Of routine stereotypes and arbitray simplifications

The US is a vast and self contained country. As a result, probably Americans don't need to look outside for most things such as education, career, opportunities, a good life and pop culture. A common American's day to day life need not involve gaining any amount of understanding of the rest of the world. (While this is true for any person anywhere, it is more so in the US.) When a situation arises wherein (s)he needs to understand or evaluate its significance, arguably, (s)he needs to look at the situation with an Americanised (or at most, a westernised) worldview. Drawing analogies and equivalences help.

So, while it is alright that American analysts and media talks about 'India's 9/11' or 'India's Enron', it's amusing to me when Indians or even NRIs for that matter need such analogies. If an European wants to evaluate and come to terms with the Himalayas as the 'Alps of the East', that's fine. But if I am told how the Kodagu district of Karnataka (or Coorg) is the 'Scotland of India', what meaningful information can I gain in addition to what I already might or might not know? And, yes, I have been told this (by an NRI)! I can definitely locate Scotland on the map; but I've lived in Kodagu for about 4 years. When I think about the Satyam fraud, I feel cheated, but I can hardly relate to Enron. Similarly, if I get told that Amitabh Bachan is the Tom Cruise (or whoever else) of India, the only thing I might learn is that Tom Cruise is a super star. I had read somewhere that Barkha Dutt is India's Christiane Amanpour or Geraldo Rivera. Who are they? And what am I? India's what?

The other thing about the US, the melting pot that it is, is that most of the things here have been simplified and/or standardised: routine social/economic interactions; customs; processes; games and sports, etc.. At least, I find them to be so. I can't even begin to compare baseball and cricket for example. Or the social rituals such as marriages. Probably Americans have simple notions about most things, because they don't need to deal with complexity on a routine basis. It might very well be the case that, analogies, stereotypes and reductions work for them. I see words like typical 'southerner', 'New Yorker', 'midwestern' and so many other phrases being used regularly. Although I can't convince myself that any entity can be that monolithic, I don't know much about America, so I can't judge one way or the other.

But I have no doubts stereotypes and arbitrary simplifications don't work in India. Complexity is the name of the game over here. For good or for bad, we deal it with complexity in our homes, workplaces, traffic, social interactions, what have you. We are adept at dealing with complexity. Why then do we still resort to arbitrary simplifications is something I don't understand. There is nothing typical about South India or North India or particular cities and towns. Recently I was in a salon where the hairdresser asked me if I was from the upper part or the lower part of India, and added, "Because I know that the people from the upper part have lighter skin." Again, if an American needs these simplified distinctions, that's fine. But we see the same simplification being used in India all the time!

Appearances may be deceptive but are still simple things. What about entities such as culture? People talk enthusiastically about 'Indian culture', 'Western culture'. Perhaps 'Kannada culture'. Even 'pub culture'. Where do I find the descriptions? Why do we talk about them as though they are monolithic entities? Or people arguing vehemently if a particular movie depicts the 'Real India' or not. Where is the real India? Is there a way of knowing if I belong to that? There are these and so many phrases in the recent times (even 'Indian Obama') that I don't understand -- that's why this post -- but they just continue to be used on and on. Not just by ill-informed people or upholders of culture, but on TV, in blogs and elsewhere.