that one…
Though Time did get into trouble for digitally altering this image.
Speaking of reactions to exotification, anyone seen this link: http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com ?
I showed it to a Kenyan friend and he nearly died laughing – and unfortunately confirmed that he’d had a number of the phrases cited used on him by white people. Someone out there should start an ‘Indians love us’ link. Some of the phrases used could be, as Anna mentions, ‘OMG! You have, like, no accent whatsoever!’ or ‘So, do you eat curry at home?’ or ‘You mean your boyfriend isn’t Indian?’.
I am a second generation Indian who grew up in Africa so if I say something that enrages people, rest assured that I don’t mean to be offensive.
Growing up there, my idea of India was exotic dances, a very rich history, amazing food and stunning women. I don’t know how the people in the US imagined India to be (without visiting the place) but that was it me. For me, the cover is a way of showing the new india where the culture etc is still rampant but so is the country’s amazing leap in the business and technological arena. It’s a study of contrasts on a country that boasts the coexistence of history and culture along with cutting edge technology and science.
I find the idea that ‘Someone will think that this is how indians look on a daily basis’ preposterous. This is 2006 people…not 1945! I don’t see pictures of aborginal women on Australian magazines and imagine everyone in Sydney looks like that. How about considering the fact that India is in the news for something positive and just celebrating that?
That being said…the woman is gorgeous and I’d rather see someone like her with the make up and jewellery instead of this one.
I think a large portion of Time’s readership consists of people who equate the term “outsourcing” with “layoffs,” and it conjures the spectre of jobloss. Coupled with this is the constant frustration expressed time and time again about having a problem with a product/service and having to talk to an Indian whom one “can’t understand.” This image, to me, is an attempt to soften this aggression, and it’s very hard for me to ignore the genderedness of it.
Exotic and orientalized bling aside, I can’t help but notice the Mona Lisa angle/tilt to her head, the steady gaze and disarming smile. The headset completes the image, which to me screams out – or rather whispers seductively – “Call me!”
This article as I believe, haven’t read) is something positive about India (with the usual patronizing crap).. Naturally they’d like to get a glamorous picture on the cover.. If it is about famine deaths/poverty in India, they’d probably use a “Satyajit Ray/Deepa Mehta” type pictures.. What’s the big deal??.. You have to analyse all the TIME covers and report us back if all the covers (images) report accurately the topic in hand without any bit of exaggeration and imagination. You can take offence if the reports are inaccurate, but cover images, hmm.. cut them some slack.. 🙂
I can understand that and empathize with you.. FOBs generally are prepared to take those comments in a stride.. It is hard on people who are born and brought up here.. But expecting someone doing an article on India to conform to your perspective is asking for too much..
Oh, please. It’s a cover. A magazine cover is an advertisement for its own product. ALL news magazines engage in intentional hyperbole on the covers. Cover design is a reflection on their marketing, not the validity of their reporting. What, you expect photo-realism every week?
If the pictures and story INSIDE the mag have the same qualities as the cover, then you’d have a legitimate complaint about the quality of the reporting. But seperate the cover from the reporting. The National Review, The New Republic, The Village Voice, New Scientist, they ALL produce exaggerated covers.
Idiot: Wow, your english is so good…
ANNA: Thanks, so’s yours.
funny… DQ… here’s my favorite (with a tweak)
Pankaj, Dharma Queen,
The non-threatening subtext is the key here. Something a largely non-desi editorial staff (assuming Time is such) would find satisfactory. Most of sepia do not: To varying degrees from mild amusement to rage. The woman is gorgeous, attractive, but wholly inappropriate given the nature of the story. A better choice: same model, grey suit, cell phone, tiny bindi, but I don’t run Time..now if Laxmi Mittel would consider buying….
“Most of them do not wear over the top make up like the woman in the cover and are certainly not loaded with nose rings and elaborate gold head bands. I guess the reality is too dull to be put on the cover of Time magazine.”
i think that image has already been used on western magazine covers and is in itself cliche by now. i think businessweek had an attractive indian woman in a salwar khameez on its cover a few years ago. it’s not the bharatanatyam image i find stereotypical, it’s the call center headphones one. india inc. is about so much more than call centers now.
“We all want to fit in the societies we live in. We all want to be treated as regular normal people who just happen to have a different skin color. Covers like this one perpetuate the image of Indians being foreign and different.”
this cover and story is about india, not american-born indians or indians living in the united states.
in my opinion, there is much ado about nothing. it’s a nice cover and attention-getting. if it’s exoticization, it’s a good one and actually invites curiosity of the good kind. having encountered people who think that all indian culture started with the british and that the country was some sort of cultural wasteland and civilizational tabula rasa before colonialization, i think this is a positive image. if it’s objectification of a woman, i’d rather have an attractive bharatanatyam-style objectification of women than some others i’ve seen in western and indian movies and magazines. i can’t see busy westerners spending loads of time doing this sort of in-depth psychiatric analysis of this image and consequently developing negative views of indian women and india. those who already have deeply entrenched negative views of india because of outsourcing will continue to do so and those who know more about the country will have a more nuanced view. however, indians being indians, i can see them complaining about why time chose a south indian and/or hindu look to represent the country 🙂 the same way petty indians fight over whether any indian movie submitted to the oscars should only be in hindi or should other languages be allowed.
it’s obviously not meant to be a literalist image. perhaps this is time’s idea of India Inc. – india is referred to as a she or a mother and the headphones are the inc. or perhaps they should have put headphones on an elephant 🙂 “tradition” and “modernity” co-existing in the same person and in the country. wearing logo-laden western-style clothes doesn’t necessarily make you progressive or modern. in the 70s or early 80s when Time (or was it another magazine?) did a feature story on the indian movie industry, they didn’t use amitabh or any of the other male heavyweights on the cover. they used the beautiful parveen babi, who was a female heavyweight of the time. again, i have a feeling they sold more issues with her.
some Time india covers:
http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/searchresults?N=46&D=India&Ntt=India&Ntk=NoBody&Ntx=mode+matchany&Nty=1
Keep some of that unnecessary outrage at my comments for later, you might need it. What I expect is a photograph which reflects some aspect of the story. I can almost deal with the idea that out of a crowd of 100,000 World Cup fans, someone would zero in on the Brazilian hotness because that gets attention, fine, mission accomplished. Still, she’s a fan and some fans look and dress like that, even if they all are nowhere near as pretty as that.
This cover is so far past that. There are no call center workers who look like this. I susbscribe to TIME. I have a right to be pissed off if I’m paying for a magazine with a laughably innacurate cover, especially one which plays to the dumbest common denominator.
First I needed to move to Brazil. Now I need to work at an Indian call center….OVERLOAD!!!! DOES NOT COMPUTE!!! TOO MUCH H0tNESS!!!
sorry, should have said this cover and story is primarily about india, not american-born indians or indians living in the united states. i know that wouldn’t matter to some americans, but that’s their problem and if this image somehow makes them think bad thoughts about indians in general, that says more about them than the object of their derision. time can’t sit and think about all the ramifications and what effect it will have on the american impression of american-born or america-resident indians/. they are trying to sell their cover story and trying to find an image that they think captures it. i’m sure opinion is just as divided in india. but it’s no worse a cover than many outlook india or india today covers that go to the other extreme and exotify and exaggerate the westernization of india, usually using beautiful women.
Yes you’re right, this is a vile oppression, more evil and destructive than any other prejudice on Earth. Beautiful women are oppressed and it’s amazing that they don’t riot over this issue.
I wouldnt mind mallika sherawat in a bikini on a Times magazine if the subject was BOLLYwood. The picture of the bharatnatyam girl on the cover reinforces stereotypes, which is the last thing people want. By people I mean: -Indians, who want to be seen as a multidimensional society -ABDs, who dont want to be asked “Since how long have you been livin in the US”?
“You’re right, a slick corporate woman in a suit would have been better for the cover, but then she would just have looked – American.”
i agree. does the whole world have to look the same – as if everyone shopped at the gap, banana republic or prada, and as if that was the only standard of progress and technological and industrial and economic advancement? if people wanted a more realistic cover than the one above, it should have been a woman in a sari, salwar khameez or jeans and t-shirt, or a guy in jeans and t-shirt. corporate and professional, especially in a non-western country, doesn’t always have to equal a western-style suit. lots of professional, educated indian women go to work everyday in indian attire and do a good job. the world is becoming increasingly bland and clone-like as it is. strike a blow for freedom and at least get rid of ties!
The most noteworthy thing about this story is that it is soooo old and soooo tired, repeatedly resuscitated year after year and flogged for as much mileage as possible. India Inc/middle class boom/Infosys and Narayan Murthy/call center-outsourcing have now been cover stories for the past 6 years, following Friedman’s stale rah rah-ing about India’s technology boom. What is ludicrous to me is the stark silence on other HUGE trends in India — the collapse of the rural sector (comprised of many day wage laborers and small scale farmers), massive increase in farmer suicides in states like maharashtra and andhra, a massive maoist insurgency in a large section of madhya pradesh/uttaranchal, sky rocketing urban poverty…the list goes on. This is not to say that India’s tech/servioce sector boom is not legitimate…but what is absurd is the bosom swelling manner in which we indians prattle nauseatingly about the great boom while remaining oblivious to the increasingly wretched conditions in the rural hinterland. The point is, if a boom only touches 200 mill people in a country of 1.2 while a good chunk of the rest are still living in nightmarish feudal systems, earning under 40 ruppees a day, you are going to see all sorts of grisly repurcussions – a large maoist insurgency only being the first among many.
It is also not in the interests of the Friedman’s of this world to actually chronicle the larger issue of what is happening to large chunks of this outsourcing, back office service sector economy – high rates of depression, the lack of development of real skills other than being able to conduct phone conversations,high cycles of consumption and debt amongst youth…etc. Sure, a developing economy will probably experience all of these ternds, but what is amazing is that no-one wants to hear about anything other than the glossy story of an India rising while large swaths of the country are sinking. Even the middle class in india, so completely engrossed in upwardly mobiling, don’t want to hear about the wretched of the earth just a hundred or so kilometers away. Also fascinating is the nexus between a reagan era conservative culture and relentless capitalism amongst many twenty and thirty something middle class friends of mine in India. Here in the U.S. it is no secret that conservative Hindutva ideology and big business (lots if it in the hi tech sector) are in happy communion with each other. Ashutosh Varshney, head of the South Asia program at the U of Michigan often tells a fasciinating story of how he was invited to uber-consultant and big biz guru C.K. Prahalad’s house for dinner and had to sit through a long, viscious and almost rabid tirade by the great man against Muslims many years ago (before 911).
Many of you are just plain missing the point. I don’t think you can explain it any more clearly than Anna has already tried to though. And remember, that major magazines have a history of stupid shit like this. We should call it out when we see it.
Thanks for putting it in perspective, nubamountain
Phew! Just when I, an Indian Born (not so) Confused American, was reaching the height of an identity crisis, Time has come to my resuce. Now I know…I am un-Chinese!!
Some people here are pointing out the obvious distinction between the article focussing on Indians in India and not Indian-Americans. Though correct in identifying the distinction, they are still not taking into consideration the simple fact that for an average American, the Indian on the cover of the Time Magazine is not any different than the Indian American at their workplace.
In situations like this someone will always be offended. It reminds me of people who criticized the Cosby show for showing black people acting white, but if you show them acting black, others will critize you for sterotyping.
I guarantee you if you put an unattractive indian on the cover someone will complain about the desexualization of indians, inplying that we are undesirable. you put a beautiful indian on the cover and people then complain: “everyone thinks all indian women look like ash rai.”
You put an indian dressed on western clothes people will complain thet’re imposing a western standard on indians, declaring western dress normal. you put an indian in traditional garb…well you get it.
I’m sure time is aware “there are no call center workers who look like this,” as anna complains. Its symbolic; a beautiful woman (represting a beautiful nation) dressed in traditional garb wearing a mike (representing an old culture embracing, or conquering if you will, the New World Order).
abhi, but it’s obvious we all don’t see this image exactly the same way and i think that’s not a crime. i honestly don’t feel offended by this photo in the same manner i would be by another one that might not offend you at all. i actually find this image as challenging western/american stereotypes about the nature of globalization than reinforcing them. to them globalization equals westernization. they feel comfortable seeing a guy or woman in a western-style business suit who pretty much looks like them except for the skin color. it comforts them and reinforces their notion that this is the way the “civilized” “advanced” world behaves and dresses. it’s no different than the “white man’s burden” of a previous era, when they felt they had to teach the natives how to dress and how to remake themselves in their “more advanced” image.
Modernity, high-tech, progress equals a solely western look is the mantra of today’s globalization. i’m so tired of reading articles where they talk about young people listening to western music as the standard for progress. to them the advanced, progressive countries are the ones that are increasingly remaking and reshaping themselves in their own image. i like that this image jolts that certainty to a certain extent. globalization should be truly global, not be automatically equated to westernization. and clothes and ways of dressing are often powerful symbols of that. i would have found a photo of an indian guy or woman in a business suit really stereotypical. this story is about the effect that india is having on america, not the other way around. it’s not a realistic image, but i think it was meant to be more symbolic.
i’m reminded of bill maher’s silly comment that he would trust dealing with people who wore a suit. he said something like “if they’re wearing a suit, we can deal with them, rather than some robes or something.” it was in reference to terrorism, but it reinforces this whole prejudice that people who look western or ape western ways are somehow more “like us” and “easier to deal with” than those “difficult people who choose to dress differently.” it’s sad when the rest of the world quietly acquiesces or buys into this limited worldview and starts to see themselves as the “other” and the “different.” gandhi fought against this view when he abandoned his western-style lawyer’s outfits for his loincloth. it didn’t make him any less civilized or effective. i’m not saying we all have to go to gandhian extremes and be as limited in our worldview, but i think it’s important to remember some of the other principles he was fighting for.
nubamountain, you make some great points.
And aren’t you guilty of stereotyping the average American with that sweeping statement too ? Or do you have anything to back that up ?
Manju, I wouldn’t have objected if they put the hottest woman in all of India on the cover wearing a headset. What I object to is an exotified version of an Indian woman with a headset on. As if women in India go to work like that.
The right thing to do (for a responsible magazine like Time), is to be representative. A little investigating would have made them realise that in call-centers, there are objective standards set for quality work: No. of calls fielded, no. of problems solved etc etc. Based on this criteria, awards are issued to the workers. All Time needed to do was to go to one large call-center company and picked out their top worker, and put his/her photo in work attire.
M. Nam
And aren’t you guilty of stereotyping the average American with that sweeping statement too ? Or do you have anything to back that up ?
Yes, I am and I only have anecdotal evidence to back it up though one could argue that the depiction of Indians in the popular media is similar to the perception of Indians in the eyes of an average American. I am not lamenting the stereotyping as much as identifyng why some people might take umbrage at an unflattering depiction of an Indian. Unflattering as in it adds to the ‘foreigness’ of Indians.
To echo Abhi, I don’t mind that she’s adorable at all. No one is saying that she needs to be more or less attractive; what is annoying is how she is wearing jewelry which is more appropriate for a dance performance or a wedding than a night spent at the office asking idiots if the reason why their computer is dead is b/c it isn’t plugged in. I maintain that they spangled her out like that to make her look more foreign than she actually is, because it’s not sexy to tell the truth and reveal that we’re more similar than different. I worked in a call center while I was in school– you dress for comfort, nothing else and there’s minimal interaction with your co-workers, so it’s not like you dress to impress THEM, either. The customers she would deal with can’t see her; why would she wear such an (in this context) odd look?
I’m happy that she’s got a healthy tan, though I’m sure that’s no rejection of the stupidity of colorism. Not when darker = more exotic.
Some of you are making us out to be far more unreasonable than we actually are. There’s no need to invalidate, not when those of us who are sincerely bothered by this have past experiences which totally back up our concerns.
I was trying to find out other “TIME cover images” and this is the link http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1205321,00.html with a caption “Lose that spare tire” showing a woman doing some stretching by standing inside a tire placed horizontally on the floor.. I wonder if people compained about that image.. How many people you know exercise like that?? 🙂
all those who are upset by/like this cover can voice their opinion by rating it at: http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20060626,00.html.
right now it’s among the list of highest-rated covers.
That’s because some people are so desperate to see reflections of themselves in popular media, they’ll gladly vote for something which doesn’t do them–or the subject the cover is advertising–justice.
Would it have been so difficult to have shown her in Indian clothes, with a bindi and headset? I’m sure the bindi would have disambiguated which country the article was covering. No, too reasonable.
Camille, Thanks for the link, will check it out.
Anna, If preaching to the choir is your thing, so be it.
I agree WGIIA.. Thats almost bigotry.
Some time back a “reporter” went to Iran and talked to young people and “reported” that the young people are so “modern” here because they listen to western music. Then asked a stupid question about which musician they liked? (Western ofcourse) So whats wrong with Farsi music?? Not “modern” enough ? WTF?
But I also agree that exotification is going on in this Times picture. Nobody goes to work like that.
As Manju rightly pointed out, the cover is largely SYMBOLIC. A regular reader of TIME would have read tonnes of articles about India/Indians in the recent years. I don’t think that he/she will be stupid enough to think that people go to work in this kind of an attire and make-up.
Why does a professional Indian woman have to be dressed up traditionally to please a westerner?
Hey look I am coy and docile. Dont I look more desirable than the girls (in a nurse’s or cop’s attire) you fantasised about?
“That’s because some people are so desperate to see reflections of themselves in popular media, they’ll gladly vote for something which doesn’t do them–or the subject the cover is advertising–justice.”
i think that’s a bit harsh. not everyone sees this as trying to be a realistic, literalist cover.
“Would it have been so difficult to have shown her in Indian clothes, with a bindi and headset? I’m sure the bindi would have disambiguated which country the article was covering. No, too reasonable.”
magazines have been there, done that. but you’re right. take away the head jewellery and one of her necklaces and give her a stud nosering instead and the image would have been fine. so basically it’s primarily the head jewellery that makes it “unrealistic.” but there have been book covers with women in everyday indian clothing, a sari for instance and a bindi, that have elicited as much handwringing, angst and charges of exotification and still probably would have in this case. so as manju says, you can’t please everyone.
For all those who are offended take solace in this TIME (Asia) cover.. June 6, 2005.. http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/0,13674,501050606,00.html
It is captioned “Beyond Denial” showing an impoverished women in a shady room with a “soon to be dying” child in her lap.. (typical Satyajit Ray effect) This is about “AIDS in India”..
Happy?..
Oops.. looks like I provided an incorrect link..
Click here
colonialist fetishism?
Why not a picture of a cute programmer? Or a radiologist in Bangalore reading an X-ray taken the day before in Podunk, Iowa? The call center operator’s picture puts India almost at the bottom of the value chain.
“Why does a professional Indian woman have to be dressed up traditionally to please a westerner?”
a professional indian woman will wear whatever pleases her, not westerners. some have said that those who are not offended by the photo are missing the point. i think the opposite can be true as well: those who are upset by the photo may also be missing the point. why do indian call center workers have to put on weird american accents and adopt western names to please a westerner? to me, that’s more egregious and a worse example of exotification than what someone is wearing. dressing traditional can mean a salwar khameez or a sari or a dhoti or a lungi. you can see indian workers with tilaks, vibudhi on their foreheads and other religious/traditional wear, i’ve seen it when they do tv coverage of indian call centers. if they featured one of these real call center workers with these types of markings on their foreheads, does it automatically mean it they are trying to please westerners or exotifying india? what does it mean when indians start seeing visual symbols of their own culture as exotification? clearly this cover is meant to be over the top and symbolic. i don’t think it’s meant to reflect how people go to work everyday. they’ve already done covers like that. there would be no need for artists if we only wanted literal depictions of everything all the time.
“The call center operator’s picture puts India almost at the bottom of the value chain.”
and that is the main problem with this photo 🙂 the cliched call center headphones.
Precisely. And the programmer be a female.
Speaking for the dravidian masses, she ain’t brown enuff to represent!
If being mildly condescending is your thing, don’t be it.
the thing that’s, unfortunate, is that the picture looks very different. it would be nice to see an encounter with India in Time magazine in which the representation was familiar. the ornamentalism on the cover is high, there are multiple data points which suggest difference vis a vis an american culture. if you look at the pic, the things Abhi has pointed out are things you would not see in the US. the nose ring, the bindi, her hair, the jewelry, the background, all of this signifies unfamiliarity
maybe this cover is a window into a certain way people view other places in the world; as differences that can be accepted and enjoyed. this is not in itself bad….but perhaps unneccesary. a call center worker in india is likely to have a lifestlye and culture that is both familiar and unfamiliar to the reading audience, the cover emphasizes difference over similiarity