Reflections on the Body Beautiful in Indian Popular Culture
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Reflections on the Body Beautiful in Indian Popular Culture
Sumita S. Chakravarty
Social Research: An International Quarterly, Volume 78, Number 2, Summer
2011, pp. 395-416 (Article)
Published by Johns Hopkins University Press
For additional information about this article
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/528133/summary
[ This content has been declared free to read by the pubisher during the COVID-19 pandemic. ]Sumita S. Chakravarty
Reflections on the Body
Beautiful in Indian Popular
Culture
A p h ilo so p h y o f ico n o clasm needs re d e e m in g fro m its
c u rre n t sorry state.
—-John D urham Peters, “Beauty’s Veils”
ON A STUDY ABROAD PROGRAM TO BANGALORE, IN D IA , A FEW
sum m ers ago, as m y group o f und erg rad u ate students an d I traveled in
M um bai and o th er cities, one o f th e m w ondered w hy th e b eautiful star
im ages on billboards scattered all over th e landscape bore such little
resem blance to th e average In d ian he saw o n th e crow ded streets. Fair
skinned, light-eyed, skim pily-clothed, relaxed and sm iling, o n th e one
h and; brow n-skinned, h a rrie d m etro p o litan dw ellers, functionally or
shabbily dressed, purposeful, on th e other. W h ere w as th e connection,
a n d how did Indians id en tify w ith these figures? W hy w as th e visual
landscape d o m in ated by faces a n d figures th a t, to say th e least, was
h ard ly th e n o rm ? Or, as m y d au g h ter p u t it, “W here are all th e d ark
people?”
My stu d e n t’s b ew ild erm en t touches on questions o f a rt a n d arti
fice, n a tu re an d culture, id en tity and representation, body and beau ty
th a t have, if anything, becom e m ore p ro nounced in th e high-technol-
ogy era. You m ay recall th e fam ous Time m agazine cover from 1993 o f
a w o m an ’s face, g enerated b y a com puter, w h ich signified “th e future,
m u ltie th n ic face o f A m erica.” C om posed o f 15 p e rc e n t Anglo-Saxon,
17.5 p ercen t M iddle E astern, 17.5 p ercen t African, 7.5 p ercen t Asian,
social research Vol. 78 : No. 2 : Sum m er 2011 39535 p ercen t so u th e rn European, and 7.5 p ercen t H ispanic or Latino, th e
m o rp h ed im age was a ta n ta liz in g technological icon in an em erg en t
landscape o f infinite p erm utations. The m agazine noted: “As onlookers
w atch ed th e im age o f o u r n ew Eve beg in to ap p ear o n th e co m p u ter
screen, several staff m em bers p rom ptly fell in love. Said one, ‘It really
b reak s m y h e a rt th a t she d o esn ’t exist’” (quoted in Chavez 2001: 63).
A fu tu ristic n arrativ e o f origins, th e scenario also conjures u p a gap
b etw een th e reality o f th e im age (it was p resen t to th e group) an d th e
im age o f (social) reality (thought to be realized in th e future). The face
o f th e “n ew Eve,” C hristianized a n d C aucasianized as it is, serves as
a p arab le o f e m b o d im e n t co n cern ed w ith th e play o f p resen ce an d
absence, w ith aspirations o f social belonging an d harm ony, an d w ith
th e lib id in al w o n d e r o f m ach in ic p o w er w ro u g h t by th e m ed iated
n atu re o f desire in th e contem porary age.
Several th e m e s ru n th ro u g h th e tw o scen ario s I have ju s t
presented, an d m aking som e sense o f th e m is th e purpose o f this essay.
Prim ary am o n g th e m is th e role th a t im ages o f beauty, o f b ea u tifu l
faces and bodies, play in o u r evolving consciousness; no longer orchids
in th e land o f technology, th ese im ages are everyw here and constitute
a basic visual v o cabulary in th e tw enty-first century. As b ea u ty has
becom e an industry, an d th e ability to recognize fam ous film an d televi
sion perso n alities shared cu ltu ra l know ledge, th e age-old association
o f b eau ty w ith a rt has ta k e n on new m eanings. Ironically, o u r fam iliar
ity w ith th e im ages, languages, an d softw are-enabled technologies o f
b eau ty has b een accom panied by a v irtu al disappearance o f theories or
philosophies o f beauty. This is particularly surprising in m y ow n field
o f m edia studies, for m edia n ow hold a virtual m onopoly on th e p roduc
tio n and d issem ination o f b eau ty norm s an d ideals.
At th e sam e tim e, discussions o f th e body have ru sh ed in to fill
th e gap, so th a t beauty is so m eth in g th a t is done to th e body ra th e r th a n
p a rt of th e body. Fem inist film scholars first tau g h t us to bew are o f th e
dangers lu rk in g in th e o rc h e stra te d looks an d statu esq u e bodies o f
b eautiful w o m en in classical Hollywood cinem a. They presen ted beauty
as lure or trap, organized by th e cam era’s in citem en t to voyeurism and
scopophilia to satisfy m ale libidinal desire tow ard fem ale sexuality. A
396 social researchb re ak was m ade b etw e en “b e a u ty ” an d “body,” th e fo rm er a hapless
o r strategic ap p endage to th e latter. From th e re to m ed ia’s exploita
tio n o f th e body is b u t a sh o rt step. I shall have m ore to say about this
below, b u t here I sim ply w a n t to suggest th a t w e are lacking a th o u g h t
ful u n d erstan d in g o f th e desire for beauty in o u r m edia-saturated age.
Media-specific discussions o f b eau ty th a t do n o t deal w ith th e com m od
ification an d abuse o f bodies is rare, practically nonexistent. Moreover,
a preo ccu p atio n w ith th e individual body as ex p erim en tal canvas for
inscribing m arks o f beauty, w h e th e r in corporeal or virtual term s, m ay
signal advances in dem ocratization o f m essage and m edium , b u t it still
does n o t tell us m u ch about th e ways in w h ich a society perceives itself
to be beautiful, and w h e th e r b eau ty has any intrinsic properties th a t can
h elp us u n d ersta n d its m ed iated (in th e dual sense o f m edia-dissem i-
n ated an d th e body-as-medium) power.
In th is essay I ask: In w h a t ways does a society perceive itself as
beautiful? Norm s o f beauty are inextricably tied to ideas o f well-being,
virtue, social harm ony, and stren g th (not to m en tio n racial superiority),
a k in d o f triu m p h o f n a tu re a n d essence over artifice an d effort. The
role o f m o d ern m edia has b ee n to suture im ages o f physical perfection
on to th e asp irations o f th e social o r n atio n al body, th e p erfect body/
face em blem atic o f th e collective self-image. Yet th e beautiful body is
also a rem in d e r o f (one’s own) im perfections, a t once a prom ise an d a
th rea t, giving rise to th e desire to intervene an d reshape o n e’s im age.
In re cen t years, u n d e r conditions o f econom ic and cu ltu ral globaliza
tio n , th e in tersectio n s o f p o p u la r m edia w ith discourses o f th e body
b ea u tifu l have com e u n d e r in creasing scrutiny. C oncerned w ith th e
m ark etin g and com m odification o f body ideals, these studies trace th e
deleterious effects o f m edia im ages and discourses in various national
an d cross-cultural contexts. W hile I have n o th in g against this m ode o f
attack, m y ow n effort w ill be to c h a rt an alternative p ath, one th a t takes
m e th ro u g h th e covert an d u n ev e n te rrito ry o f m edia analysis w here
beau ty is hiding in plain sight. Can beauty have liberating potential?
In h e r b o o k o n beauty, Elaine Scarry (1999) n o tes th e b an ish
ing o f th e topic fro m th e h u m an itie s a n d argues for a n aw areness o f
h o w b e a u ty figures in o u r p ercep tu al, em o tio n al, a n d m o ral lives.
R eflections on th e B o d y B e a u tifu l in Indian Popular C ulture 397Calling b eau ty a startin g place for education (1999: 31), she identifies
its ontological featu res (such as: b e a u ty is sacred; b ea u ty is u n p re c
edented; b eau ty is life-giving; b eau ty incites deliberation; an d so on).
But above all, b eau ty is distributive, spreading equality in all directions.
U nfortunately, Scarry’s exam ples o f b e a u ty are all draw n fro m hig h
cu lture texts an d au th o rs—fro m Hom er, Plato, an d D ante to P roust and
Iris M urdoch—ignoring th a t th e b u lk o f o u r engagem ent w ith im ages
an d discourses o f beauty com e from th e realm o f po p u lar culture (from
m ovies an d television, from fashion m agazines an d advertising images,
an d fro m th e In tern et). M oreover, S carry talks in term s o f u n iv e r
s a l an d face-to-face ra th e r th a n m ed iated contact; she th u s does n o t
consider o u r changing technologies o f re p resen ta tio n and perception.
Also, she holds th e “tr u th ” o f b eau ty to be self-evident, as tran sc en d
in g individual o r cultural p ropensity o r prejudice. She includes in h er
p u rv iew b ea u tifu l n o n se n tie n t objects such as poem s an d draw ings,
n o n h u m a n objects such as flowers an d sky, as well as h u m a n faces and
figures, th u s sidestepping th e contentious debates in w hich questions
o f in ten tio n , accuracy, an d exploitation are m ired.
N evertheless, I w a n t to propose a n d d e m o n strate th a t Scarry’s
ideas provide a m uch-needed perspective n o t only on beauty, h e r topic
o f choice, b u t on our theories o f audiovisual m edia, an area o f inquiry
she p u rp o rts to speak n o th in g about. Thus it is vital th a t som e o f h er
concepts be exten ded to reexam ine theories o f visual rep resen tatio n , o f
m edia ontologies and epistem ologies o f beauty and th e body, o f m edia
effectivity a n d influence. N eedless to say, such in q u iry can only be
suggestive an d selective, ra th e r th a n exhaustive, w ith in th e p aram eters
o f th is essay.
But h o w does one b eg in to estab lish th is connection? Scarry’s
exam ples o f th e beautiful are draw n from w orks o f art, literature, and
p o etry in w h ich th e im agination is allow ed free rein. H er purview is the
realm o f aesthetics, in w h ich th e subject o f beauty has a long history.
So author, critic, an d read er o f literary an d philosophical w orks all have
th e im aginative freedom to conjure u p th e ir m en tal im ages o f th e b eau
tiful. This ca n n o t hold, however, in m o st discussions o f m edia, w hich
bo ast a long h isto iy o f th e m im etic n a tu re o f cam era-based im ages. The
398 social research“cap tu rin g o f th e re a l” th ro u g h m echanical m eans shifts th e focus from
th e a rtis t’s im ag ination to th e screen’s rep resen tatio n , so th a t ideas o f
tru e o r false re p re se n ta tio n , o f th e individual o r th e collective, have
d o m in ated critical m ethodologies in m edia studies. W h e th e r th e body
in fro n t o f th e cam era is beautiful or n o t (even if notions o f beauty w ere
w idely shared, a debatable proposition a t best), has b een less germ ane
to in q u iiy th a n th e tru th or o therw ise o f th e rep resen tatio n , th e ex ten t
to w h ich th e picture is a “w indow on th e w orld.”
It is n o t by chance th a t “th e body” (often a scientific and clini
cal category) an d n o t “b ea u ty ” (an aesthetic concern) dom inates discus
sions o f th e m e d ia te d im age. It was believed th a t th e in v e n tio n o f
th e cam era lib erated a rt fro m its obligation to “copy” n atu re , an d for
alm o st 200 years th e jo b o f ca p tu rin g social reality has devolved on
ph o to g rap h ic lens, th e in stru m e n t th a t could pierce th e veil o f th e real.
This belief, d esp ite its critiq u e a n d d espite th e em ergence o f digital
m edia, continues to hold. In a w orld w here everything is photographed
an d p hotographable, it m ay seem crass, frivolous, or politically insensi
tive to engage in judging w h ich actual persons or things are beautiful
an d w h ich are not, th o u g h it is perfectly fine to judge w h ich im ages are
b eau tifu l and w h ich are not.
Yet it is precisely such ju d g m en t th a t Scarry encourages, for she
sees b eau ty as n o t only pleasurable b u t as m orally good an d politically
enabling. In a sense, h e r ap p ro ach is m ediacentric, for she places at
th e h e a rt o f h e r in q u iry th e relationship betw een viewer, viewed, and
th e em o tio n h o ld in g th e tw o together. W h a t is fascinating ab o u t h e r
ap p ro ach is its use o f beau ty as a bridge b etw een th e tired binaries o f
public an d private, subjective an d objective, view ing an d view ed object.
The very etym ology o f b ea u ty suggests th e lin k b etw een th e physical
body an d th e social body, o p en in g th e door to a know ledge o f justice
an d equality (not to vanity an d degradation, as is so often depicted). “A
single w ord, ‘fairness,’” she w rites, “is used b o th in referrin g to loveli
ness o f co u n ten a n ce an d in re ferrin g to th e eth ical re q u ire m e n t for
‘b ein g fair,’ ‘playing fair’ a n d ‘fair d istrib u tio n ’” (1999: 91). She notes
th a t b ea u ty en tails reciprocity, w h ich “begins w ith in th e con fin ed
circ u m fere n ce o f b e h o ld e r a n d b e h e ld w ho ex change a recip ro cal
R eflections on th e B o d y B eautiful in Indian Popular C u ltu re 3 99salute to th e co n tin u atio n o f one a n o th e r’s existence; this tw o-m em ber
salute becom es, by th e pressures ag ain st lateral disregard, dispersed
o u t so th a t w h a t is achieved is an inclusive affirm ation o f th e ongoing
ness o f existence, and o f o n e ’s ow n responsibility for th e continuity o f
existence” (1999: 92).
Scarry’s ex p an sio n o f th e p resen ce o f b e a u ty is th e re fo re re le
v a n t to a n u n d e rsta n d in g o f p o p u lar cu ltu re w h e re im ages o f beau ty
a re co llectiv ely e x p e rie n c e d . H er w o rk p ro v id es a m u c h -n e e d e d
lens o n to m ed ia im ages a n d n arra tiv e s o f b e a u ty a n d m ed ia analy
ses in re la tio n to th e body. A nd h e r basic insights, w hile addressing
th e b lin d spots o f W e ste rn cu ltu re , are n o less ap p licab le to w h a t
h as beco m e a globally-shared m ed ia cu ltu re. The la tte r in itse lf has
becom e th e object o f analysis, as critics n o te th e u n iv ersalizatio n o f
body ideals th o u g h th e sh ared languages and in stitu tio n s o f tra n sn a
tio n al m edia. In try in g to u n d e rsta n d w h a t role im ages o f b ea u ty play
in th e c o n stitu tio n o f social norm s a n d practices—a n d in particular,
n a rra tiv e s o f b e a u ty in In d ia n p o p u la r c u ltu re —I fin d t h a t b e a u ty
its e lf needs to be addressed as a kin d o f m issing lin k in m edia studies.
This essay is th ere fo re com prised o f tw o parts. The first explores th e
hom o lo g ies b e tw e e n b e a u ty a n d m edia; th e second discusses th e m
in th e specific c o n te x t o f In d ia n p o p u la r cu ltu re. My basic th esis is
th a t n arrativ es o f b eau ty have m u ch to te ll us ab o u t th e n arrativ e of
dem o cratizatio n .
THE FUNDAMENTALS O F BEAUTY
A lthough Scarry’s ru m in a tio n s on b e a u ty to u c h o n m an y elem en ts,
we can iso late th re e fe atu res as c e n tra l to h e r arg u m en t: b ea u ty as
life-giving; b ea u ty as u n p re ced e n te d ; a n d b ea u ty as fair-m inded an d
p ro m o tin g equality. D uplication. Singularity. Alterity. These, I suggest,
have also b een key aspects o f m edia technological inquiry, encapsulat
ing respectively, ideas o f re p resen ta tio n an d (m echanical) reproduction;
ideas o f u n iq ueness th a t are inextricably tied to th e cam era’s ability to
cap tu re th e real, th e particular, th e specific object in fro n t o f th e lens;
and th e idea o f difference an d alterity th ro u g h w hich th e param eters o f
h u m a n cognition are continually bein g enlarged.
400 social researchLet us exam ine h ow th ese ideas are developed in Scariy’s “th eo ry ”
o f beauty. She begins h e r b ook by asking, “W h a t is th e felt experience
o f cognition at th e m o m en t one stands in th e presence o f a beautiful
boy o r flow er o r bird? It seem s to incite, even to req u ire, th e act o f
replication. W ittgenstein says th a t w h en th e eye sees som ething b eau
tiful, th e h an d w ants to draw i t ” (1999: 3). B eauty p ro m p ts a copy o f
itself, its im pulse being essentially procreative: th e desire for children
arises from th e desire to reproduce th e loved one. But such reproduc
tio n can h a p p e n in any m ed iu m , as “an act o f to u ch m ay reproduce
itself as an acoustical event o r even a n abstract idea, th e w ay w henever
A ugustine touches som ething sm ooth, he begins to th in k o f m usic and
God” (1999: 4). (Such exam ples also extend to th e an im al world; I am
rem in d ed o f m y d au g h ter’s A ustralian sh ep h erd w ho accom panies h e r
singing p ractice each m o rn in g by trying to reproduce h e r notes in a
series o f m elodious barks!) In a polem ical vein, Scarry addresses th e
opp o n en ts o f beauty, such as th o se w ho object to starin g at an object
or h old th a t b eau ty leads to m ateria l cupidity and possessiveness. “To
disparage b eauty for th e sake n o t o f one o f its attrib u tes b u t sim ply for
a m isguided v ersion o f one o f its otherw ise b en eficen t a ttrib u tes is a
com m on erro r m ade about b ea u ty ” (1999:10). She does n o t believe th a t
looking at a b eau tifu l face o r object endangers it, n o r does she th in k
th a t th e p erceiv er’s ab so rp tio n in looking distracts h im o r h e r from
m ore w o rth y tasks.
The idea o f duplication is o f course th e qu in tessen tial attrib u te
o f m echanical m edia, as W alter B enjam in an d others have long pointed
out. Yet d uplication in m edia th eo ry has b een associated less w ith beget
tin g th a n w ith death. To tak e b u t tw o fam ous exam ples: for Benjam in
m echanical rep ro duction forever destroyed th e aura o f th e w ork o f art;
for Roland Barthes, a p h o to g rap h is a grim rem in d er o f a m o m en t th a t
has passed.
If ph o to g raphy is to be discussed on a serious level, it m u st
be described in re la tio n to death. It’s tru e th a t a p h o to
g ra p h is a w itness, b u t a w itness o f so m eth in g th a t is no
m ore. Even if th e p erson in th e p ictu re is still in love, i t ’s a
R eflections on th e B o d y B e a u tifu l in Indian Popular C ulture 401m o m e n t o f this subject’s existence th a t w as photographed,
a n d th is m o m e n t is gone. This is an en o rm o u s tra u m a
for h u m an ity , a tra u m a en d lessly ren ew ed . Each re a d
ing o f a p h o to a n d th e re are billions w orldw ide in a day,
each p ercep tio n a n d reading o f a p h o to is im plicitly, in a
repressed m anner, a co n tract w ith w h a t has ceased to exist,
a co n tract w ith d ea th (Barthes 1985: 356).
Begetting an d death? Now here is a novel idea. Barthes is disturbed
by th e d iso rd er th a t p h o to g ra p h y im plies, th e endless a c cre tio n o f
objects in th e w orld th a t do n o t co m m u n icate to h im th e essence of
th e m edium . He w ants to u n d e rsta n d it b u t cannot because its eviden
tiary aspect com es in th e way: we always see through a p h o to g rap h to its
referent. Yet B arthes accords a privileged place to photography, o u t of
all th e m edia th a t h u m an ity has at its disposal. “It is th e advent o f th e
P ho to g rap h —an d not, as has b een said, o f th e cinem a, w hich divides
th e history o f th e w orld” (Barthes 1981: 88).
In his discussion o f B arthes’ in flu en tial view s o n photography,
Ron B u rn ett trie s to p rize o p e n a space b e tw e e n a p h o to g ra p h and
a n im age by allow ing B arthes his c o n te n tio n th a t a p h o to g ra p h has
a d irect co n n ectio n w ith th e real (an actually p re se n t body o r object
th a t is d uplicated), b u t t h a t an im age is th a t w h ic h is interpreted by
d iffe re n t view ers in diverse social a n d h isto rical co n tex ts. “Im ages,
w h ich re p re se n t th e activities o f h u m a n in te rv e n tio n an d in te rp re ta
tio n , w h ich are a n am alg a m o f p h o to g rap h ic in te n tio n s a n d subjec
tive p lacem en t, are p a rt o f a process th a t is em bodied, th e re su lt o f a
‘lab o r o f re la tio n ’” (B urnett 1995: 34). His pu rp o se is to h ig h lig h t th e
role o f th e body in th e creative uses o f im aging technologies so as to
rep lace th e asso ciations o f im ag e-m ak in g a n d d e a th w ith creativity
a n d change. Insofar as B arthes h im se lf addresses b ea u ty (and h e does
not) in p hotography, h e finds it in th e tech n o lo g y itself, th e clicking
sou n d o f th e cam era: “I love bells, clocks, w atches—an d I recall th a t
a t first p h o to g rap h ic im p le m e n ts w ere re la ted to tech n iq u es o f cabi
n et-m ak in g a n d th e m a c h in e ry o f precision: cam eras, in short, w ere
clocks for seeing, an d p erh ap s in m e som eone very old still h ears in
402 social researchth e p h o to g rap h ic m ech a n ism th e living sound o f th e w o o d ” (Barthes
1981:15).
W h e n B arthes does sp ea k o f b ea u ty in re la tio n to th e visual
m edia, h e sees it in iconic term s, as in his fam ous essay, “The Face o f
G arbo,” in Mythologies (1972 [1957]). As th e orig in ary p o in ts o f re fe r
ence for discussions o f beau ty as charm , enigm a, sexual allure, m ovie
stars re m a in paradigm atic in m edia scholarship, th o u g h few accounts
are as suggestive as this one. B arthes starts by saying th a t “Garbo still
belongs to th a t m o m e n t in cin em a w h e n ca p tu rin g th e h u m a n face
still p lunged audiences into th e deepest ecstasy, w h en one literally lost
o n ese lf in a h u m a n im age as one w ould in a p h ilte r, w h e n th e face
rep resen ted a k in d o f absolute state o f th e flesh, w h ich could be n e ith e r
reached n o r re n o u n ced ” (1957: 56). As in th e later Camera Lucida (1981),
Barthes tries to find th e connection o f a p h en o m en o n to its m ed iu m o f
expression, and h ere h e sees G arbo’s face as m ark in g a p o in t o f tran si
tio n betw een tw o stages o f cinem a: “G arbo’s face rep resen ts this frag
ile m o m e n t w h e n th e cinem a is ab o u t to draw an existential from an
essential beauty, w h e n th e archetype leans tow ards th e fascination o f
m o rtal faces, w h e n th e clarity o f th e flesh as essence yields its place
to a lyricism o f W o m an ” (1981: 57). As a sem iologist try in g to m ake
sense o f m ass hysteria aro u n d m ovie stars, Barthes sees G arbo’s face as
deeply revelatory o f a n ew language o f th e body in w h ich th e appeal o f
th e im age takes precedence over th e n atu raln ess o f th e physical body.
He calls hers a n adm irable face-object; “a t once perfect and ephem eral,
[it] com es to resem ble th e flour-w hite com plexion o f C harlie Chaplin,
th e d a rk v eg etatio n o f his eyes, his totem -like c o u n te n a n c e ” (1981:
56). W h a t G arbo’s film s co m m u n icated was th e essence o f h e r physi
cal form , and she h erself felt invested in m ain tain in g th is essence. So
Garbo did n o t allow view ers to see th e deterio ratio n o f h e r h u m a n face
an d form ; w ith age, she drew h erself away to preserve th e m em ory o f
h e r beauty. B arthes’ discussion o f beauty, th e n , struggles w ith affir
m atio n a n d negation; it g ra n ts Garbo th e affective pow er th a t m edia
im ages elicit in view ers b u t sees h e r as hostage to h e r m ythic status.
Scarry says th a t “th e b ea u tifu l th in g seem s—is—incom parable,
un p reced en ted ; an d th a t sense o f being w ith o u t p re c e d e n t conveys a
R eflections on th e B o d y B eautiful in Indian Popular C u ltu re 403sense of th e ‘n ew ness’ o r ‘n ew bornness’ o f th e en tire w orld” (1999: 22).
This is th e second attrib u te o f beauty th a t she alerts us to, and (in m edia
term s) it w ould tra n sla te to creativity, a focus o f m u ch re c e n t w ork,
particularly on digital m edia. Indeed, th e te rm “d esign” m ay be seen as
synonym ous w ith “b eau ty ” since a h o st o f softw are applications have
o p en ed u p endless p o ssibilities to visualize th e w orld. Yet as m edia
th eo rists B olter and G rusin show, all m edia are (simply) rem ediation,
caught in th e double b in d o f visibility an d invisibility, tran sp aren cy and
opacity, subjective presence an d objective distance. In o th er w ords, we
w a n t to see th in g s for ourselves som etim es, a n d w e w a n t to concen
tra te on th e m eans a t o th e r tim es. In trying to u n d ersta n d th e geneal
ogy o f m ultim edia, th e au th o rs find th a t
each n ew m e d iu m is ju stifie d because it fills a lack or
rep airs a fa u lt in its predecessor, because it fulfills th e
u n k e p t p ro m ise o f a n o ld er m ed iu m . . . . P h o to g rap h y
was supposedly m ore im m ediate th a n painting, film th a n
photography, television th a n film , an d n ow v irtu al reality
fulfills th e prom ise o f im m ediacy an d supposedly ends th e
progression. The rh eto ric o f rem ed iatio n favors im m ediacy
an d tran sp aren cy , even th o u g h as th e m e d iu m m atu re s
it offers n ew o p p o rtu n itie s for hyperm ediacy (Bolter an d
G rusin 2000:18).
In a series o f chapters o n new m edia th a t includes video gam es,
th e W orld W ide Web, v irtu al reality, digital art, ubiquitous com puting,
convergence, film , and so on, B olter a n d G rusin ex p lain th e onw ard
m o m en tu m o f m edia creativity driven by this dual logic.
The final section o f th e ir book is co n cerned w ith th e body an d
self, and h ere th e au th o rs n o te th a t n ew m edia are “fully involved in
th e c o n tem p o rary struggle to define th e self as b o th em bodied an d
m ed iated by th e body” (2000: 240). On th e one h an d , th e y n o te th a t
practices like cosm etic surgery still o p erate w ith in b ro a d er ideologi
cal fram ew orks o f gender; o n th e other, th ey cite those a rt practices in
w h ich th e body an d technology becom e inseparable, in an extension o f
404 social researchD onna H araway’s n o tio n o f th e h u m a n as cyborg. Body an d self becom e
fu rth e r sites o f rem ediation, sim ply p a rt o f th e larger story ra th e r th a n
fun d am en tally affecting, or bein g affected by it. The virtual self, th e self
th a t is released, so to speak, fro m th e co n stra in ts o f space and tim e,
takes over, in B olter an d G rusin’s form ulation, th e m ateria lity o f th e
body. According to th em , w e becom e one w ith th e television and film
view points o ur eyes follow, o r th e digital spaces w e e n te r onscreen. But
th is n o tio n sidesteps th e u n iqueness or singularity or co n tin u ity th a t
u n derlies each p erso n ’s diverse m edia experiences, for m ateriality does
n o t ju s t refer to th e physical bodies w ith in w h ich o u r n o tio n s o f self
are lodged, b u t th a t w hich distinguishes one person from another, one
body from another. W ith th e replacem ent o f th e un iq u e body w ith th e
m u ltip le self, B olter an d G rusin foreclose discussions o f w h a t th e body
m ig h t have to offer in th e age o f n ew m edia.
ALTERITY
In his b o o k Mimesis and Alterity (1993), M ichael Taussig introduces th e
apocryphal scene o f th e d o cu m en tary film thus: “W ho can forget, in
w h a t has becom e one o f th e classics o f eth n o g rap h ic film , N anook o f
th e N o rth ’s look o f w ild disbelief on h ea rin g sound em erge from th e
w hite m a n ’s p h o n ograph, a n d th e n trying to eat th e record?” (1993:200)
He goes on to re m in d us th a t this scene was staged, an d th a t Flaherty’s
b elief in th e n ew h u m a n sensorium created by cinem a was dram atized
by recru itin g th e sensory ap p aratu s o f th e prim itive. Alterity, or o th er
ness, has been one o f th e m o st influential concepts to u n d erstan d bo th
th e technologies an d th e rep resen tatio n s o f m edia. (It m ig h t be w o rth
recalling th a t language itself, according to structuralism , functions on
th e p rinciple o f difference, since w h a t so m eth in g m eans depends on
w h a t it is not.) Because technological m edia are W estern inventions,
scholars have p o in ted o u t h o w th e colonial m ission w e n t h an d in han d
w ith a w ide range o f visualizing strategies, from m apping conquered
territo rie s to m easu rin g b ra in size o f natives, to show ing bro w n and
black bodies o n screen. Taussig draw s o n this history in tracing how a
nin eteen th -cen tu ry invention, th e phonograph, invokes prim itivism to
hig h lig h t native fascination w ith m im etic devices. “W h a t seem s crucial
R eflections on th e B o d y B eautiful in Indian Popular C ulture 405ab o u t th e fascin atio n w ith th e O th e r’s fa scin atio n w ith th e talk in g
m achine is th e m agic o f m echanical reproduction itself,” a m agic th a t
seem s to soon fade in th e W est b u t “th ese shocks rightly live on in th e
m ysterious u n d erbelly o f th e technology—to be eviscerated as ‘m agic’
in fro n tie r ritu als o f tech n o lo g ical su p rem acy ” (1993: 208). He also
gives th e exam ple o f th e talk in g dog logo o f RCA’s “His M aster’s Voice,”
suggesting th a t th e anim al connotes th e prim itivism an d th erefo re th e
“a u th e n tic ity ” o f th e p h o n o g ra p h itse lf to cap tu re th e h u m a n voice.
A lterity h ere builds o n W estern c u ltu re ’s relationship w ith th e civiliza-
tio n al other. As such, th e pow er o f m edia lies in capturing th e m eaning
o f m im esis o r copying th ro u g h enlarging th e circuits o f experience.
So w h e re do th ese sn ap sh o ts o f m edia th e o ry leave us o n th e
subj ect o f m ed ia’s (and by extension, our) fascination w ith beauty? I have
used S cariy’s assessm ent o f b eau ty ’s pow er and ability to do good in th e
w orld to co m m en t on som e o f th e ways one m ig h t th in k ab o u t m edia
im ages o f b ea u ty in term s o th e r th a n lure or exploitation. The th re e
qualities o f beau ty—duplication o f itself, th e u n p reced en ted n atu re of
its p resence th a t invites reflection, a n d its con n ectio n to ju stic e and
equality—are, I have noted, key aspects o f technological m edia as well.
However, critiques o f m edia see th ese as distancing ra th e r th a n engag
ing, as aligned to d eath ra th e r th a n life, an d as colonizing ra th e r th a n
equalizing. I have suggested th a t one o f th e reasons for ign o rin g th e
m edia-beauty association resides paradoxically in th e liberating aspects
o f th e technologies them selves, so th a t w e often speak o f th e b eauty of
an im age, its com position o r in te rn a l stru ctu re, its use o f color, light
an d shade. We ta lk o f film s as beautiful, o f w ebsites as beautiful, o f a
b eautiful interface. We talk o f im ages o f w ar and suffering as beautiful,
so m eth in g th a t Susan S ontag found unconscionable and th a t led h er
to th in k th a t only doctors, n o t photojournalists, should have access to
th e victim ized bodies o f war. “P hotographs te n d to tran sfo rm , w h a t
ever th e ir subject; a n d as a n im age so m eth in g m ay be b eau tifu l—or
terrifying, o r u n b earab le, o r q u ite bearab le—as it is n o t in real life”
(Sontag 2003: 76). But can o n e n o t also see th is process in reverse,
nam ely th a t o u r a ttac h m e n t to our m edia as carriers o f beauty re tu rn s
us to th e co n tem p latio n o f o u r social relations? Turning to this dialec
406 social researchtic o f b eau ty an d body, im age an d real life in th e social a n d political
discourses o f In d ian society, I provide a perspective o n th e shifting and
reciprocal relations o f beau ty in popular culture.
BEAUTY, BODY, A N D M EDIA IN IN D IA
The p reo ccu p atio n w ith b e a u ty in India has b ee n m u ch addressed o f
late. Critics have n o ted a veritable boom in fairness an d skin-lightening
cosm etic products, p ro m o ted by narratives o f b eauty in Indian m aga
zines an d television com m ercials (Parm esw aran an d Cardoza 2009). A
focus on th e body is evidenced by th e m ushroom ing o f fitness centers
a n d m assage a n d facial parlors even in sm all tow ns, an d th e appeal
o f co n su m erism in g en eral a m o n g a b u rg e o n in g m iddle class. U nder
co n d itio n s o f econom ic a n d cu ltu ra l globalization, it is felt th a t th e
m ark e tin g and com m odification o f body ideals is having adverse effects
o n th e young. As several studies have p o in te d out, In d ia’s econom ic
tran sfo rm atio n from a th ird w orld, quasi-socialist n atio n into a global
c a p ita list p lay er finds a sym bolic p arallel in th e b e a u tifu l In d ian
w o m an w ho has becom e lin k ed to th e w orld outside th ro u g h victories
in global b ea u ty pageants a n d fashion show s an d exposure in in te r
n a tio n al advertising, film , a n d television (Parm esw aran a n d C ardoza
2009; D urham 2007; M ankekar 2004). C om m enting o n a spate o f film s
in w h ich th e fem ale body is oversexed a n d und erclo th ed , M eenakshi
Gigi D u rh am w rites: “In th e se texts, th e display o f w o m e n ’s bodies
sym bolizes W esternization. In th is sense, th e hyper-eroticized co n ten t
o f th e n ew Bollywood film s parallels th e discourses o f n a tio n th a t
have accom panied India’s foray in to th e w orld o f in tern a tio n al beauty
pag ean ts, w h ere w o m en ’s bodies have b ee n deployed as m ark ers o f
b o th p atrio tism an d progress” (C reekm ur 2007: 81).
The subject o f representation o f th e Indian body has long b een a
frau g h t one, n o t least because o f th e H indu philosophical belief in th e
tran sien ce o f all things m aterial, th e goal o f nirvana being to cast th e
body aside and becom e pure soul. But it is m edia depictions o f th e Indian
body th a t I am concerned w ith here, and h ere th e dom inance of particu
lar kinds o f images have long b een th e norm . One could construct a typol
ogy th a t goes back to colonial tim es o f (1) th e abject body; (2) th e ascetic
R eflections on th e B o d y B e autiful in Indian Popular C u ltu re 407body, m ade m o st fam ous by im ages o f Gandhi, an d con tin u ed in the
recen t popularity o f yoga practices in th e West; (3) th e exotic and color
ful body o f th e National Geographic variety; (4) iconic im ages o f th e over-
populated nation-body favored by W estern new sm edia; and, increasingly
in re cen t years (5) th e artificial, g littering body o f th e Bollywood star
let. Sensitivity about such im ages w ith in India has long been recorded.
Perhaps best know n is th e case in w hich Indian film m aker Satyajit Ray’s
fam ous an d aw ard-w inning film , Father Panchali (Song of the Little Road,
1955) was criticized by an icon o f th e Bombay cinem a, Nargis, w hose
ow n film, Mother India (1957), is reputed to have ru n consistently in an
Indian m ovie th eate r for over 30 years. In th e early 1980s, as a m em ber
o f Parliam ent, Nargis to o k Ray’s film to task for “exporting im ages o f
India’s poverty to the w orld.” A tale o f abject m isery set in th e 1920s in a
sm all village in Bengal did not, Nargis concluded, change w orld percep
tions about India as a m odernizing n atio n in w hich th e beauty o f dams
and electric pow er grids should serve as its new face.
N ow here was th e co nfusion over w h a t In d ia should lo o k like
m ore p ro n o u n ced th a n in th e field o f m edia policy. M any film schol
ars have stu d ied th e h isto ry o f censorship o f com m ercial film s as an
aren a w here a colonial legacy o f re strictio n and a n indigenous attitu d e
o f P uritanism m e t and flourished. I w ill refer here only to a re cen t essay
by Robin Jeffrey en titled , “The M ahatm a D idn’t Like th e Movies and
W hy It M atters” (2009). In this essay Jeffrey docum ents th e attitu d e o f
th e Indian in telligentsia to w ard th e m o d ern m edia o f radio, television,
an d cinem a an d traces th e developm ent (or nondevelopm ent) o f broad
casting policy in India u n til th e 1990s. Routinely referred to as “vulgar,”
th e po p u lar film was n o t seen as representative o f th e aspirations o f a
developing society. Jeffrey w rites th a t “th e au sterity o f th e G andhian
eth o s, th e co n v eniently restrictiv e policies in h e rite d from th e im p e
rial rulers, an d a fear o f enflam ing a delicately plural society com bined
to deprive In d ian b ro ad castin g o f finance, energy, an d im ag in atio n ”
(Rajagopal 2009:173). A sim ilar instance was th e b an n in g o f H indi film
songs from th e state-run All India Radio by one o f its early m inisters o f
broadcasting, w h o felt th a t only classical m usic should be played on
th e radio. He reversed his decision w h e n th e public tu n e d in to Radio
408 social researchCeylon. In d ia’s first prim e m inister, Jaw aharlal N ehru, also registered
d istru st o f th e Bombay film, an d saw th e governm ent-sponsored docu
m en tary as necessary view ing fare for th e masses.
The long debate over th e m erits o f th e a rt cinem a as opposed to th e
popular cinem a in India reflects, I believe, th e underpinnings o f some o f
these earlier reservations. The a rt cinem a as authentic, regional, serious;
popular cinem a as fantasy, escapism , fluff—th e term s o f this debate are
ex h austed b u t rem a in strong. The p u rsu it or contem plation o f beauty
is considered frivolous, and indicative o f w h a t is w rong in th e society.
W h at Elaine Scarry has called “th e problem o f lateral disregard”—th a t
is, th e idea th a t som ething’s receiving atten tio n m eans th a t som ething
else is n o t receiving atten tio n (1999: 81)—applies to th e view th a t enjoy
m en t o f th e beautiful takes away from m ore u rg en t tasks. Beauty as an
attrib u te o f eith er a character or star is subsum ed by th e caste, class, or
religious m arkings th a t constitute bodies in society and on screen.
For instance, in his discussion of th e film Bombay, Ravi Vasudevan
reads a n erotic-pornographic dim ension to a love scene b etw een th e
central characters, a H indu m ale w ho has fallen in love w ith and m arried
a beautiful M uslim w om an. The story is set against th e backdrop o f the
H indu-M uslim riots o f 1992, m aking it th e prim ary object o f his analysis.
However, th e term s o f w h at is at stake seem to be set and an ideological
reading o f th e film is duly provided. Describing a song-dance num ber,
h e notes th a t “th e re is still a trace o f th e problem sexuality poses for
th e narrative in th e strangely ornate and sleazy environs o f the perfor
m ance; h ere couples are glim psed in in tim ate poses as they take pleasure
in th e dance. W hile th e sexuality o f the couple is secured in th e dom estic
interior, a peculiar u n dertow o f th e illicit and disreputable suffuses th e
scene” (Vasudevan 1994: 59). In an otherw ise perceptive essay, th e recu
p eratio n o f m eaning along th e axis o f m ajoritarian/m inoritarian seems
labored and does n o t explain th e com plex ways in w hich viewers m ake
sense o f th e narratives th a t address them .
THE PLEASURES OF BEAUTY
How m ig h t o ne fin d a lte rn a tiv e m odels o f th e b ea u tifu l in p o p u lar
cu lture analysis? More particularly, w h a t sense can w e m ake o f Indian
R eflections on th e B o d y B e a u tifu l in Indian Popular C u ltu re 409film ’s ow n efforts to ch an n el subjectivities th ro u g h a seem ingly endless
p reoccupation w ith th e “p ro b lem ” o f b eauty in society? Scariy w rites of
th e “radical d ec en terin g ” a n d adjacency th a t tak es place in th e p re s
ence o f beauty:
A b eau tifu l th in g is n o t th e only th in g th a t can m ake us feel
adjacent: n o r is it th e only th in g in th e w orld th a t brings a
state o f acute pleasure. But it appears to be one o f th e few
p h en o m en a in th e w orld th a t brings about b o th sim ultane
ously: it perm its us to be adjacent w hile also p erm ittin g us
to experience g reat p leasu re___This seem s a gift in its ow n
right, an d a gift as a prelude to o r precondition o f enjoying
fair relations w ith o th ers (1999:114).
I w ould add th a t, in th e p o p u lar H indi cinem a, it is th e b ea u ti
ful body itself th a t takes on th e task o f building adjacency by p u ttin g
b eau ty in p erp etu al crisis. R ather th a n invite envy an d rage, th e beau ti
ful p erson invites sym pathy a n d understanding. One can th in k o f count
less exam ples o f th e b ea u tifu l body in dan g er a n d vu ln erab le to th e
divisions in society th a t it th e n serves to heal an d repair. Many stories
place th e b ea u tifu l fem ale (but occasionally m ale) body as c e n tra l to
th e m oral and ethical challenges o f a social order in w hich w h a t can be
seen as a n a tu ra l en d o w m en t and hence a peculiar privilege is parsed
o u t in a m a n n e r th a t creates adjacency. The p roblem atization o f beauty
is a w ay o f allow ing schism s o f in eq u ity to rise to th e surface, so as
to resolve th e m th ro u g h c o m m u n ita ria n m eans. I w ill provide som e
exam ples o f film s in w h ich th e beau tifu l body is cen tral to epistem ic
an d h u m an connection.
In th e film Mamta (Maternal Love, 1966), a beautiful w om an from
a p o o r fam ily is forced into m arriage w ith a w ealthy b u t unscrupulous
m a n w ho w an ts to p ro fit o ff o f h e r body. She flees w ith h e r u n b o rn
baby and w h e n h e r husband tries to take away th e child, she gives th e
ch ild u p for ado ption. Years later, she m u rd ers h e r h u sb an d in self-
defense an d is defended in co u rt by h e r daughter, w ho is now a train e d
lawyer. A sp ittin g im age o f h e r m o th e r (the Bengali actor Suchitra Sen
410 social researchin a double role), th e young w o m an does n o t know th e id en tity o f th e
p erson she is defending. In a dram atic tu rn o f events, as h e r m o th er is
dying, she is b o th re u n ite d w ith th e m o th er an d able to em pathize w ith
h er m isfortunes (and by extension, w ith o th e r victim s o f circum stance).
Sujata (1959) is th e sto iy o f a n u n to u c h a b le child ad o p ted by
an u pper-caste fam ily w h e n h e r p aren ts are b o th k illed in a plague
epidem ic. The eponym ous S ujata grow s u p to be a b ea u tifu l girl an d
attracts th e a tte n tio n o f th e young m an m e a n t to co u rt th e d au g h ter
o f th e B rahm in family. Enraged by this u n expected developm ent, th e
m o th e r curses Sujata and th e n is badly h u rt in a n accident. She needs
blood an d only Sujata’s blood type m atches hers. W ith h e r life saved,
she is able to overcom e h e r caste prejudices an d reg ard h e r adopted
and h e r biological child as equally d ear to her. In Chaudavin ka Chand
(Full Moon, 1960), a M uslim social (a fam iliar subgenre in H indi films)
from th e 1960s, tw o m ale friends are in love w ith th e sam e girl w ith o u t
th e ir know ledge. She is as fa ir as th e full m o o n an d h e r b eau ty occa
sions th e songs an d poetry o f th e film. W hen th e friends find ou t th e ir
terrib le secret, one o f th e m sacrifices h im self ra th e r th a n com prom ise
th e ir friendship. The crisis in w hich th e beautiful person is en trapped
creates a sym bolic econom y o f caring th ro u g h a n aw areness o f th e
random ness o f b eauty itself as a gift o f nature.
A m ore co ntem porary exam ple is th e film Dil Se (From the Heart,
1998) in w h ich th e n arrativ e seeks to close th e gap b etw e en b eau ty
and social disaffection by show ing how th e m ale protagonist sacrifices
his life in o rd er to “save” th e beautiful h ero in e from h e r self-im posed
m arginalization. A terro rist w ho w ants to bom b g ov ern m en t buildings
an d officials, killing thousands m ore in th e process, this figure o f social
reb ellio n is enfolded back in to th e n atio n al fam ily th ro u g h care an d
love. W hile b o th characters die in th e end, th e w o m an ’s alterity does
n o t signify h er ostracization, b u t rather, th ro u g h th e love o f th e hero,
opens up a form o f know ledge of, an d em p ath y for, th e other. Veer-Zaara
(Veer and Zaara, 2004) bridges th e divide b etw e en India an d P akistan
th ro u g h th e bodies o f its b eau tifu l stars, Shah Rukh Khan, Preeti Zinta,
an d Raani M ukherjee. The story is, like th a t o f countless o th e r H indi
film s, o f love th a t survives space an d tim e, brings to g eth er persons or
R eflections on th e B o d y B e autiful in Indian Popular C u ltu re 411com m unities, a n d creates avenues for u n d ersta n d in g an d com passion.
A H indu air force pilot rescues and falls in love w ith a lovely Pakistani
girl in a b o rd er tow n, b u t th e y are cruelly separated by circum stances
an d m u tu a l en m ity o f th e tw o nation-states. Im prisoned for 22 years
in a Pakistani prison, th e h ero does n o t forget his love, an d th e story is
to ld to his p riso n law yer in flashbacks. She fights for h im in court and
h e is finally let go and is re u n ite d w ith his long-lost beloved.
The re c e n t film Kurbaan (Sacrifice, 2009) carries th e th e m e o f
b eau ty a n d love as sim u ltan e o u sly e n tra p m e n t a n d lib e ra tio n from
India to th e U nited States via th e po p u lar topic o f terrorism . Two beau
tifu l young people m eet a n d fall in love, th e w om an a H indu an d the
m an a M uslim. They m arry a n d com e to th e U nited States, w here she
has a teach in g position, b u t she soon finds o u t th a t h e r h u sb an d is a
vio len t te rro ris t w ho has p lan n ed th e w hole ruse so as to g ain en try
in to th e co u n try an d avenge th e A m erican “w ar against Islam .” One
o f th e enigm as th a t th e narrative presents is th e id en tity (ethnic, reli
gious, an d ideological) o f th e couple’s expected baby, an d th e claim s
th a t can be m ade on its behalf. The story ends n o t only in a prolonged
sh o o to u t w ith A m erican law enforcem ent forces in w hich th e terro rist
m asterm in d dies, b u t w ith th e h e ro ’s love for his w ife triu m p h a n t over
his earlier h atre d for non-M uslim s, h e r beauty o f face an d m ind helping
h im to reco n n ect w ith others.
The film Slumdog Millionaire (2008) uses th e b ea u ty o f cinem atic
style to tran sfo rm a story o f a slum dw eller to th a t o f a story o f m illions
(dem ographically and m onetarily). An in te rn a tio n a l success, th e film
brings to g eth er all th ree o f Scarry’s attrib u tes o f b eauty in th a t it is life-
giving: it taps in to th e hopefulness in us all; is unprecedented: Jam al is
single-m inded in his devotion to his childhood love, w hich th e n gives
h im th e s tre n g th to fig h t im possible odds; an d it enables ju stic e and
equality: by em p ath izin g w ith Jam al, audiences th e w orld over identify
w ith his lowly origins an d share his quiz show success and celebrity.
Across film genres a n d tim e periods, b eauty in po p u lar cinem a
persists because it connects us, th ro u g h languages a n d narrativ es o f
rep resen tatio n , to one a n o th e r w ith o u t reducing us to one another. If
th e physical beau ty o f screen actors an d th e ir characters is far rem oved
412 social researchfro m th e m u n d an ely endow ed bodies o f th e average viewer, it is th e
la tte r w ho give th e form er th e ir place in th e sun. In a country in w hich
language, caste, creed, and social class d eterm in e (and reveal) identity,
b ea u ty o f face a n d form can place one “above” th e p e tty politics o f
belonging. No w o n d e r th a t p o p u la r cu ltu re obsessively revisits—and
disavows—identity.
A strik in g exam ple o f th e use o f th e structures o f visual appeal
to co n stru c t a h isto rical n a rra tiv e o f b e a u ty in th e public re alm is
th e Bollywood film , Devdas, m ade by Raj K um ar B hansali in 2003. A
lu x u rio u s re m a k e o f one o f th e m o st p o p u la r narrativ es in m o d ern
In d ian consciousness, th e film is, like th e instances m en tio n ed above,
cen tered on th e love o f b eauty an d th e beau ty o f love. R eputed to have
b een adapted to th e screen eig h t tim es, in Bengali, Hindi, and Telegu
versions, Devdas w as w ritte n by th e in flu en tial Bengali novelist Sarat
C h andra C hatterjee in 1901 an d th e ch a rac te r has for over a cen tu ry
served as a n icon o f th e doom ed lover. Three extrem ely popular Hindi
film versions w ere m ade w ith th e leading stars o f th e day: in 1935 w ith
th e p o p u lar sin g er-acto r K.L. Saigal in th e title role; in 1955 w ith Dilip
K um ar and Suchitra Sen; a n d in 2003, w ith Shah Rulch Khan, M adhuri
Dilcshit, an d A ishw arya Rai. Any an n o u n c em en ts o f a new version o f
Devdas is n o t only g reeted w ith enorm ous pleasure an d anticipation by
th e view ing public in India, b u t can be read as a self-im posed econom ic
an d a e sth e tic ch allen g e o n th e p a rt o f th e director, w ho is clearly
seeking to outdo th e previous versions. A lthough th e 1950s version is
considered a classic, B hansali chose tw o o f th e m ost beautiful stars o f
con tem p o rary Bollywood cinem a to play th e lead fem ale roles o f Paro,
th e childhood sw eetheart o f th e h ero Devdas, w hom h e failed to m arry,
an d C handram ukhi, th e p ro stitu te w ith th e h e a rt o f gold w ho tries to
h eal Devdas’s to rtu re d h e a rt th ro u g h h e r faithfulness an d love. Devdas
h im self w as played by Bollywood m egastar Shah R ukh Khan, th e n at
th e p eak o f his popularity.
W h a t in te re sts m e h ere, how ever, is th e w ay in w h ich b eau ty
itself becom es th e visual an d auditory m eans w hereby connections are
b u ilt betw een bodies, m em ories, an d identities at a crucial m o m en t o f
In d ia’s an d Bollywood’s history. Two things are clearly at stake: to herald
R eflections on th e B o d y B eautiful in Indian Popular C ulture 413Devdas as a n ew (m ore contem porary, m ore lavish) version o f a fam iliar
story; and to an ch o r this co n tem p o rary sensibility in cultural tradition.
The op en in g sequence is a stu n n in g re n d itio n o f th ese purposes. The
credits roll over im ages o f classical beauties from Indian cave paintings,
an d end w ith a dedication to fam ed Bombay d irector Bimal Roy.
Devdas is re tu rn in g h om e after a long stay in London (in short,
a co n tem p o rary Devdas) a n d Paro is gliding th ro u g h m arble corridors
in joyful an ticip ation. W h e n th e faces o f Devdas a n d Paro are finally
revealed, th e y have, th ro u g h th e sh eer force o f th e ir beauty and glam
our, slid co m fo rtably in to place in th e v iew er’s collective m em ory.
In a d ep a rtu re from th e original story, Paro, m arrie d in to an upper-
caste feudal family, goes to seek o u t th e lowly prostitute-turned-savior
C h an d ram u k h i, an d th e tw o p erfo rm a dance to g e th e r to celebrate
th e festival o f th e goddess Durga. T hrough such em bellishm ents to a
beloved cu ltu ral text, th e film builds u p th e ap prehension o f b eauty as
a necessary p a rt o f bein g a n d belonging. Paradoxically, th e beautiful
faces and bodies o f popular texts becom e m eaningful precisely because
th e y show u p th e gaps b etw e en w h a t is an d w h a t m ig h t be. As A m it
Rai notes, “This p o p u lar m ed ia p resen ts us w ith a w ay o f accessing a
level o f reality th a t is virtual an d m aterial, and always in th e process of
m ultip le becom ings” (Rai 2009: 62).
Scarry’s ideas about b eau ty as a form o f caring, as a w ay to en ter
th e o th e r’s d o m ain, a n d as a m ech a n ism w h e reb y th e in eq u ities o f
social b ein g a n d th e ran d o m n ess o f th e qualities w e in h e rit a t b irth
are addressed th ro u g h th e m e ta p h o r o f b eau ty in p eril m ay explain
th e century-old p re o ccu p a tio n w ith b ea u tifu l beings in Indian popu
lar cinem a, an d m ore pertinently, th e com fortable stance th a t viewers
have tow ards th ese m ore “fo rtu n a te ” beings. In his attem p ts to define
an ethics o f p o p u lar culture, Slavoj Zizek w rites th a t
w h a t confers on th e o th e r th e dignity o f a “p erso n ” is n o t
any universal-sym bolic feature b u t precisely w h a t is “abso
lutely p artic u la r” ab o u t him , his fantasy, th a t p a rt o f h im
th a t w e can be sure w e can never share. To use K ant’s term s:
we do n o t resp ect th e o th e r o n account o f th e universal
414 social researchm oral law in h ab itin g every one o f us, b u t o n account o f his
u tm o st “pathological” kernel, on account o f th e absolutely
p artic u la r w ay every o n e o f us “dream s his w orld,” orga
nizes his en joym ent (Zizek 1991:156).
This sense of, an d accom m odation w ith, radical alterity is, I have
suggested, th e basis for our atta c h m e n t to im ages o f excessive beauty
(the u ltim ate recognition o f alterity) on screen, im ages w hose appeal is
n o t due to id en tity b u t spatial an d tem p o ral distance/difference.
In th is essay I have trie d to explore b ea u ty ideals in th e age o f
m ass m edia. I argue th a t com m on understandings an d critiques o f such
ideals rest on th eories o f m edia m an ip u latio n an d rep resen tatio n , and
th u s on punitive or d eterm inistic attitudes to th e body. A m ore fruitful
line o f inquiry w ould be to see o u r relationship to m edia im ages o f th e
b eau tifu l face a n d body as o n e o f going beyond th e self, op en in g u p
avenues o f co n n ection w ith th e other. The beautiful, I suggest, is th e
u ltim ate zone for in h a b itin g o therness an d h erein lies its appeal and
political efficacy.
REFERENCES
Barthes, Roland. Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. New York: Hill
and W ang, 1981.
---------. Mythologies. New York: Hill and W ang, 1980 [1957].
---------. The Grain of the Voice. Trans. Linda Coverdale. New York: Hill and
W ang, 1985.
Bolter, Jay David, a n d R ichard Grusin. Remediation: Understanding New
Media. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000.
B u rn e tt, Ron. Cultures of Vision: Images, M edia and the Imaginary.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995.
Chavez, Leo. Covering Immigration: Popular Images and the Politics of the Nation.
Berkeley: University o f California Press, 2001.
D urham , M eenakshi Gigi. “Sex in th e Transnational City: Discourses of
G ender, Body an d N ation in th e ‘New Bollywood.’” Cinema, Law
and the State in Asia. Eds. Corey C reekm ur and M ark Sidel. Palgrave
Macmillan, 2007:45-62.
R eflections on th e B o d y B eautiful in Indian Popular C ulture 415Jeffrey, Robin. “The M ahatm a D idn’t Like th e Movies and W hy It Matters:
Indian Broadcasting Policy, 1920s-1990s.” The Indian Public Sphere:
Readings in Media History. Ed. Arvind Rajagopal. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 2009.
Manlcelcar, Pum im a. “Dangerous Desires: Television and Erotics in Late
T w entieth-C entury India.” The Journal of Asian Studies 63:2 (May
2004): 403-431.
Param esw aran, Radhilca, and Kavitha Cardoza. “M elanin on th e Margins:
A dvertising and th e C ultural Politics o f Fair/Light/W hite Beauty
in India.” Journalism and Communication Monographs 11:3 (Autum n
2009): 213-275.
Peters, John Durham . “Beauty’s Veils.” The Image in Dispute: Art and Cinema
in the Age of Photography. Ed. Dudley Andrew. Austin: University of
Texas Press, 1997: 9-32.
Rai, Amit. Untimely Bollywood: Globalization and India’s New Media Assemblage.
Durham : Duke University Press, 2009.
Scariy, Elaine. On Beauty and Being Just. Princeton: P rinceton University
Press, 1999.
Sontag, Susan. Regarding the Pain of Others. New York: Farrar, Strauss and
Giroux, 2003.
Taussig, Michael. Mimesis and Alterity: A Particular History of the Senses. New
York: Routledge, 1993.
Vasudevan, Ravi. “Bombay a n d its Publics.” Journal of Arts and Ideas 29
(January 1996): 45-63.
Zizek, Slavoj. Looking Awry: An Introduction to Jacques Lacan through Popular
Culture. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991.
416 social researchYou can also read
