Indo-Chic and the Dogmas of the West

The Orientalism has its basis in the mystique—and while fantastical tales have been spun from this concept, it is essentially a harmful one.  The unknown is something that is often feared, or at least, considered primitive.  While Arabs and Islam are anything but, the West has emphasized on this idea to promote their superiority and a sense of “us versus them” to further lessen cultures other than their own.  This introduction by Edward Said serves as a perfect foreword to Professor Maira’s article, “Indo-Chic: Late Capitalist Orientalism and Imperial Culture”, where the implications of Western consumption of Indian cultural “markers” such as bindis, henna, and clothing are put into question.  By transforming these cultural aspects into something that is easy for the American masses to consume, marketing corporations, along with their following, are boiling down the intricacies of the culture they are trying to participate in.  Thus, these legacies of South Asian cultures often end up highly romanticized and appreciated superficially—something which crosses the lines of cultural objects to the people of that culture itself.  Furthermore, since we are focusing on America in particular, we also gain some insight into the plight of second generation South Asian Americans whose only taste of their culture might largely be based on what American corporations sell to them, hence perpetuating a warped idea of their family’s cultural history.  Here, it is difficult to use the word “authentic”, since as we’ve established earlier on that globalization upends the idea of a pure and legitimate culture.  Yet without being able to truly call something authentic, how do we distinguish between cultural appropriation and appreciation?  If calling a practice out on its legitimacy isn’t a strong argument, then perhaps the motives behind doing so are.