If the video is accused of being shallow, are the criticisms of it particularly profound?
Several of the criticisms levelled against the Vogue Empower campaign
featuring Deepika Padukone are oblivious to the extent of hypocrisy
inherent in them. In the digital space, where outrage and sensationalism
draw in an unprecedented surge of readership and views, this hardly
comes as a surprise. Many of the headlines, to begin with, targeted the
popular female actor, reducing collective responsibility to an
individual.
‘Deepika Padukone’s got it wrong’, a Scroll.in headline said. ‘Deepika
Padukone’s powerful video: we beg to differ,’ was a popular daily’s
slightly better, but hardly more reassuring a choice of title. And what
is a rejoinder without an open letter? ‘Dear Deepika, Vogue’... one
went. Perhaps Padukone’s name will bring in clicks? If the video lacked
substance, and fixated on the repeated use of the word ‘choice,’ how are
these criticisms a foil?
A consistent feminist argument was that the video focused on privileged
women. That it was elitist. What they failed to see, however, is if the
choices that even privileged women make are easy; if they are devoid of
taboo or judgment. And the core message hardly loses relevance: respect.
Everybody has their own version of freedom and feminism, and it needs to
be said, in different ways, many times, perhaps in cliches, and in
unique ways. Feminism isn’t a one-size-fit-all.
The message that many came away with instead was: articulating the
choice to have sex outside marriage is a promotion of adultery.
Criticism has poured in for the shampoo ad-like hi-def video quality;
the clichéd use of the female form and for semantics. Saying that one
needs to have the freedom to choose to love a man or woman is offensive
because one doesn’t have a choice in sexual identity. It is natural.
If the video is accused of being shallow, is this criticism particularly profound?
Feminism isn’t about establishing a hierarchy of gender-related
problems. It is the continuous experience of a lack, and the lack has an
infinite range to it; from the purely economic to the damagingly
psychological.
What it means to be empowered is hardly static; it shifts, changes, is
variable with circumstance. How can a single video, and an ad/marketing
campaign at that, possibly encompass the many meanings of empowerment?
Why is there this expectation, that every popular/mainstream initiative
that attempts anything around gender be a comprehensive, near-academic
treatise? While doing a sociological analysis of this ad campaign, one
article said that the campaign doesn’t question the “structures that
allow men to dominate our society. Emphasis on choice does nothing to
dislodge male privilege.”
If this is the language of “educated criticism,” why is there an issue
with the fact that videos like these are winning more brownie points
than they apparently deserve. It is unfair to expect that a politics,
expressed in a language suited to some, will resonate with everyone. And
when a form of expression - as this video - however poor according to
some, does resonate, there needs to be acknowledgement and contemplation
as to why it found the acceptance it did.
Finally, it can’t be denied that labels such as Vogue, and industries
like Bollywood have a dark history of objectifying women and being the
contexts for harmful insecurities. But, if this video is an indication
of how brands and industries have to evolve in order to sync with
popular sentiment in the country, let this be seen as an attempt. It is a
small break with their guilty histories.
Source The Hindu
No comments:
Post a Comment