APPROPRIATION OF THEYYAM
Mannarakkal Dasan
Cultural appropriation is the adoption of some specific elements of one culture by a different cultural group. It denotes acculturation or assimilation, which has hitherto been treated in a positive sense. But from the perspective of the oppressed or minority culture, this process is often viewed with suspicion as it has negative impacts on their culture. Cultural appropriation subsumes a vast range of cultural practices including art, music, religion, ritual, language and social behaviour. The symbolic elements of a life-world are often removed from their contexts, stripped off their meaning, and distorted so much so that it provides divergent, if not opposite, symbolic experiences. “Cultural appropriation is the theft of icons, rituals, aesthetic standards and behaviours from one culture or subculture by another, generally by a “modern” culture from a ‘primitive’ culture. This theft often occurs without any real understanding of why the original culture took part in these activities, converting religion and spirituality into “meaningless pop-culture.” (http://wiki.bmezine.com/index.php/Cultural Appropriation)
This understanding of appropriation, as enumerated above, though relevant for western forms of appropriation, is inadequate to address the unique nature of the kind of silencing, appropriation and erasure of various alternative cultures and thought systems existing in pre-colonial India. The uniqueness of brahminic appropriation of alternative cultural discourses lies in the fact that, unlike the modes of appropriation in the West, it never catered to the demands of a market that was expanding. Rather, it operated in an inclusive space with the objective of homogenising the divergent cultural practices and making them rigid, static and insular.
In pre-colonial India, the process was so complex and subtle that it precluded the possibility of tracing the multifarious and vibrant cultures co-existing along with the dominant Hindu/Brahminic culture. The only locus where we could trace the vibrancy of alternative thoughts is in the arguments that the brahminic texts have built up against alternative thoughts. This speaks volumes about the history of erasure, where the nature and modes of appropriation were so violent that it rendered impossible the resurgence of other cultures. This is where the pre-colonial form of brahminic appropriation significantly differs from its modern form.
But the contemporary appropriation of the existing alternative cultural systems is not effected through the naked exercise of physical power and forced erasure. It is actually mediated through two networks of power relations: The nation and transnational capital. Nowadays, most of the other cultural experiences are displayed for the tourist gaze as unique Indian/Keralan experience. A closer look at the anti-colonial struggle and the contemporary notion of Indian nation would reveal that the Nation has historically been defined as a Hindu/brahminic nation. It is inevitable that the other cultural experiences, when they are produced for the tourist gaze, must be subsumed under the nationalist imagination. This provides the backdrop for the ensuing discussion of the appropriation of Dalit rituals like theyyam by various agencies: the government institutions, the tourism, fashion and advertising industries, media, academia, intellectuals etc.
The strategy used to create a transnational market for Indian culture is interesting. First, the dominant discourse constructs a Hindu mythological world, which is purely philosophical, existential, and universal. This newly created Hindu cosmogony for the international market is conspicuously devoid of the traces of the epistemological and often physical violence it imposed on other cultures. This seamless narrative conceals the questions of caste inequality, gender injustice, and unchallenged authority over resources, and camouflages the inherent contradictions and ambivalences inherent within the dominant discourse. What we ultimately get is an apparently innocuous and problem-free spirituality, which is projected as a panacea for all the ills and anxieties generated by the capitalist and materialist western world. Second, they start selling/marketing the dominant cultural icons like Kathakali, Mohiniyattom, Bharathanatyam, Kasavu Saris etc., which go in tune with the spiritual and cultural world produced, as the authentic expressions of Kerala. But as the gaze of the western bourgeoisie is always on the lookout for newness and fashion, it is inevitable that these icons will reach a point of saturation. It is at this point that the explorations of new icons become inevitable. Suddenly, theyyam and other ‘folk’ forms become authentic expressions. But this newly constructed authenticity under national imagination camouflages the brute reality of the confrontation between the folk tradition and the monolithic Hindu tradition. What follows are the various strategies adopted by cultural agencies to incorporate the sub cultural expressions into the Hindu fold.
Theyyams got exposed to the national audience when their performers were invited to stage theyyam in the national capital on ceremonious and officially celebrated days like Independence and Republic days. Theyyam performances were arranged as part of the auspicious beginnings of international and mega events like Asiad and cultural fests organised at the national headquarters. What happens in these decontextualised performances is the performer’s loss of autonomy over the own cultural expressions. The allocation of space, time, sequence, duration, everything is controlled from without. As a consequence, a culture specific ritual gets reduced to a mere object, the spectacular display of which is solely aimed at satisfying the voyeuristic eyes of the national elite.
The main contention that one could raise against governmental institutions like KIRTADS and Folklore Academy is the problematic role played by them in the formation of the subjectivities of the folk performers including theyyam practitioners. These institutions endorse the assumption of the dominant discourse of the inferiority of the tribal/dalit people and point out to others the state-subsidized status of their body and psyche. This creates a situation for the internalisation of an institutionally imposed inferiority complex by the tribal/dalit people and mellows down the radical potential inherent in their imaginative faculties. In essence, what these institutions are ultimately doing is to divest the subversive potential of this folk performance into a form acceptable to the ruling class and ideology.
In contrast to the officially mediated theyyams performed at such formal venues, theyyams are also produced at the popular level. The agencies engaged in this act of projecting theyyam onto popular imagination are political parties, youth and student unions, service organisations, trade unions and cultural organisations. Theyyam icons are often paraded indiscriminately on the banners, advertisement bills and boards, brochures and posters used by them. Theyyam live and stuffed are used in video music albums and films to enhance the visual appeal. Five star hotels have printed photographs of theyyam even on their menu cards. The menu card of Kairali tourist hotel in Kannur is one such example. Many websites of advertising and tourist agencies contain theyyam figures to attract the attention of the viewers. Some of the hotels in Kannur have constructed miniature Kavus within their compounds and arrange cameo theyyam performances for the gaze of foreign tourists. The processions, rallies of political parties, trade unions, service organisations and cultural and fine arts clubs often parade theyyams just to add colour to their events. TV channels have also been designing their stage for mega programmes modelled on the spectacular headdress of theyyams. The popular reality shows of Asianet Channel use the replica of the headdress of Kuttichathan and Muchilottu Bhagavathi theyyams at the background of their stage. Exorcising rituals like gaddhika by the Paniya tribe is performed in public and private spaces. Academic programmes like national and international seminars also arrange theyyam performances along with their cultural programmes. The theyyam performance organised as part of the international seminar conducted by the Department of Management Studies and the Mari Theyyam arranged by the Department of Anthropology of Kannur University in 2008 and 2009 respectively are instances.
What necessitates such projections varies from one organiser to another. The need of these agencies to champion the cause of the oppressed castes so as to prevent them from consolidating their position along caste lines could be one. Within the context of the emerging Dalit consolidation in the country, this observation becomes germane because in Kerala the game of caste politics has been played by tall political parties. Whereas the Left tries to incorporate the caste fury demonstrated in the theyyam into class fury and thus manages to evade the reality of caste, which is unique to the Indian situation, the Hindutva forces project themselves as champions. The right wing political forces also form their own Dalit wing to uplift the Dalit Congress men and women. The ideological stance adopted by the left and right political forces and the Hindutva forces towards the indigenous spiritual expressions have been characterised by hypocrisy in that they continue to practice casteism in the private sphere and denounce it in the public sphere.
When transnational capital ruthlessly penetrated the socio-political economy of India and Kerala, we witnessed the production of another theyyam, which carried the ideological substance of the official theyyam produced by governmental agencies. Whereas the motive behind the construction of the official theyyam was to overcome the inferiority complex of the national bourgeoisie, this theyyam went beyond national and political boundaries. The emerging tourism industry constituting national and transnational capital— hospitality industry, visual and print media, advertising and fashion industry, multinational corporations and various agencies of a government that is fast withdrawing from welfare policies, have placed theyyam on the conveyor belt of the cultural arcade for the consumption of the universal citizen.
Theyyam is packaged, customised and fetishized into a cafeteria format so as to cater to the demands of the customer. Miniature versions of theyyam are produced on demand. The structural effect of this process is that theyyam loses its ritualistic anchorage and is made into an exotic spectacle which could be performed by anyone at anytime and anywhere. And the confrontation between the performer and the market forces raises the question concerning authenticity. One should not miss the irony involved in the process. A system which thrives on the logic of intellectual and cultural property rights is at the same time ruthless in appropriating and marketing the indigenous cultural expressions least bothering about the very same rights. Unlike Australian aboriginals or First Nation Canadians, who could defend their cultural property rights in an international court, the indigenous communities in India in general and the theyyam performers in Kerala in particular have not yet been able to protect their cultural property rights ensured in the UN Conventions of Tangible and Intangible Cultural Property Rights. How do we explain this? Is it because of the world view of a community which refuses to trade its spirituality for money, or is it because of plain ignorance or disunity, as it is commonly and conveniently assumed? My interviews with members and groups of the performing communities’ reveal that this assumption is not true. They told me of the formation of an association named MATA (Malabar Association for Theyyam Artists) to protect the rights of theyyam performers and prevent them from exploitation in 2005 and how it soon disintegrated.
Intellectual agencies—scholars, academics, NGOs, who have studied and conducted research on Theyyam have emerged as intermediaries and spokespersons and cultural brokers. It is they who negotiate between the performers and the international agencies. They have taken various performing troupes to countries like Germany, France, Korea, Japan etc. over the last few years. On no occasion the troupe included an educated person from the performing community who could act as a better intermediary between the performers and the agencies. The result is that quite often the performers who are little exposed to such social and cultural milieu are exploited. In my tete-á-tete with those performers, who had gone to foreign countries and performed there, they told me of instances of betrayal, insult and exploitation. One case reports that the wife of the leader of the team was included in the troupe as an expert in preparing special food for the performers. In some cases, the leader of the troupe has not given the full remuneration promised to them. I was told that this same person forced them to carry a camera he bought along with the other paraphernalia without paying customs duty. These elite/upper caste cultural agents thrive on the expertise of the theyyam performers and project themselves as patrons and protectors. Since they are part of the cultural apparatus and often office bearers of formal and informal cultural associations and organisations it is they who recommend the artists for awards and pensions. Their position, power and caste status enable them to perpetuate this hegemony and control.
This is the context which prompts me to think about the authenticity of theyyam constructed by the academic ‘field.’ The trouble with such a construction is that they define authenticity from without. And its construction is well sold because it is produced in a field, which demands from its agents both cultural and symbolic capitals quite different from that of the performing community. Since the academics/intellectuals working in the area operate in a ‘habitus,’ which is institutionally mediated patterns of thought, behaviour and taste; they produce knowledge about theyyam to an audience, who are also part of the same habitus. The performing community does not have access to this field and habitus, as it does not possess the required cultural and symbolic capital. Hence the knowledge produced by the elite academics gets legitimised as the knowledge on theyyam, and their versions get accepted as the authentic ones. Their claim to knowledge acts as a vehicle of power and they pronounce the final word.
[Chapter excerpted from the author’s book: Theyyam: Patronage, Appropriation and Interpolation. Published by Kannur University, 2012]