bottom down

This is from when Sanjay came to visit me in Chennai. We had gone to Mahabalipuram which is kinda like Hikka.. the video details how we got beer.. even though it was Gandhi Jayanti and officially a dry day…

Again - an assignment I wrote for my gender class….
Growing up in Colombo, one gets used to the blatant eve teasing. Catcalls, hisses, getting followed home, getting felt up in buses, the flashing of vehicle lights, the flashing of penises etc. are all aroutine part of growing up. A social marker as it were, of thetransition from girl-child to woman.

Such incidents are however, notonly ignored but also indulged in by society. The concept of’Kolukama” which roughly translates to “the way young boys are” is a common method of normalising such incidents and events. It is widely
accepted that these behaviours are a normal part of the boy-child’s growing up process, which he will eventually “grow out of.” The girl meanwhile has no choice but to “put up with it”.

The article ‘Sexuality and Pertinence” talks about the manner in which rules and conventions relating to sexuality are normalized and perpetuated in society. “Indeed, it is made to seem instinctual, pre-rational and spontaneous and is often marvellously disengaged and hidden from its own social and historical context.”

And this would to a great extent, explain how Colombo’s society considers it completely normal for the male to react towards the female in a certain way.

he concept of the female body as “object” or “commodity” is one that we all grow up with and eventually internalize. The truth is that the woman is never viewed outside of her identity as “sexual being.” This fact is perhaps most evident when one views popular perceptions of the female body and how it ought to be regulated.

“What was she doing dressing/behaving like that? She was practically asking for it” is a common reaction to news of rape, particularly with regard to women/girls who are perceived as being promiscuous or too outgoing.

On a less sensational level, parents admonish daughters, asking them not to wear certain kinds of clothes when leaving the house. And it doesn’t stop with the clothes you wear. I myself was recently accused of “smiling too much in public” by three well meaning male friends, who insist that doing so is tantamount to making a “come hither” gesture to predatory males (who it seems are everywhere). But what is interesting and almost never questioned is the fact that it is always the female who is always required and expected to cover up her body in a ‘decent’ manner, not walk alone, be careful etc.
And this is necessarily because of the way she is viewed: how the perception of her body has been constructed within a patriarchal society.

“Sexuality and Pertinence” explains that a complete breakaway from this construction requires a conscious and collective effort by both sexes, similar to that advocated in the ‘Self Respect Movement’ by Ambedkar or the Gandhian construct of woman; or else in extraordinary situations such as times of conflict when women are incorporated into military structures.

At all other times, the woman is necessarily defined in terms of her sexuality. The woman unaccompanied by the male does not “belong” to anyone and is therefore available. “Chaste” is a word with positive connotation and a quality to be aspired to. Aloofness is virtuous. And so the list goes on.Transgressions from these “norms”, no matter how minor, are punished - again in sexual terms. Through the jeering, catcalling, flashing etc. ‘Sexuality and Pertinence” speaks of a feminist argument that “Sexual assault was not a crime against chastity or female moral worth; rather it was an expression of male sexual authority.” And this I find, extremely relevant to the experiences that I have had growing up.

I wrote this post for publication in the website Sidewalk Philosophy. Thought I’d also post it here:

Hallucinations. Visions. Distortions of reality. And those are just SOME of the words you can use to describe the state of main stream media today. And yet it’s all around us. It inundates us with facts. It lures us into believing that we are being given all the information. And due to the sheer mass of information we receive (A study by the Berkley University in 2003 shows that there is 800MB of information for every person on the planet which is growing at an exponential rate of 30% each year) many of us believe that we DO have all the facts. 24 Hour news channels, an increasing number of newspapers and magazines, information documentaries, and news sites on the internet have helped strengthen this perception. But just like in the case of most hallucinatory drugs, this perception is an illusion.

The information we receive, while unimaginable in terms of sheer quantity is controlled to a degree that is also in its own way – unimaginable. Most of the information we see comes to us from very few sources, which are governed mostly in terms of corporate interest. McChesney quotes Christopher Dixon, media analyst for the investment firm PaineWebber, who calls this phenomenon “the creation of a global oligopoly.”

Corporate control and commercial objectives are increasingly becoming the hallmarks of mainstream media across the globe. News is a commodity – packaged prettily and wholly dependant on market forces.

It’s all about what the public wants to know, what the controlling corporates want the public to know… but certainly not about what the public needs to know. This is why so much happening around us is ignored. And in a world where what we perceive as real is only what is represented to us (the concept is that if it doesn’t happen on Television then it hasn’t happened at all), many voices that need to be heard and issues that need to be aired are being ignored. CEO of the Walt Disney Company Michael Eisner perhaps said it best in an internal memo where he made the following declaration: “We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective.”

Welcome to vertical integration of the media folks! It has made its mark and it’s all around us. We are being censored and we don’t even know it! Our access and right to information is now OWNED. Let me emphasize this: By a very few people. And we only know what they want us to. To quote a study by Bagdikian (2000):

In 1983, fifty corporations dominated most of every mass medium and the biggest media merger in history was a $340 million deal. … [I]n 1987, the fifty companies had shrunk to twenty-nine. … [I]n 1990, the twenty-nine had shrunk to twenty three. … [I]n 1997, the biggest firms numbered ten and involved the $19 billion Disney-ABC deal, at the time the biggest media merger ever. … [In 2000] AOL Time Warner’s $350 billion merged corporation [was] more than 1,000 times larger [than the biggest deal of 1983].

Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition, (Beacon Press, 2000), pp. xx—xxi

This is collaborated by McChesney who points out that in the first half of 2000, the volume of merger deals in global media, Internet, and telecommunications totaled $300 billion, triple the figure for the first six months of 1999, and exponentially higher than the figure from ten years earlier. He states that “the logic guiding media firms in all of this is clear: get very big very quickly, or get swallowed up by someone else.”

As seen by these studies, In the US, most information is controlled by just eight major companies. And before we ask how this can be possibly be relevant to us, think about the fact that it is these very same companies that are controlling global media as well. Murdoch anyone? Murdoch has satellite TV services that run from Asia to Europe to Latin America. His Star TV dominates in Asia with thirty channels in seven languages. News Corporation’s TV service for China, Phoenix TV, in which it has a 45 percent stake, now reaches forty-five million homes there and has had an 80 percent increase in advertising revenues in the past year. And this barely begins to describe News Corporation’s entire portfolio of assets: Twentieth Century Fox films, Fox TV network, HarperCollins publishers, TV stations, cable TV channels, magazines, over 130 newspapers, and professional sport teams. (See McChesney for more details)

The same situation reigns closer to home, among non global players albeit on a much smaller scale. Take India, which has recently seen massive corporate influence on journalism especially over the last few years. Newspapers are sold at insanely low rates, the costs of which circulation and subscription could never cover. The advertisers rule and most alternative news sources cannot hope to compete. So the “Other” voice has effectively been knocked out of the loop and the mainstream media essentially promotes the interests of the advertisers. And this basically sums up the case in Sri Lanka as well. Think about it. Who controls the private media? The Maharajas, the Edirisinghes, the Wijeweera’s. the Wickremesinghe’s… and a lot of what they report is decided in terms of the business they can garner.

This phenomenon is catching on worldwide and can be seen across the various mediums of journalism. The Corporates are controlling us and what is frightening is that we don’t realize that what we are doing is blindly and willingly imbibing ideologies of commercialisation and commodification. It’s the product that matters – and the information deemed relevant is only that which helps to sell it. mcChesney for one, argues that “Economic and cultural globalization arguably would be impossible without a global commercial media system to promote global markets and to encourage consumer values.”

So here we are… all consumers… a potential market. Therefore news that can damage, news that can shed light on conspiracy, news that makes us stop for that second and say hang on! WHAT? are being sacrificed for the news that is relatively harmless. Oh we are given an illusion of choice. Within this ideology, debate is encouraged… the other voice is heard… but only in terms of its place in relation to and within the larger (and more superior) point of view. And the terrifying truth is that the few commercial establishments that own the news company are in a position to ignore whatever news they deem unsavoury and make it go away. And stuck as we are in the well constructed cocoon that they have woven around us we are none the wiser. We blindly watch what we are shown. Read whatever is written… and believe.

I intended this post to be a thought provoking comment on independence, what it means, the role of the nation state (with oblique reference to Benedict Anderson and the imagined community) and nationalism. But somehow I can’t seem to gather my thoughts enough to write in the lucid and structured style that a post of that nature deserves. To be honest I’m a bit overwhelmed, more than a little disillusioned and honestly in some sense I feel I have too much to say - but not enough. Everyone knows about the abductions, the bombings, the violence and the almost complete descent into anarchy that make the celebration of 60 years of independence of the democratic socialist republic of Sri Lanka seem like someone’s idea of a very sick joke. But that is not what gets to me - what really gets to me is the almost hopeless cheerfulness of the people at home that to me exemplifies the tragedy of everything that’s WRONG with everything I intended to write about. That is, independence, what it means, the role of the nation state (with oblique reference to Benedict Anderson and the imagined community) and nationalism. “you should be here - it’s like Iraq” laughed my brother when I called him yesterday. “Anyway how are you doing???”

And thats how it is. For many of us. The bombs, the explosions, the check points, the knowledge that everytime you step out of the house it may be the last time you do it. And this knowledge has become such a big part of our lives that on some level its not the over arching, all dominating, life changing factor that you would expect it to be. It lurks in the background, hides in the sub conscious and manifests itself in the strangest ways: crude jokes, an almost desperate attempt to have fun, and a level of apathy that can come across as nothing short of callous and insensitive to people outside of the situation. (such as a lot of my Indian friends who have stared at me incredulously as I almost tiredly dismiss their sincerely concerned questions that usually border on “Is your family ok in Colombo?” which I quite frankly don’t know how to respond to)

And the thing is, for WHAT goddammit? Why do we have to be in this situation at all? Why all this blood shed over a portion of 65,525 square km which most of us have never visited and probably never will? Why this obsession with territorial integrity, Sinhala (or Tamil) nationalism and everything all our independence day celebrations represent? That is the march past. The fiery political speeches. The little flags that come free with every issue of every newspaper. The supplements. the tributes to our forefathers (ironically in the language of the colonizer). The flags waving from houses and cars. what does it all represent in the end?

And this is not even a lament - its just an extension of apathy in a sense. Who screwed with our minds this way and why do we have to suffer for it? Call me an idealist. Call me anti nationalist. Accuse me of buying into treacherous ideology. Tell me I have no right to say any of this. Tell me whatever. In a lot of ways I’m just tired.