Thomas Schrader - Media & Representation - March 26, 2012

           This week’s readings seemed mainly about the crossover between Western/American culture and the more traditional roots of other cultures that are non-western. In Stadtler’s (2005) article on the film Lagaan, I found it interesting that the movie does not follow the rules of typical Biollywood film, mostly because of the more realistic dance/music scenes, which occur in more realistic settings. The author notes that to appeal to a Western audience, you have to give them what they want and expect, and it seems that the successful crossover of the film was due to that. Watching the film in class, I noticed that it seemed quite unique in comparison to Bollywood films I have seen. It seemed more like a movie that that I would see in an American theater today in terms of the storyline. It also portrayed the story of a successful underdog, which truly transgresses into any culture really. My question is that while sticking to a broader appeal really helped the film, does this also take away from the inherent authenticity of Bollywood films? I wonder how much must be sacrificed for South-Asian films to really break through in Hollywood. Also, from my point of view, the film did seem pretty anti-British, and as a result anti-Western and imperialist. Reflecting back, I can see that this was just something to give context to the story to make it more believable in a way. That fact that the British woman helped the home team players also contributes to the idea that the film is not so much anti-Western as it supposed to feed into people’s concern for the underdogs rising up. Nonetheless, I wonder when we will ever see such a film meet such success without the perfect timing that Lagaan came out.

            I think that this article ties well with what Bruner (2001) discusses in his article on tourism in Kenya and the Maasai. Bruner explain three sites of tourism for visitors to engage with “authentic” Maasai culture in some way. First, the Mayers Ranch provided foreign tourists with a fixed, untouched, and separated view of the Maasai tribe. Bomas serves as a nationalist oriented museum appealing to modern urban Kenyans who are seeking a well-rounded view of multiple traditional performances. Finally, the Sundowner brings foreign tourists right into the action through crossing over their experience and the activities of the Maasari, as if the tourists are momentarily part of the group while they still don’t truly leave the safety of their privilege. The author takes issue with each of these sites with good reason. Mayers, now closed, sought to provided a fixed realistic of Maasai culture while completely forgetting about the modern Maasai. For me, it almost sounded like a zoo where animals would be put on display as if they are no different and primitive. Bomas, though it sought to celebrate the many cultures that make up Kenyan society, it did so without showing much concern for being true to the cultural dances or even using members of the actual groups who originated the dances. They do not show true Maasai rituals.

            One of the most interesting ideas I took away from the article is that of the American image of African cultures. What tourists see is, in many ways, what they expect, and all the performers and owners of the industry are giving the people what they want, twisting what may have been actually authentic into something that makes profits and makes people happy. It’s not all bad as the performers and the Maasai profit significantly as well, as long as they follow the rules and scripts. So if it means playing primitive to make money, then it works.

            I found the “questioning gaze” and the agency of the tourists most interesting in this section, especially how tourists could be critical of what they were seeing while still falling back into a sense of apathy. Even if tourists are aware that something is being done just for the tourists, whether true to the modern Massai people or not, they still accept it. I see this sense of apathy as harmful, especially as we are seeing more and more crossover of cultures that are not Western with our culture. It seems that the contribution of the West in these cases is a desire for money with little worry of what must be done to do so. I can’t speak for the Maasai as to whether they feel good about their performances or do it solely for the money and profit though. Furthermore, at then end of the day all three sites offer performances, which in itself reveal that what tourists are seeing cannot be taken as completely legitimate and authentic. How then can those who want to truly be informed globalized citizens go on to truly learn about other cultures themselves?

            What the articles on Dallas, Fijian adolescent girls, and Machisma expose is that Western media, specifically television, may be having a major influence on traditional cultures and beliefs. The thinking behind the  “questioning gaze” seemed to pop up again in the Dallas article. In the new places that the show is being watched, the author questions the “ideology of mass culture” that critics have stated the show spreads. What was found through further studies is that most viewers bring part of their own culture into their television viewing and processing so that they interpret media through a unique lens. In effect, the problem of imperialism is thought to be overstated, perhaps relying on the assumption, I think, that other non-Western cultures are too primitive or simple to be tied to their cultures and would easily change their views to fit a more modern Western text. This study seemed to debunk that idea to a certain degree and concluded viewers could still “enjoy” the show while not be purely indoctrinated in its message.

            The Fiji article seemed to conflict with this idea but with little evidence as to why. According to the study on eating behaviors of Fijian adolescent girls changed significantly over time with exposure to Western television between 1995, when television watching was basically a nonexistent behavior, to 1998. Using both quantitative and qualitative data, the authors determined that there was an increase in dieting and self-induced dieting. I found this article somewhat convincing of yet again the harmful effects of Western influences into a culture that seemed to be doing alright without outside influence. The author was not clear about what shows the girls were watching though. What I also reminded myself was that even though the girls in their adolescence are probably very impressionably, they still have agency and an entire culture that is saying being a little heavier is okay. There may be a correlation with the TV viewing, but I don’t think it can be entirely causational. That would be pretty surprising to me.

            The Machisma article supported my doubts by giving voices to the people being studied, unlike the article on Fiji. I think the author, Gorney, gives more credit to the strong Brazilian women in the choice to have fewer children while still exposing the influence of Western consumerism as well but to a lesser degree. Many changes, including industrialization, birth control, public health, and the introduction of television and electricity, have all contributed to smaller families, but women themselves should be given the real credit for taking their family size into their own hands. It seems that many factors are at play to put it simply.

            What I can conclude from these articles is that in our globalized world, crossing over between cultures is complicated and is in constant negotiation.