The reason why no ideology has ever created, let alone sustained, the world it envisioned, is that by definition it could not account for unintended consequences. The same is true of more modest ventures. A war meant to be short and sweet turns out anything but. A campaign meant to steamroll the opposition clears the field of all rivals but one, the most dangerous and unexpected. Observing something alters its nature; naming it alters its meaning. If you’ve ever planned anything – a career, a vacation, a party – you know this already.
And so, when things happen – interesting things, significant things, things that surprise us and thus lead us to feel – they result only partly from deliberate action, and as much from the gremlins of serendipity, who can inhabit any of us for any period of time. Thrust into greatness, we signify; the moment passes, the world changes, we fade to obscurity.
Are you having a macaca moment yet? In 2006, desis were thrust into greatness in the person of S. R. Sidarth. Senator AllenÂ’s view of SidarthÂ’s ethnic happenstance differed so radically from that of a majority of Virginia voters, that the (near-) accident of the brother being there set in motion events leading, it is argued, to the change of power in Congress.
Macaca was about revealed perception. The perception was AllenÂ’s; but the revelation stems from Sidarth. Without Sidarth, the perception would not have been revealed. The tree might have fallen in the forest, but no one would have heard.
This is old news to us; in this community at least, weÂ’ve followed the macaca story from the start and have no disagreement as to its significance. Where we differ is in what we make of it for ourselves, the extent to which we identify with Sidarth or the fate we wish on the word macaca itself.
Old news, yes. But this weekend Sidarth was made to reappear, once more in his capacity as the embodiment of macaca, as two news outlets produced their round-up of people who mattered in 2006. Salon names Sidarth its Person of the Year. Time’s Person of the Year is You – you, the diffuse and disparate emanators of content, the users who generate that which is user-generated – and Sidarth is one of the Yous the magazine profiles.
ItÂ’s interesting to compare the interpretations that each of these outlets apply to Original Macaca. Salon, the established survivor of first-generation Web journalism, sees in him less the agent of a brave new world of representation than an embodiment of an America undergoing demographic and attitudinal change. Time, a behemoth of a pre-Internet era when The Press told The Public what to know and believe, now celebrates Sidarth as one of a non-organized army of little people upending the plans and certitudes of the great.
Both treatments have in common, however, that ultimately they are not about Sidarth – not the “real” Sidarth, biologically and spiritually unique, but what he seems through various filters. It was the year of You perceived and revealed, by your own doing and by that of others. That trend will continue, as attested by the fact that you read this blog, perhaps comment, perhaps have established an identity here and elsewhere on the Web.
We are learning that representation matters. We manage our identities lest others manage them for us; in a way the two processes are dialectically the same. What remains is spirit: mercurial, contradictory, and if we will it, potentially free.
Continue reading
Author Archives: siddhartha
Rajiv Chandrasekaran Runs the Voodoo Down Too
Here’s Washington Post assistant managing editor Rajiv Chandrasekaran on the Daily Show last night. He’s talking about his new book, Imperial Life in the Emerald City, which tells the inside story of the American administration of Iraq from within the infamous Green Zone. He starts off gamely matching Jon Stewart’s banter, almost as if he were one of the show’s fake correspondents, such as Aasif Mandvi. But watch how the audience stops laughing, and Jon becomes speechless, when Rajiv starts breaking down specific stories of the lack of preparation and incompetence of the enterprise. Powerful and shocking. [Part 2 of the segment is here.] Continue reading
Sudhir Venkatesh Runs the Voodoo Down
“The Wire meets academia” is how Slate describes Off the Books: The Underground Economy of the Urban Poor, the fascinating new book by Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh. Here’s Emily Bazelon’s summary:
Venkatesh, who is now a professor of sociology and African-American studies at Columbia, spent 1995 to 2003 following the money in 10 square blocks of the Chicago ghetto. He finds an intricate underground web. In it are dealers and prostitutes—and also pastors who take their money, nannies who don’t report income, unlicensed cab drivers, off-the-books car mechanics, purveyors of home-cooked soul food, and homeless men paid to sleep outside stores. Venkatesh’s insight is that the neighborhood doesn’t divide between “decent” and “street”—almost everyone has a foot in both worlds.
Readers of Freakonomics will remember Venkatesh as the University of Chicago graduate student whose fieldwork in the ghetto led him to realize why, for instance, drug dealers still live with their mothers. But his really important previous credit is his first book, American Project (2000), which intricately described the life within, and the social and physical disintegration of, several large blocks of South Side housing projects. Like Mitchell Duneier’s Sidewalk (1999), which investigated the social and economic life of the brothers who sell used books and miscellany on Sixth Avenue in Greenwich Village, Venkatesh’s projects are urban sociology of the most compelling type, and well written to boot.
Yesterday Sudhir was on the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC [disclosure: I work for WNYC] and you can hear the conversation, punctuated by some interesting listener calls, here. But all y’all macacas might also enjoy taking a look at the prologue and first chapter of the book, which Harvard University Press makes available on its website. Here’s a quick excerpt from the prologue that points out, among other things, a desi angle: Continue reading
The 2006 Macaca Music Poll
Sacrificing to a year-end ritual, I’ve been compiling my “best of 2006” music lists for various outlets. It’s a cool exercise as long as you don’t take it too seriously; when you’re in the arts writing business, you have the chance to check out oodles of new releases, and you need to employ filters like genre, or label, or simply your own whimsy, just to sort through the pile let alone pick your favorites. Despite this, I get value from learning what other critics enjoyed, and I do my best to make my own picks useful and interesting, in particular by looking for sounds that folks might have missed, yet are not so obscure as to be un-findable in stores or online.
Still, they say everyone’s a critic, and (to endorse what Vijay Iyer and Mike Ladd stated in the comments I quoted here) these days technology and the emergence of online communities makes everyone even more of a critic than before. It’s easy to set up your soapbox, and there’s even a chance someone will hear, maybe even respond. So since we’re all critics, and I know there’s some serious, multi-faceted, all-over-the-place music listening that goes on out there in Sepia-land, I am proud to bring you the MACACA MUSIC POLL.
Here’s how it works. I can’t be bothered to figure out how to code a poll, and besides, I have something much simpler in mind. I would like everyone to tell us five pieces of music that they would recommend to the community. Each piece can be an album or an individual song. All genres are included, and there is no desi criterion. Just as long as it came out in 2006 (or late 2005), if it moved you, grooved you, or soothed you in ’06, tell the world about it.
Email your list of 5 picks to this address. I will stop taking entries in one week, Wednesday, December 20, and I will compile the results and present them in some fun manner in the following days.
To preserve the spirit of the exercise, please don’t enter your list in the comments to this post; email it to me instead. (I will keep all addresses in confidence, of course.) More general conversation is welcome, however, about the directions music went in ’06, the value or otherwise of year-end lists, criticism and its pitfalls, or anything else that comes to mind. C’mon, let’s play! Continue reading
Muhammad Yunus receives his Nobel Prize
The award ceremony of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize took place today. Muhammad Yunus was accompanied by nine village women, elected representatives of Grameen Bank’s borrowers. The full text of his speech is an interesting read. He re-tells the story of the founding of the bank and describes the different ways it has branched out, from its program for beggars to its mobile phone, food, and medical care initiatives. He also gives a sense of his personal economic philosophy, which he grounds in an embrace of the free market and globalization. It’s an argument similar to that made for “double bottom line” or “triple bottom line” investment and accounting, which seeks social or environmental value creation along with financial profit. It’s a good read; you can find it here. Continue reading
Trouble in “Paradise”
Images from this week’s coup in Fiji are pretty much what you’d expect from a generally bloodless military takeover: soldiers patrolling empty streets, makeshift roadblocks, dismissed politicians vacating offices, tentative encounters with civilians, and so forth. (Photo: AP via Yahoo!)
What’s missing from the imagery of the coup is desi faces, which is interesting considering that at least one-third of the population of Fiji is of Indian origin: principally the descendents of sugar plantation workers, plus Gujarati trading families that came to Fiji after its independence in 1970. A couple of decades ago, Indo-Fijians made up close to half the population; sources differ as to how fast the proportion has diminished since then, but it’s still a sizeable population.
Many previous troubles in Fiji have highlighted the competition for power and resources between the Indo-Fijian and indigenous Fijian communities. The first elected Indo-Fijian prime minister, Mahendra Chaudhry, was deposed in a coup in 2000 that led to a nasty hostage situation. The coup’s leader, George Speight, was eventually imprisoned, but Chaudhry did not return to office.
Now Commodore Frank Bainimarama, the head of Fiji’s military, has overthrown the elected government of prime minister Laisania Qarase, and has done so in part out of self-professed concern for the well-being of Indo-Fijians. The Qarase government had attempted to pass property laws that would have increased control of the nation’s land by ethnic Fijians. (I’ll leave it to someone more versed in the issue to explain exactly what this was all about, and how much it was a motivating factor, rather than an excuse, for the coup.)
In May’s elections, Qarase’s indigenous-dominated government was narrowly returned to power by securing the votes of the vast majority of Fijian voters while Mahendra Chaudhry’s Labour Party won the almost total support of Indo-Fijian voters.
Bainimarama said on Tuesday when he announced his grab for power that one of his main aims was to “mend the ever-widening racial divide that currently besets our multicultural nation”.
He has slammed government plans to offer amnesties to plotters of the 2000 coup and other legislation he says discriminates against the Indian minority.
Caretaker Prime Minister Jona Senilagakali, today said — a day after being sworn in by Bainimarama — that race relations was top of his agenda.
“There is too much hatred, that’s what really worries me in Fiji. There’s too much emphasis on the indigenous Fijian`s interests,” he told local radio.
“We have achieved our state of development mostly through the efforts of the Indian community and I respect that very much.” [Link]
Oh, All Right. But You Asked For It
READERS are blowing up the tip line asking us to cover the story below. Here’s a sampler:
- “Where to even start?”
- “I think the title says enough”
- “I think this one is fairly obvious”
- “interesting/ridiculous contrasts between public health awareness vs. outrageous journalism”
- “I think it’s pretty self-explanatory why this is interesting. Scientific fact? Post-colonial subjugation through emasculation? What do desi women (or gay men) think?”
You asked for it. And here it is, via the BBC:
A survey of more than 1,000 men in India has concluded that condoms made according to international sizes are too large for a majority of Indian men. …
Over 1,200 volunteers from the length and breadth of the country had their penises measured precisely, down to the last millimetre.
The scientists even checked their sample was representative of India as a whole in terms of class, religion and urban and rural dwellers.
The conclusion of all this scientific endeavour is that about 60% of Indian men have penises which are between three and five centimetres shorter than international standards used in condom manufacture.
This news is the top item in William Saletan’s science round-up this morning in Slate, which offers a translation of the key finding for any macacas that aren’t down with the metric system:
Thirty percent of Indian men are 1 inch short, and another 30 percent are 2 inches short.
Cue up another round of outrage, snark, statistics, exotification and sundry manifestations of sexual anxiety. As you can see, two of the tipsters left comments questioning the reporting of this story. Media hype? Colonial plot? Lou Dobbs?
Speaking of sexual anxiety: For those of you who read this site because you are considering becoming involved with a diasporic macaca, I would caution that you not jump to any conclusions about his member until you’ve had a chance to inspect it for yourself. Emigration leads to changes in diet and other health factors, which results in changes in body type. Just because your macaca’s grandpapa might have had a teeny weeny doesn’t mean your wholesome, corn fed, suburban cul-de-sac raised American desi shares the predicament. Whew!
Discuss. [Previous Sepia jimmyhat analysis here.] Continue reading
“An oratorio about our virtual surroundings”
And, with great frequency, we find it necessary to become the news, to participate in it, to deliver it. Perhaps this impulse is our only defense; reality television, the blogosphere and YouTube are but a few examples. These are the new narrative forms of our life. Digital reportage, punditry, and testimony are now integral to the way we define ourselves.
That’s from the introduction to their new work Still Life with Commentator, by Vijay Iyer, Mike Ladd, and Ibrahim Quraishi. The show premiered earlier this year in Chapel Hill and Salzburg and has its first major run this week, December 6-10, at BAM in New York City. The album on Savoy Records will appear in March.
Still Life involves many of the artists who appeared in Iyer and Ladd’s tremendous 2003-04 project In What Language? with the addition of avant-garde vocalist Pamela Z. I’ve heard the music and it’s terrific; Vijay has also posted this preview on YouTube.
More on this next week, but I encourage NYC-area macacas to check this show out; it’s a big deal. And considering that the artists call the piece as “an oratorio about our virtual surroundings,” it may prove fodder for discussion here in the virtual surroundings we share. Continue reading
India in Focus on World AIDS Day
THE VIRUS. The fever. The disease. The cocktail. The alphabet soup. The death. By any other red ribbon or name, today is December 1, World AIDS Day, and much of the day’s significant news on the topic comes, for better or worse, from India. (Photo: “An Indian sex worker wears AIDS symbols as she takes part in a rally in Siliguri,” AFP via Yahoo! News.)
For better, former US president Bill Clinton announced yesterday in Delhi a deal to dramatically reduce the price of effective treatment for children with HIV/AIDS. Among other things this is a fascinating example of a new approach to achieving health outcomes that combines public action with market tools. With funding from five countries, three European and two South American, the foundation has negotiated volume discounts on behalf of 40 destination countries. Thanks to the bulk purchase, the Indian generic manufacturers Cipla and Ranbaxy can sell single-pill tri-therapy drugs at 460 for a whole year’s supply. So the $35 million put up by France, Britain, Norway, Brazil and Chile ends up going a long, long way. $35 million! That’s NOTHING. Imagine if, say, the United States tossed in a little spare change from its daily Iraq expenditure. Grrrrr…..
Anyway, here’s a news story with details:
Only about 80,000 of the 660,000 children with AIDS who need treatment now get it, the United Nations AIDS agency estimates, and half the children who do not get the drugs die by the time they turn 2 years old. The United Nations Children’s Fund, or Unicef, has described children as the invisible face of the AIDS pandemic because they are so much less likely than adults to get life-saving medicines. …
Cipla and Ranbaxy Laboratories, Indian generic drug manufacturers, will be providing pills that combine three antiretroviral drugs into a single tablet, a formulation that is easier to transport, store and use than multiple pills and syrups. The combination tablets also need no refrigeration, an important advantage in poor countries lacking electricity, and can be dissolved in water for babies and infants too young to swallow pills.
Sandeep Juneja, the H.I.V. project head for Ranbaxy, said in a telephone interview that the company was able to provide the lower prices because of the larger volume of sales and because the Clinton Foundation, buying on Unitaid’s behalf, would consolidate many small purchases. He explained that the market for pediatric AIDS drugs was relatively small, fragmented and spread thinly across many countries.
“It would be a nightmare handling those small orders,” he said.”Imagine 40 to 60 countries buying a few hundred bottles individually, with no way to predict how many bottles would be needed.”
The new prices for 19 pediatric AIDS drugs are on average 45 percent less than the lowest rates offered to poor countries in Doctors Without Borders’ listing of AIDS drug prices, and were more than 60 percent lower than the prices the World Health Organization reported were actually paid by developing countries, the foundation said.
On the other hand — and here’s the “for worse” part — even the most abundant supply of inexpensive drugs can’t overcome poor distribution networks and, even worse, bonehead ignorance, especially when it comes from the people in charge of administering AIDS programs. Here’s a horror story this week from rural Gujarat: Continue reading
InstaReview: SAWCC’s “In a State of Emergency?” Exhibition
Earlier this evening I checked out the opening of “In a State of Emergency? Women, War & the Politics of Urban Survival,” an exhibition presented by the South Asian Women’s Creative Collaborative here in New York. The show is up at the Alwan Center for the Arts in Lower Manhattan through December 9th. It features photography, video, multimedia and installation pieces by nine desi sisters: Salma Arastu, Meherunnisa Asad, Kiran Chandra, Mona Kamal, Bindu Mehra, Carol Pereira, Maryum Saifee, Tahera Seher Shah, and Vandana Sood.
I’ll go straight to the insta-review, dangerous as that is since I only just got back and the air-kissing, red-wine-in-plastic-cups opening atmosphere perhaps wasn’t the most conducive to critical contemplation (though I did stay away from the wine). So I hope other folks will chime in with their own impressions. Visually, I most enjoyed Shah’s “Jihad Pop” series of digital prints, with their stencils of desi and Islamic iconography set amid fields of sheer black and white. The most thought-provoking to me was Saifee’s series of “Postcards from the Middle East,” which she bills as self-portraits stemming from her experience as a Peace Corps volunteer in Jordan: as she explains in the catalog, “my skin color made my authenticity as an American up for debate. On the street, I would either be mistaken as a Sri Lankan maid or as a Bollywood film star.” And I found Arastu’s “New York and I” series frustrating: visually fabulous in their superimpositions of New York street and subway scenes with armies of unhinged, chattering silhouettes, but marred by the poems written into each piece, which struck me as trite and superfluous.
The show is a project of SAWCC, the estimable organization that is now in its tenth year and that sponsors, among other events, the annual literary conference that a number of Mutineering types attended last year. SAWCC (pronounced, delightfully, “saucy”) continues to do the Lord’s work for culturally minded macacas, and they deserve all our support.
A show like this one, however, also suffers from self-imposed boundaries. It is imbued with a very 1990s, hyper-theoretical approach to the politics of representation that makes the inherent whimsy and improvisation of artistic creation — and, importantly, artistic consumption — feel secondary. The catalog essay, and the shorter version handed out on flyers, are nearly illegible, and I’ve got Ivy degrees and a reasonably honed appreciation for theory. It frustrates me no end — and this is not a knock on this exhibition specifically; far from it, it’s a common problem — when art is “explained” by its sponsors and presenters using language like this:
These increasingly paranoid urban spaces harbour fears of the irrational violence equated with terrorism, inducing a society of control in which surveillance, intimidation, and the erosion of personal liberty forces forms of resistance that employ the strategies of the absurd. Increasingly aware of the machine that governs and questioning the methods and motives of the state, the artists in this exhibition rely on the absurd, irrational, and uncanny to produce counter hegemonic narratives to ideological, religious, cultural, and social modes of control.
Like the artists of Dada, these contemporary practitioners respond to the presence of war, excess, and other degenerate transgressions of contemporary urban life. Like the women of Dada, they also respond to issues of identity altered by male repression and subjugation, aware of a world in which urban social orders are based on the governance of space, each system of control based on meta-structuring agents, making each space, city, and response, culturally specific. Such disciplinary systems of control exude masculinity, often necessitating a physical, emotional, and psychological domination of women, placing them in a “state of emergency.”
Got that? Read it again: It’s not gibberish, it just feels like it is. There is plenty of meaning, and indeed, a viable argument or several in those hyper-extended, comma-laden sentences. The problem is, those arguments are being beaten into us with the implicit presumption that, ultimately, there is a right way and a wrong way to apprehend this art. And that, plainly, is bullshit. For one thing, taken as theory alone, the argument above merits unpacking; it cobbles together numerous assumptions and interpolations about the world about us with verbs like “induce,” “force,” and “necessitate,” that are dead giveaways of a lack of interest in, or openness to, the serendipitous and the unexpected. Rigidity and art make poor companions, as previous uses of the word “degenerate” in the context of art criticism have made abundantly clear; and I think it’s a disservice to a whole class of potentially interested viewers, as well as to the artists themselves, to fence a potentially interesting exhibition behind such a grim gateway. Continue reading