When the interaction with non-Indians appears to be friendly, how do Indian Americans frame the racist or culturally othering experiences? Through the course of the interview, a pattern emerged where I became aware of the extensive and repetitive questions non-Indians ask
Indian Americans. What was perplexing to me was that none of the participants seemed to frame these questions as negative. While listening to the various accounts, I became offended for my participants. Consequently, I focused on why my participants were not offended by the
questioning and also the manner in which they would frame the situation as a positive or neutral exchange. No matter the extent of the invasiveness of the questioning, the participant was likely to frame inquiry as innocuous. Once I noticed this recurrent theme, I began to ask the
participants if they ever feel like a “cultural ambassador,” frequently fielding questions about India and Indian culture.
Amira: Yeah, always. In my work I have to always explain it to them. They’re very curious about certain things. Like marriage, how can you get married to somebody you don’t even know?
Anish: I always bring the example of royalty, like Prince Charles and Prince Di. And then they realize, “Oh yeah, what am I asking?” It happens, what’s happening in India, all over the world. It just doesn’t happen here at a larger scale. They want to marry within the same – I won’t say caste, but the bloodline and this and that, it’s not as much in last 100 years. But prior to 100 years, it was very common all over the world, besides the US.
Inquiries about arranged marriage were very common. Amira described how the tone of the inquiry was not respectful. Characterizing arranged marriages as the union of two strangers takes the position that arranged marriages are inferior. Clearly, the non-Indian speaker was not an advocate of this matrimonial approach. Although put on the defensive, Anish complied with this type of question about arranged marriage. He attempted to find some common ground or shared understanding. Despite reporting the racist attack in the preceding section, Nikhil, stated that he is not offended by such inquiries. Because he is married to a co-ethnic, I asked Nikhil if non-Indians ask if his marriage was arranged.
Nikhil: Yes. Nita: Yes.
Interviewer: You do get that? Nikhil: Oh, all of the time. Nita: That’s all of the time. Nikhil: That, you get all the time. Interviewer: How do you feel about that?
Nikhil: Most people assume that all Indians have arranged marriages.
I don’t care. It doesn’t bother me that they think we have an arranged married.
This sentiment would not be remarkable if non-Indians had a favorable view of arranged
marriage. Implicit in the question concerning marriage is the sentiment, “how could you marry a stranger?” What was remarkable was that participants did not mind defending their culture. Mostly, participants framed these kinds of inquiries as a curiosity on the part of non-Indians. Consequently, they did not process these questions as offensive.
Vineeta: Unless we are very good friends or something and they say oh… Vijay: Curiosity. [finishing sentence for his wife].
Vineeta: Just curiosity. And they just want to know more.
“Curiosity” was the reoccurring word. As long as they perceive questions as motivated by “just curiosity,” Indian Americans will oblige until they feel their culture is being criticized or
denigrated.
Trisha: Because most of the time, discussion is as an inquisitive way. But the moment somebody will say –
Taresh: That’s a dumb thing or something like that, then –
Trisha: Then you fight back right away. It has not happened many times, but, it did happen sometimes at work, sometimes.
I said, “What do you know? What’s the difference?” So, you fight back right away. But when we get asked in an inquisitive way, [such as] “I’m ignorant about it, I’m asking you,” so that’s OK. Taresh: It’s not even ignorant. If you have the curiosity.
Trisha: That’s a good word. But if somebody ask in a curious way, that’s
great. That’s fine. No problem. But somebody asking in a bad way, then you do defend that and defend it hard. There’s nothing wrong with that. The decision to comply with the inquiry or “defend it hard” depends on the context. Though, none of the participants described what would constitute a “bad way.” By shaping the non-Indian as merely curious about Indian culture, first- and second-generation Indian Americans can in turn shape the verbal exchange as a teachable moment.
Satish: I'd say -- I would encourage it [questions about Indian culture]. Sheela: Yeah. Oh, yeah.
Satish: I'd rather inform them and let someone who didn't know about Hinduism and let them know about Hinduism. Because I think we're what, about 1 percent of the United States population?
The size of the population of Indian Americans is increasing. Thus, Satish believed that he should be the cultural ambassador. That is, curious non-Indians should learn about India and Indian culture from an Indian American. Bimal normalized the questioning about Indian culture by pointing out that he answers questions about American culture for friends and family who visit from India.
Bimal: People ask me and I’ll explain to the best of my ability.
Interviewer: How do you feel about that?
Bimal: I enjoy teaching. It’s something I enjoy. Interviewer: Oh, you don’t mind?
Bimal: No, not at all. And likewise a lot of people who come from India here, they always ask me about American culture.
There’s so many things they hear on TV that they don’t understand because they don’t know the background on it. So I explain, “Well, you know during the Civil Rights era, this happened and during this era, this happened and …”
Bindu: I think to me when someone asks me about my culture, I think
it’s a very good thing. That they are taking interest and they want to learn. In this brief excerpt Bimal equated questions about historical stages in American society with the constant questions about arranged marriages that others have had to answer.
In one instance, I tried to probe further to determine whether the participant truly was not
offended. Because arranged marriages are not particularly popular in Western culture, I view this question as more invasive than simply inquiring about how one met one’s spouse. Consider the exchange between Hiresh and Heera concerning arranged marriage.
Heera: Because there are some traditionally arranged marriages. My cousins had them.
Interviewer: Well, true.
Heera: Where they barely even met them. Hiresh: Right. Right.
Heera: I mean, that’s what Americans are thinking when they’re asking that so that’s…
Hiresh: So that’s why I never take is personal.
Heera: If I say it wasn’t like an arrangement like that, I say I was introduced to him [her husband] but that’s about it.
Interviewer: Do you think it’s a personal question though? I mean to ask somebody that. You know what I mean?
Heera: Oh, yeah. Sure it is.
Interviewer: Regardless of whether or not, just the fact that you’re Indian, “Oh, you must have had an arranged marriage.”
Heera: I don’t get that very much here. It was more in probably [state where they used to live].
Hiresh: I don’t know. It doesn’t bother me much. Of course, yeah, it is an odd question to ask. It’s not like a very socially appealing question like asking how many kids you have. It’s not
like that. But yeah, when somebody asks this question to you, my immediate concept is that it’s ignorance speaking here, so I need to educate this person. And that’s OK. That’s all right and I see there’s no [negative intent]. You know what? That’s the difference.
Heera: No, but they’re not ignorant, because that does happen in reality to many people. I’m just saying that that’s not what happened with us. My probing did result in Hiresh admitting that the inquiries about his marriage were slightly intrusive. Admittedly, I may have led him in this direction, but nevertheless, he did normalize the situation by framing it as an opportunity to educate the inquirer. Heera went further to normalize the cultural ambassador role by stating that arranged marriages do happen, so it is not unreasonable for non-Indians to make assumptions and ask questions based on this fact.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, I have demonstrated what the second-generation perceived as their position within United States More specifically, I wanted to know what my participants think mainstream American society think about India and Indian culture. Their views on this perception will to some extent influence ethnic identity construction. Very few participants
discussed overt experiences of racism or prejudice. Approaching these perceptions through participants’ accounts of racism was not gong to yield very much information. Instead, I focused on my participants’ thoughts about Indians in the media. Again, I had mixed responses.
Participants shaped the changing representations of Indians in the media as both positive and negative. Moreover, Participants preferred not to speak specifically about the situation of Indian Americans in the United States, but referenced the general situation of other minority groups. They sought to align with other groups who also have been marginalized in mainstream society. Recognizing that mainstream America might not be familiar with Indian culture, participants amenably answer questions about ethnicity. Despite the fact that the majority of the participants had not been socialized to Indian culture in India, they nonetheless patiently play this
ambassador role. Why do my participants not find this constant questioning offensive? Perhaps the reason has to do with the multicultural discourse in the United States. Such metaphors as a mosaic, a melting pot, or a salad bowl have been used to describe the diversity of the United States population. Playing cultural ambassador is part of fitting into this multicultural landscape.
However, multicultural discourse is somewhat inherently flawed. In a society that claims to appreciate multiculturalism, cultural hegemony is covert and often masked as merely an effort to “understand” those who are “different” from oneself (a “self” presumed to be white and American). Prashad (2000) asserts that the notion of “assimilation” means to “make similar” and that to deny the core “Anglo-Saxon” culture is “tantamount to treason” (p. 110). Many
Americans view the process of assimilation as making those who are different (i.e., new immigrants) similar to mainstream Americans. But, not everyone can or wants to become homogenized into the dominant United States culture.
Ethnicity is both optional and mandatory (Nagel 1994: 136.) Individuals negotiate ethnic identity within relational set of characteristics such as skin color and country of origin. As Nagel (1994) describes, the freedom to construct ethnic identity rests on the ethnic categories imposed by the dominant group. For example, white Europeans may assimilate into mainstream culture or claim ethnic identity depending on the situation. However, groups with brown skin or non- Anglo names may find ethnicity mandatory.
Unfortunately, there is a serious problem with the United States multiculturalism policies. Prashad (2000) writes, “it [overarching United States multiculturalism policy]pretends to be the solution to chauvinism rather than the means for a struggle against white supremacy” (p. 111). In other words, instead of challenging cultural hegemony, multiculturalism involves “different” ethnicities living agreeably with the dominant group. More importantly, multiculturalism requires that immigrant groups maintain and “present” their culture within the United States in agreeable way- meaning the cultural objects and experiences may not be in political opposition to the dominant group. Consequently, within mainstream American society, what is presented as “culture” becomes a stagnant monolithic “thing” rather than a “set of social relations” (p. 112). For example, arranged marriage is viewed as a cultural “thing,” rather than an experience because it is viewed in the most extreme expression (i.e., a loveless marriage between two strangers.) Perhaps more importantly, arranged marriage is a matrimonial approach that stands in contrast to the norms and values of Western culture, even as many aspects of Western marriage are culturally determined in similar ways. The majority of Americans tend to marry someone like themselves. People tend to marry someone of the same racial ethnic group, social class, and religion (Aulette 2007; Newman 2009,). Moreover, when people do marry outside their racial group or religious group they are almost always of the same social class (Newman
2004). Perhaps mainstream Americans are as pragmatic about their marital decisions as Indians after all.
At once, Indian Americans are required to speak for an entire country and, implicitly, they are expected to be experts on visible cultural markers. Rudrappa (2004) positions this “authenticity” within the landscape of American mainstream culture rather than within the Indian American community. Examining “cultural authenticity” is not a search for the “true” Indian, but an examination of cultural discourse that plays out in the social structures of a society. Within United States multiculturalism, Indian Americans are compelled to “conform to the celebratory version of culture that is on display” (Kurien 2004: 380). Being aware of their position in the ethnic hierarchy, Rudrappa (2004) argues that Indian Americans can never be the “true” American (read: white and Christian,) hence they are the “best” Indian they can possibility be within the mainstream dominant culture.
However, motivation to play the cultural ambassador should not rely solely on multicultural discourse. Indian Americans have agency in the choices that they make.
Multiculturalism may ultimately homogenize ethnic groups, but these groups make the decision to comply or resist based on their perceived notion of their place on the racial ethnic hierarchy. Steinberg (2001) argues that mainstream American society should not be totally vilified in this scenario because ethnic groups make decisions for economic and social mobility. In general, second-generation Indian Americans choose the path of least resistance or engage in behaviors that will elicit a positive response from non-Indians and refrain from those that might be
perceived as belligerent responses. For example, in the work environment, answering questions concerning Indian food may be more advantageous to one’s professional career than to refuse or
even reprimand the non-Indian. Of course, I also acknowledge that some participants may have genuinely enjoyed talking about Indian culture with non-Indians.
Eventually, these questions about ethnicity shape Indian ethnic identity insofar as they shape the cultural performance in the public space. Questions about certain aspects of Indian culture, such as food or arranged marriages, reinforce these as symbols. Moreover, playing cultural ambassador can highlight which cultural objects and experiences are public from those that are in the private space. Positioning “culture” in this way, provides insight into how Indian culture can be mediated through Western hegemonic culture.
CHAPTER 5: