<
p>
The cover of the upcoming summer issue features a middle class white American woman holding several items that represent work and family life in a multi-armed Hindu deity’s pose. I get the juggling metaphor, and the sour look on her face informs that she’s not too pleased with her conflicting situation. What I’m conflicted and not pleased about is the frequency with which American media and pop culture icons are co-opting South Asian religion to suit their aesthetic fancy.[bitch]
This cover reminds me of the Sotomayor cover that the National Review did (and that Abhi covered here). I’m conflicted in both these covers. On the one hand, neither cover excessively pokes fun at the religion but uses the iconography to express some deeper message they are trying to convey. I believe deeply that art should be given the freedom to express.
But on the other hand, can we really call the Ms. Magazine cover ‘art’? It is the advertising front page of a magazine for commerce. And truthfully, I am discomforted by the fact that Ms. Magazine caters to a middle class liberal white women clientele. Question is, would I have felt different if they had depicted a brown woman in the same image, or if it had been a different magazine? Probably.
It’s completely inappropriate to utilize Hindu iconography in this context, mocks the religion, and diffuses the imagery of its “true” meaning. When a cultural or religious symbol is used for marketing purposes by cultural or religious outsiders that fail to convey respect for and understanding of the intricacies of that culture or religion, it is offensive.[bitch]
<
p>
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…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. [Feministing]
What does your gut tell you when you see this image?
I agree. Accept us as mainstream. But we’ll tell you when we whimsically decide that we want to be treated with kid gloves.
Also, somebody needs to inspect the ingredients in that frying pan? Any beef there? Meat? Quick! Somebody call 1-800-RAJANZED!
My gut tells me that you, either as a Muslim, or as a person who may not be in touch with all the SECRET/LoA/New Age/Chopra/Yoga-ization of American culture, are unaware just how much references to Hindu culture and Deities are starting to become mainstream.
I am a Muslim that is very aware of the Yoga-ization of American culture (I have been a South Asian American activist for past 10 years, and writing on this site for 4) and if you look to the history books, new age desi gurus have been making the American circuit catering to the middle class whites since the 1920s. If it was “becoming mainstream” how come gurus, yogis, and new age culture has been around for 90 years now and still being “otherized”?
The question isn’t how aware or unaware I am. The question is does it make it right to culturally appropriate to sell products that misinterpret and mock religion and culture. Despite how prevalent in society that religion is.
It says yawn. This has been a lazy shorthand for multitasking superwoman for ages — in Indian and western magazines. If you look around there’s an old Ms. issue with similar idea.
What does mocking culture mean? Are ironic articles about hipsters taboo now?
And advertising is not art because?
On the other hand does any Hindu believe, literally, that Goddess Laxmi had multiple hands or that Ravana 10 heads, most believe that the 10 heads was a metaphor thar Ravana had the strength of 10 men same with multi tasking Laxmi. If you go by that logic It is not offensive, unless any mainstream depiction of a minority culture is offensive. The lady in the image is shown in 2 caring and nurturing roles (the baby and cooking) plus multiple other roles a modern woman would be involved in her day to day activity, cell phone, pressed for time, a clutch, car keys.
The Sotomayor cover was clearly offensive, the tone was mocking. Her image and facial features were distorted and used her “wise latina” quote out of context.
Dear Ms. B, please allow me to introduce Durga.
Taz, I appreciate your sensitivity. But really, I think this is quite benign. It is true that such ‘co-options’ (to use your term) may result in changing of the meaning and iconography of things others hold sacred but that is in the nature of things.
Blast from the past.
Honestly, my gut feeling just says ‘MULTI-TASKING’, and nothing else, and I am Hindu.
Help! I don’t understand why I’m supposed to be offended. What’s being mocked, exactly? I feel left out. 🙁
I didn’t use “co-opting” – Bitch magazine used it. I quoted from the mag, which is why there are dotted lines down the left side of the places I pulled quotes from.
I was trying to parse this statement of Ms. Mandy van Deven (is that last name suffixed by Verma? I am only asking so I know whether I should be offended by this neo-cultural imperialism where browns are kept down by “others” telling him when and how their anger should be harvested?). Is she complaining about the fact that the clock only goes around to 12, when everybody knows that one god day is equivalent to 7 million* human days (or 1 million dog days, of course. Don’t want to exclude the canines).
Feminists who find this cover offensive need to get in touch with VHP/BJP asap and lay down clearly defined guidelines on the subject. Without their able guidance we are completely lost.
I wouldn’t admonish the nice lady so harshly.
YES!
Thanks for posting this Taz. I was reading about it at feministing and came across a link to Ms. Mag’s inaugural cover there too. In hindsight, maybe not the best way for them to start off their new magazine. I wasn’t offended (by the cover in this post) at first glance, but if Ms. has a history of “catering to a middle class liberal white women clientele” then their use of the imagery is a little disturbing. I want to expect more from a feminist magazine than I do from ads for detergent or hamburgers.
Also, the “Rises up!” headline together with the deity-like multiple arms made me wonder if they might be getting their religious references mixed up (resurrection v. reincarnation). I suppose a more generous interpretation would allow for a “rise” in the “Still I Rise” Maya Angelou sense or some other sense. Does Ms. deserve that kind of generosity or benefit of the doubt? Another jarring thing given the discussion the image has raised on blogs is that this cover also features the name of Audre Lorde, who criticized ’60s feminists for a narrow focus on white middle class values.
By the way, that made me think of a Hyphen Magazine cover from the past. Obviously a mag with a different focus and history.
Spot on. Even though I think this is only marginally drawing on Hindu allusions, even if it was, do religions have some special right to have their images protected from co-option, satire or mockery? In this case, there’s only co-option and no satire or mockery. But I see nothing wrong with co-option. In no way is anyone being “otherized”, any more than if an Indian magazine made a pun on the word “savior” and drew a politician in a mock-Christ pose.
The problem with “othering” is when we see people as stereotypes e.g. connecting all South Asians with Hindu iconography, which simply writes off the group as a soft spiritual bunch without critical faculties. “Othering” is pernicious, but I think it entails much much more than employing allusions from culture or religion. And if the issue is ‘respect’ for religious iconography (which no one has raised so far) then I would simply echo the quoted post above.
And truthfully, I am discomforted by the fact that Ms. Magazine caters to a middle class liberal white women clientele. Question is, would I have felt different if they had depicted a brown woman in the same image, or if it had been a different magazine? Probably.
Taz, I have noticed that in the last few months you seem make things are alot more racial then they are in some of your thing you have wrote about. I could be wrong though.
You know, as an ardent Buffy fan, that phrase gave me a funny feeling in the pit of my stomach too.
While we’re getting all critical, I’m glad that Ms. has its priorities straight. Bloggy tweety mom 2.0 gets an entire cover page, whereas Tiller (Tiller who?) gets relegated to a teeny mention.
But the real reason for feminists to be upset is the crypto-cultural-imperialism of the 8 hands that “blatantly marginalize women of color as a result of their appropriation of culture”, perpetuate the “continued tendency of white feminists to participate in the exoticization or othering of women of color”, and are “a reminder of the divided nature of the feminist movement”! Way to keep the eye on the, er, eight ball!
that she is one annoyed woman with not enough time to manage everything she needs to do, and wishes she could grow a couple of pairs of more hands.
this hindu iconography appropriation nonsense? give me a break. jeez.it’s embarrassing.
Actually, the fact that they haven’t represent Muhammad on that cover… isn’t that just a crass exploitation of Muslim opposition to iconography for commercial purposes?
I didn’t get any feeling actually… [puzzled..]. I wouldn’t have guessed a Hindu reference right off the bat. It could be that I hate spiders more than I love my religion, so I saw a very large spider there? Maybe because I just saw Half Blood Prince and the very big, very dead Aragog? Whatev…
Another blast from the past. This is much more direct !
http://top10.wikia.com/wiki/File:Hendrix_poster.jpg
The idea of multiple hands and limbs is not unique to Hinduism anyway. I’ve seen it in “other” REALLY weird mythologies. Mythologies so arcane and irrelevant that they never make to the cover of a major, mainstream publication. Latvia and Borneo for example. In fact I’ve seen many-limbed figures in 19th century American cartoons, and in some of those I’m not even sure if Lakshmi was the inspiration though she might have been.
Everybody feels the need for many hands at times. It’s a universal archetype IMHO. Ms. Mag was started by the “demographic” that actually buys the thing. No matter how many articles about or by “women of color”, said colorful women are never going to buy Ms. Mag in any numbers and this is something magazines aimed at certain types (none are universally popular) learn the hard way. Even a lot of working class whites have no attraction to it no matter what the cover displays. It doesn’t matter what the GOP, for example, does or the fact that Republicans actually founded the NAACP in 1905 (or so I heard.) Browns and blacks are not attracted to the GOP today for reasons so fundamental they’re hardly worth arguing, although to be fair–as an Independent formerly Dem — the GOP is just a tad more inclusive than La Raza.
Look, there are serious reasons to get sensitive about portrayals of desi stuff in the media. But this ain’t one of them.
yawn
You’re not wrong.
In these curried times Please allow me to vouch for mine Oriental taste in my mouth Spit it out with a rhyme I’m losing my religion to Ms Magazine Margaret Sanger Got my Linga Edward said crime
LOL.
Linga?
beats Linger
Like, when (male) gods have 8 arms, do they also have 8 lingas?
Manju—hahahahaha—too funny! Thanks for the belly-laugh!
After reading this an ad popped into my head that always gave me that same ‘icky’ feeling… it was some obnoxious yogurt commercial (since you know we women love yogurt) in which some sort of chocolate yogurt was described (ad libbing here) as ‘zen wrapped in chocolate wrapped in karma’. Everytime I saw it, I got the same anger… and wanted to yell at the absurd women depicted in it… “do you even KNOW what zen or karma actually MEAN??”
I guess the misappropriation of religious/cultural terms or symbols is irritating anytime it is used without understanding or used in a way that makes it completely devoid of meaning.
LinZi, Does it upset you when I wear a tie–y’know, a desi co-opting and misappropriating a Croatian symbol (and I cert. don’t know, nor care to know) its “true” meaning.
“LinZi, Does it upset you when I wear a tie–y’know, a desi co-opting and misappropriating a Croatian symbol (and I cert. don’t know, nor care to know) its “true” meaning.”
Not particularly… anyways I didn’t mean to say I have amazing knowledge of the terms zen or karma… I just know that applying karma as a descriptive term for chocolate yogurt is kind of like using a tie as a loincloth, you know what I mean?
Not sure I can follow you–if you can articulate a principal as to when “cultural co-option” is OK and when it isn’t, maybe I can.
I never said anything about cultural co-option… that must have been a conversation with someone else… I said “icky feeling”. It’s a very scientific feeling. I think it is more like embarrassment watching people make bevkoofs out of themselves by borrowing symbols and using them ignorantly. I said mis-appropriation. By which I mean, using things incorrectly.
I am assuming you use your tie ‘correctly’…
anywyas, thanks for telling me about cravats.. it’s good to know my people created the most uncomfortable neck wear available to date, short of the noose. Thanks, ancestors!
Any iconography, if you distill it off its religious and cultural connotations, represents an art form. And art is free to be expressed, adapted or forged (if not for duping). That’s how cultures evolve.
Magazine covers are an art form. Any form of advertising is an art form — but it is one that people DO NOT want to spend time with. It is art made for a commercial purpose. Michelangelo didn’t suddenly find artistic possibilities in the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. It was a commissioned work from the Church. Now that’s advertising, AND art. Likewise the magazine cover.
And very honestly, and with my whole-hearted love, Taz, I think you are digging too much into this magazine cover. It is frail as a stand-alone picture of a woman with multiple hands (look at the lighting, it comes from all angles on the props) and it is embarassing as a critique on desi sentiments. Let’s not be too touchy here, shall we?
As someone who’s first gen Indian American and from a Hindu family, this cover to me just seems like Ms. is trying to say ‘the woman who’s expected to do it all’ and therefore convey the unrealistic expectations on the average woman to be a “domestic goddess” and balance so many things and not just be able to live as a normal human being. I don’t find it offensive at all, on the contrary it’s inclusive and speaks to me. Indian god and goddess imagery has long, long been used in all kinds of art, not just in uber-religious settings but also in everyday household objects – on carpets and wall hangings, on corny annual calendars given away by your local kirana-wala, for India Today magazine covers (e.g. http://churumuri.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/india-today.jpg), to sell event tickets (e.g. http://www.djsandbag.com/images/LA_decom-kundalini-lounge.jpg) etc. etc. – wish I could find more links to put online, but I can’t express simply how prevalent the many-handed goddess metaphor is, and how commonly it’s accepted. There’ve been about three million magazine covers in India depicting goddess imagery.
In fact to quote ennis on this very same blog not too long ago, “Hindu iconography has long been used for commercial purposes, is this any different?” (post on Aug 17, 2008, ‘Plushy Kali’). No one has a copyright on religious imagery – especially not Hindu religious imagery, and neither is it offensive to use it in a ‘fun’ context – much like Greek and Roman god/goddess imagery, Hindu religious imagery is a lot more open to interpretation, than, say, Christian imagery or Islamic imagery. And anyone who’s ever visited Kolkata during Puja knows that not just is the Goddess used to depcit non-religious stuff, sometimes this non-religious stuff is used while depicting the goddess (e.g. Kali at Hogwarts: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7041863.stm). Hinduism has always been more a philosophy of existence and less a pure, strict religion with taboos and boundaries and official how-to manuals.
And about using Indian art or yoga or Bollywood or food – seriously, even Michael Jackson’s Black or White video had a Bharatnatyam dancer all those years ago – and people LOVED the inclusion. Everything Indian or even Hindu is not sacred, neither is it meant to be. The many-handed goddess depiction is a very, very common cliche to show a ‘balancing act’. Of course, something like the Burger King Saraswati ad was clearly clueless, and even that wasn’t nearly as offensive as they apparently set out to make it, because evidently they forgot that pork isn’t as taboo to Hindus as beef would’ve been.
To me, this just sounds like Jessica Valenti & ilk getting excited about her own ‘white woman’s burden’, really, and exercising out her internal politics against NOW and Ms., than a legitimate criticism or a thought-out argument.
Be careful what you wish for.
Hiya, This cover is not offensive at all. It conveys a hassled Mum that’s all. We created our gods and goddesses in our image and it is mere iconography free to be interpreted and used by others. Did not Raja Ravi Varma make our goddesses ‘white’ and so did teleserials like Mahabharat and Ramayan? As a child I visualised Sita to be brown not fair/white but that is how she is shown as is Draupadi. To me magazine covers are art even if magazines are published for a commercial purpose. Just like record covers of old.
(I write from Auckland, New Zealand.)
Cheers, Sapna
I have noticed in the past amusingly (sometimes I would be mildly annoyed) over how SP bloggers manage to find a south-asian/desi/brown relevance to issues/articles that have little to do with desis.. I get it. We barely make it into the mainstream and its hard to find interesting topics of discussion. Occassionally I am also surprised to see some relevant issues, not covered.. I m sure its hard to get them all But this one takes the cake .. I tried.. I just don’t find it offensive nor the image hinting at a Hindu goddess.. (A demon head in one of the hands might do the trick) As someone put it best, the spider is more appropriate than Durga.. Spiderman fans might take more offense feminizing their hero than Hindus perhaps
i’ve seen similar covers on indian magazines; the west is not the only one pulling a thought from hinduism to make a point. how come it’s not an issue when this happens in india? why the double standard?
how come it’s not an issue when this happens in india? why the double standard?
Cause it’s a white person doing it. Had this been a black women on the cover of magazine for black women, I don’t think this would have been much of issue. Just look at the outrage over Ms.Rich a couple of weeks ago here over her book about talking hindi. I don’t think there would have been the same outrage had Ms.Rich been hispanic or black. It’s not the PC thing to say, but that the truth.
I just wish that we desi’s should be outraged over real important stuff like the male/female birth rate in the west among some desi groups, the 16 year old desi girl from Toronto who was killed by her father about a year ago for wanted to dress like a Canadian girl, the more then 10,000 young women from India who married western desi men who only instead used the women for money to get married and never had any attention to sponser these women over to the west, or desi muslim rape gangs in England who actions will result in major backlash that could lead to racism or even violence against desi’s in the west. That is the stuff I’m outraged over.
Oh GOD please stop over-analysing the cover!
Not to bust anyones fantasy, only 4 lingas are supposed to go with 8 arms.
It’s interesting that folks are arguing over whether this is offensive or not, and whether Taz is right or not, instead of the larger (and more interesting/nuanced) question, which is: is it right to co-opt or appropriate religious images? The second question is whether it is ok to do this for art, or for commercial purposes (advertising) [I acknowledge there is a whole body of work on whether ads are art, but I’ll leave that aside]. We’re talking about taking the divine, holy, or deified, and bringing it down to a human level. I think this question gets complicated, or folded over in a way, when we also ask where and how the “art” or “ad” is produced, and whether it comments on society at large, or represents a form of Orientalist appropriation.
These conversations are similar in Native communities, where people roil to see Native spiritual/religious items (e.g., sage, dream catchers, Kokopelli jewelry, kachina dolls) sold with clear Native connotations as commercial oddities, devoid of any religious significance, connotation, or meaning.
Do you remember the backlash against Madonna’s Like A Prayer video for its use of Catholic iconography in, what some my have considered, blasphemous ways? There’s a legitimate discussion and critique there of whether she was criticizing the institution of the Church, or whether it was artistic free expression, or whether it was blasphemous but legitimate, etc., etc.
This mag cover seems much more akin to selling Native religious articles to hippies than it does to Madonna’s video. It is sold, without context, to a consumer population who largely will not get it or find it offensive (or will be delighted/intrigued by the reference to Eastern spirituality). At its core, however, it’s a commodification of Durga. It does not comment critically on Hinduism or any of its institutional features or quirks. It just borrows something “cool” and kitschy and recasts it in another light.
Oh, and Suki, I think your second comment is not entirely accurate of Taz. Taz has always covered issues that have a critical ethnic studies and feminist framework or lens applied. Perhaps because she is often very deft and nuanced in her treatment it is easy to think of some of her posts as more obviously dealing with race than others. Nonetheless, I seriously doubt that if this was on a magazine geared towards a POC readership that it would have gotten a free pass — it may have just taken longer to come to light. Ms. Magazine styles itself as the leading voice for the American feminist movement. It is more obviously in the public eye, and it is more likely that something it has featured that is problematic will come to light before a more radical or specialized magazine (such as Bitch, for example, which also enjoys a predominantly white, middle-class readership but is considered less mainstream).
Not to diminish your statement, but when I saw this cover, I didn’t think religious icon – I thought octopus.