The ghettoization of literature

http://www.hindu.com/lr/2011/05/01/stories/2011050150120400.htm

VIEWPOINT

The ghettoization of literature

Good literature is not always published or translated, says Mariam Karim-Ahlawat, busting some age-old myths.

Photo: K. Murali Kumar 

It works: Change can come by when literature is looked upon as art.

The hierarchy of languages and cultures plays an important role in the choice of books which are written and published. The dominant languages and cultures wish to perpetuate certain images of their own as well as those of other cultures. This affects the kind of work that is published and translated into dominant languages. Depending on the choice of publishers and cultivated choices of readers in dominant languages books are published and sold as commercial ventures. The myth about universal human values and literature being an immanent entity is only a myth. Not denying that good literature is appreciated universally by certain discursive communities (not everyone reads James Joyce or Quratul-ain Haidar), it does not mean that good literature is always published or translated. Every publisher looks towards the largest market: but the exigencies of that market pertain not to universality but to projecting images and values that are pertinent to their own cultures.

The best ignored

Publishers of second language texts may understand their difficult position vis-à-vis the market but even mammoth European publishers like Gallimard or Flammarion are found complaining that the American market has only three percent translations from other languages and ignores some of their best writers.

These hierarchies, actually ruled by commercial concerns, create new aesthetics and values not only in literature but other art forms such as cinema and music. In order to find a larger public, art must cede to the likes and dislikes of the dominant languages and cultures, and therefore adopt or adapt their material to suit their requirements. Then these values and aesthetics come to be accepted as “good” even in the minor or dominated linguistic or cultural groups and in this way permeate entire cultures, creating new discursive communities. These discursive communities in their turn tend to coerce literature and cinema into ghettos. This complex dynamics steered by commercial pressures is never overt but always covered in a veil that appeals to the already existing values within societies and hides its original purpose. In fact, simply put, it is not very different from the manner and intent of international beauty pageants, if far more imbricate.

The unconscious ghettoization in representing cultures through literature or cinema becomes all the more dangerous because writers, directors, authors, publishers, editors, producers and reviewers all become entangled in the web. Cinema divided itself at a point between parallel and mainstream.

Portrayal of women

Literature in English as a second language and translation of texts into English so far has been unable to differentiate art from commerce. Therefore more ghettoization is taking place in literature. For example the representation of women in literature — under the guise of a false feminism and “women's literature” — there are tales of oppression and suffering. This is the image of women which is actually the one palatable to the prevailing system. Still women as objects of oppression are more acceptable than subject in their own lives, with new philosophies or points of view or ways of looking at life and the universe. Women's publishing houses too, unfortunately, often choose texts objectifying women and glorifying their suffering. Sociological motives often become self-defeating.

Immigrant literature is also acceptable in America and West, as the main reference point is the west.

Diaspora has to be unidirectional: towards the west. On the other hand, travel literature is unidirectional in the converse sense, where the West discovers the exotic delights of the East. The former is struggle while the latter delight.

Literature in English by South Asian Muslim male writers often talks about terrorism, of despotic regimes, broken down societies — because other subjects may not be interesting enough for the West.

Chinese or Russian dissident writers are welcome too, particularly if they denounce communism.

Muslim women writers are doubly ghettoized. They must talk about the oppression of women in Islam; deplore a culture, in order to be acknowledged.

The dynamics of domination needs a counter-current. And this can only come about once all stake holders recognise the mechanics of this process, and look responsibly at literature and cinema as art and as effectors of social change, and not use them only for commercial mobility. The producers of literature should have the opportunity to be perceiving subjects in their work and the freedom of thought to express fresh opinions and world views and choose from a variety of subjects. Thus new discursive communities will be created, and challenge, if feebly to begin with, the above mentioned dynamics.

Mariam Karim-Ahlawat is author and playwright based in Delhi.