discussion week 11

The_Colorblind_Screen_Television_in_Post-Racial_Am..._----_11._Matchmakers_and_Cultural_Compatibility_Arranged_Marriage_South_Asi....pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Sociology homework help >discussion week 11

>> 261

Matchmakers and Cultural Compatibility

Arranged Marriage, South Asians, and Racial Narratives on American Television

Shilpa Davé

South Asian Americans and the racial space they occupy in the United States in popular culture have often vacillated between the material defi- nition of where South Asians fit in the racial and ethnic hierarchy in the United States and the highly commercialized “model minority” immi- grant. South Asians are racial anomalies in the black-white racial para- digms of the United States. Unlike other ethnic and racial minority groups, South Asian Americans do not have a history inflected with war or colonialism in relation to the United States but instead are linked to the United States economically and politically by the ties of capitalism and a British-based democracy; India, for example, is represented as an Asian country with Western (if not American) values. Early Hollywood portray- als emphasized Indians in the context of British history rather than part of U.S. history. Many Hollywood images of South Asians were confined to British tales of adventure or spiritual discovery set in colonial India from films such as Gunga Din (1939) to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) or resistance to British rule such as the film Gandhi (1982). After the 1965 U.S. Immigration Act, the dominant representations of South Asians in film and television were Indians and featured stories of Indian immigration and assimilation in the United States, including religious practices adopted by American youth in the counterculture movement of the 1960s and 1970s. By the 1980s, the representations of Indians were similar to general depictions of Asian Americans as new immigrants with

Turner, Sarah E.. The Colorblind Screen : Television in Post-Racial America, edited by Sarah Nilsen, New York University Press, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csueastbay/detail.action?docID=1635557. Created from csueastbay on 2022-10-30 04:30:21.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

262 << Shilpa Davé

foreign accents or model minority sidekicks. White or non-Indian actors played most of the Indian roles. One of the most famous Indian American figures on U.S. television is the animated character Apu Nahaseemapeti- lon (voiced by white actor Hank Azaria), the proprietor of the Springfield Kwik-E-Mart on the longest-running television show The Simpsons (1989– ). Network television shows such as The Simpsons and Seinfeld (1989–98) to The Big Bang Theory (2007–), as well as the USA Network comedy Royal Pains (2009–), have storylines that feature Indian and Indian American characters and Indian (primarily Hindu) arranged marriages.1 In U.S. history, South Asians have been racially categorized as Cauca- sian, nonwhite, other, and finally as an Asian American minority group. These multiple designations have led to a racial identity that is not easily explained or understood by dominant culture, by American racial and ethnic minorities, or even by South Asian Americans. The ambiguous nature of South Asian American identity challenges American para- digms of racial categorization. One of the main critiques of a post-racial era, according to Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, is that racial difference and racial language are relegated to the past as if they are no longer present when, in fact, racial difference does exist but is gestured to in alterna- tive ways.2 In a post-racial narrative, racial difference still exists, but it is expressed in different terms. The representation of South Asian Ameri- cans as foreign immigrants with distinctive cultural practices and char- acteristics is an example of how race is discussed in a supposed post- race world—cultural difference is emphasized over racial difference. The proliferation of stereotypical representations of arranged marriage (as opposed to Western ideals of a love marriage) in mainstream American television recur and present Indians as culturally and racially foreign to the United States. This chapter discusses how the narratives of arranged marriage on American television become a trope for racializing South Asians; in addition, I also offer an alternative to post-racial models that discusses and incorporates the ideas of racial and cultural difference through the re-creation of the use of the term “compatibility.” Critical race studies scholars such as Bonilla-Silva have discussed how the conversation around and expression of racism have evolved from open verbal slurs and visual cues such as the practice of blackface to more subtle cues with phrases such as “unwed mothers” or “illegal immigrant.”3 Additionally, the idea of “post” in “post-racial” implies that racism was

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Matchmakers and Cultural Compatibility >> 263

in an American past that was addressed in the civil rights era and that racial difference no longer signifies in current times. However, the denial of the consequences and effects of racial difference is just another means of solidifying a racial hierarchy where dominant culture and white privi- lege are the normative standard by which every other group is judged. While South Asians hail from a diverse geography (Afghanistan, Ban- gladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka), the majority of images in popular culture tend to focus on Indian immi- grants. Oftentimes characterizations associated with Indian immigrants are extended to all South Asian groups, even though the nationalities and ethnicities have different historical, social, and cultural practices. In contemporary times, the term “South Asian American,” like “Asian American,” is a political identity that is composed of several ethnic, reli- gious, linguistic, and national identities. The racial position of South Asians in the U.S. racial stratification has been in flux since the beginning of the twentieth century. South Asians have been classified in the U.S. census as “White,” “Hindoo,” “Other,” and Asian American. The discussion around racial categories that occurred in the early twentieth century put Indian Americans in the middle of the legal controversy about how to define “whiteness.” Indian Americans were the only Asian group to be granted naturalization on the basis of “being white,” and then were subsequently stripped of citizenship rights by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1923 and relegated to a nonwhite position.4 The cur- rent legal language of the U.S. federal government classifies South Asian identity as a minority under the racial category of Asian Pacific American. In American television and film, South Asians are not so ambigu- ous and are racialized by cultural characteristics associated with their national origin. For example, South Asians are visually marked as brown and dressed in foreign clothing (e.g., a sari) or found in exotic landscapes. In addition, cultural practices such as religious ceremonies, elaborate weddings, and the practice of arranged marriage supplement the visual cues.5 In a post-racial world, the phrase “arranged marriage” is a racial and cultural marker of South Asian and particularly Indian culture, which makes it an appropriate and provocative topic of discus- sion. An examination of how racial narratives operate in a supposed post-racial world highlights the intersection of racial and gendered nar- ratives about romance and marriage.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

264 << Shilpa Davé

After beginning with a discussion of marriage narratives and the rep- resentation of South Asian arranged marriages in the United States, this chapter follows with a close reading of episodes from television shows that feature Indian weddings, such as The Simpsons, The Office (2005–13), and Miss Match (2003–4), and presents a side-by-side comparison of familiar American notions of dating and matchmaking with what seem like the strange and foreign traditions of Indian matrimonial practices. American practices are normalized in relation to Indian customs, and yet also exposed as being in a mode of crisis. The portrayal of marriage becomes a manifestation of a national expression of American and Indian cultural relations.6 It is the process and production of the arrangement of marriage that I am interested in exploring as opposed to the institution of arranged marriage. Although the idea of arranged marriage is often used to designate differences between American and Indian American cul- tural values, I am instead arguing that the twenty-first-century arranged marriage also provides a narrative that dissolves the foreign nature of the arrangement process in American culture and instead shows a compat- ibility between American and Indian ideas of matchmaking.

Arranged Marriage, Romantic Love, and National Values

Although the practice of arranged marriage has roots in many cultures, the actual term “arranged marriage” is popularly associated with South Asian, and more specifically Indian, matrimonial customs. South Asians view marriage as an essential institution and the defining marker (regard- less of career or profession) of a woman’s social status.7 Marriage, in South Asia, is seen as a relationship between families that can take into account individual preferences, but ultimately the duty to family outweighs indi- vidual desires. This cultural and social pressure applies to first-generation immigrants as well as second- or third-generation Indian Americans. For many immigrant Indians, regardless of class, arranged introductions and arranged marriages are the primary means through which men and women meet and marry. The adherence to Indian family values and cul- tural norms is often expressed through marriage. The American ideal of romance in marriage promises the act of indi- vidual choice of one’s partner. Although matchmakers are a tried and tested method of bringing a couple together for lifelong relationships,

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Matchmakers and Cultural Compatibility >> 265

American depictions of marriage privilege love as the key ingredient for a happy relationship. Historian Nancy Cott argues that because the state has long dictated the terms of marriage through laws (antimiscegena- tion laws, immigration policy, gender qualifications), marriage becomes an important means to express freedom of choice outside the sphere of government influence.8 Class, religion, race, age, geography, or the law, for example, should not be a barrier to getting married to the person you love. American romance narratives, including Disney’s Cinderella (1950), Beauty and the Beast (1991), The Princess and the Frog (2009), Sex and the City (2010), and Avatar (2009), emphasize the expectation that true love involves the promise of marriage (or long-term relation- ship) that defies every obstacle. Hence the depiction of the quest for true love is tied to contemporary American democratic ideals of freedom of choice and equal opportunity. The practical concerns of compatibility are at odds with the idealization of true love. And yet in her study of marriage, historian Stephanie Coontz points out in the last thirty years of the twentieth century, marriage was no longer the image of stabil- ity and commitment, and all the rights associated with marriage (bank account, owning property, having children, tax benefits) were available to single and solitary adults.9 The rights of being an adult, which used to be gained only by getting married (especially for women), are now avail- able without marriage.10 So if marriage is no longer the principal means of achieving economic stability or raising children, the qualifications for marriage change to fit a population looking for love and long-term relationships and partners. Marriage becomes associated with “choice” rather than necessity and also bears the burden of being the most impor- tant site for emotional and physical intimacy for men and women. For Asian American groups in general, American marriage practices have varied depending on a community’s social history in the United States. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, “picture brides” were representative of a common form of arranged marriage for Chinese, Japanese, and Korean immigrants.11 Karen Leonard chronicles the his- tory of Punjabi Sikhs who immigrated in the early part of the twen- tieth century and intermarried with Mexican Americans when they were unable (due to antimiscegenation laws) to marry Indian women.12 Popular depictions of ethnic groups in relation to marriage often focus on the clash of immigrant and American culture. For Asian Americans

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

266 << Shilpa Davé

marriage is often associated with the retention of culture. The old- world traditions versus modern traditions that are often translated as the East-West clash in Asian American communities represent a resis- tance to marriage customs of the ethnic community by the second gen- eration and marrying outside the community by the first generation. Issues such as language, food, cultural traditions, and relationship to your ethnic and racial heritage influence marriage considerations. The word “compatibility” enters the vocabulary associated with mar- riage matches in the “Who’s Sari Now?” episode of Miss Match when the protagonist asserts that she is trying to find her client (an Indian American woman) a compatible match.13 This term provides an alterna- tive spin on the idea of arranged marriage. It is more broadly associated with a partnership that allows the melding of two separate entities to create something larger, be it in computer technology, biological organ transplant, or cross-pollination. Technologically speaking, the notion of compatibility often relates to software working with different models: the idea that even though the hardware or outer shell is different, the software can be made to work (sometimes with minor fixes) in mul- tiple models. For organ transplants, compatibility means having nonna- tive organisms inserted without being rejected by the host. Both these meanings have resonance for ethnic and cultural practices in that immi- grant cultures, for example, can practice their traditional customs (lan- guage, religion, clothing, eating habits) without facing rejection from the dominant culture and retaining some cultural specificity. Compat- ibility means acquiring a sense of understanding and communication with your partner in a social partnership. With regard to immigration narratives, the metaphor of compatibility works in concert with the depictions of South Asians in the United States. In the television nar- rative of The Simpsons, Indian Americans such as Apu have the ability to fit in within the existing system in America despite and sometimes because of their differences. As a racialized group, Indians and Indian Americans are compatible and can be culturally assimilated into U.S. culture but still are depicted as colorfully exotic immigrants. Through- out the chapter, I use the term “compatibility” to gesture to an alter- native of representing Indian American and American cultural prac- tices at odds with each other in order to highlight the convergence and exchange of cultural norms that are possible in television narratives.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Matchmakers and Cultural Compatibility >> 267

Arranged Marriage and Media

Arranged marriage carries the connotation of an Indian marrying an Indian whereas a love marriage is often but not always associated with individualistic act of marrying outside of the racial and ethnic group. Fic- tion by South Asian writers often focuses on relationships and arranged marriage, such as Chitra Bannerjee Divakaruni’s short-story collection Arranged Marriage and Jhumpa Lahiri’s short-story collections and her novel The Namesake. Romantic and marriage expectations are at the cen- ter of both popular and independent films that feature Indian Americans or Indians in America. Popular films among the Indian diasporic popula- tion that have marriage as a central component include most Hindi films produced in India (Bollywood), as well as English-language films such as Chutney Popcorn (1999), Monsoon Wedding (2001), Bend It Like Beckham (2002), Bride and Prejudice (2003), and The Namesake (2006). Each of these films features a debate about life partners and romance and also often includes a vibrant set that showcases Indian culture through marriage. American television is one of the most powerful mediums to dis- cuss the representation of American norms such as marriage. Although many television shows exaggerate the strangeness of Indian cultural ceremonies, there are modern narrative moments that characterize Indian traditions as compatible with an American identity predicated on inclusiveness and adaptability. In film, for example, South Asian directors such as Mira Nair and Gurinder Chadha have tackled the changing idea of arranged marriage in popular crossover English-lan- guage independent films such as Monsoon Wedding (Nair, 2001), Bride and Prejudice (Chadha, 2004), and The Namesake (Nair, 2006). American television has more structural and budget limitations than film, but it can reach and influence a wider American audience. Tele- vision programming, according to Bonnie Dow, is a complex entity that can be seen as “simultaneously, a commodity, an art form, and an important ideological forum for public discourse about social issues and social change.”14 The rituals associated with Indian marriages accentuate how we think about American family values through an exaggeration of the representation of Indian marriage practices in U.S. television. Most American popular television programs (even in satire) con- tinue to depict South Asians as foreign and strange despite their status

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

268 << Shilpa Davé

as an immigrant or second-generation or multiracial individual. The romance narrative and the wedding ceremony are visually etched in popular culture from Disney’s fairy tales to advertisements and real- ity television. Indian ceremonies are not Christian white weddings but instead are exotic, colorful, and full of strange rituals. We see how “Indi- anness” is identified and racialized through the spectacle of arranged marriage narratives and wedding stories.15 In television shows such as The Simpsons, the Indian ceremony is reduced to silliness and satire, with consumable icons of “Indian-ness” peppered throughout the cer- emony, such as the presence of an elephant, representations of Indian gods, Hindi pop music, and extravagant Indian clothing. When arranged marriage appears on American television, it is also represented as a practice that is antithetical to romantic love in the United States. Situation comedies such as The Office emphasize the for- eign nature of a practice associated with Indians. There are variations in the expression of arranged marriage, but most television narratives (as I will discuss in detail in my readings) tend to focus on three aspects. The common belief is that (1) an arranged marriage is forced because the individual has no choice about the marriage partner, (2) there is no love or deep feelings involved, and (3) the individuals barely know their future spouse and are marrying a virtual stranger. Love marriages, in contrast, are viewed as an individual choice, and there is usually no indication that there might be a more complex system that influences U.S. ideals about the institution of marriage. As Dow asserts in her work on television culture, “Television implicitly supports a view of the world that discounts the ways in which cultural norms and values affect people’s lives. The medium’s individualistic view of the world implies that most problems can be solved by hard work, good will, and a support- ive family.”16 This includes a heteronormative assumption about marriage or romantic love as a basis for a long-term relationship. In a television nar- rative there is no overt threat or danger to American cultural norms or the institution of marriage because the premise is that our individual choices are an anomaly that are not necessarily influenced by dominant social or cultural traditions. And yet despite these portrayals, the proliferation of reality shows challenges some of the traditional narratives because they show that individuals do not make their choices by themselves.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Matchmakers and Cultural Compatibility >> 269

In the 1990s and after 2000, reality shows became the most promi- nent examples of matches and arranged meetings, including The Bach- elor (2002 debut), which is now in its fifteenth cycle, and The Bachelor- ette (January 2003 debut). Reality television shows also have started to stress the opinions of family and friends in dating arrangements and make them part of the decision-making process for the individuals. In these reality television shows, non–South Asians are exposing them- selves to highly choreographed meetings with their future partner. The Bachelor and The Bachelorette include the family in the show and tele- vise their input in the individual choices involved in selecting a partner. As a result, these shows gesture toward a convergence of Indian Ameri- can and American cultural practices in relation to marriage because the depiction of Indian families who are concerned for their children and see marriage as an alliance of families can be compatible with parents and families on the reality shows who also want the best for their children. In contemporary times, the attitude toward arranged marriage in Indian immigrant communities in the United States has been modified to keep up with the changing nature of the community but “the abiding principles behind an arranged marriage still remain strong—lust does not a lasting marriage make and family knows best.”17 During the 2006 episode of The Office entitled “Diwali,” the company’s regional manager, Michael (Steve Carrell), highlights the importance of arranged marriage when he teaches his employees about Indian culture.18 While his presen- tation is a satire of what white middle-class middle management knows about Indian culture, the tutorial also reflects the most popular images of Indians in America. Other aspects of his presentation include pictures of the fictional cartoon character Apu, Gandhi, and the Kama Sutra. But despite the comic implications in television, there is a recognition in the South Asian diaspora that if an Indian immigrant wants his or her son or daughter to marry another Indian, there needs to be some flexibility on the idea of what an arrangement entails. So currently an arranged mar- riage can mean anything from a family-facilitated first meeting/date for compatibility to a marriage match set up solely by the family without input from the bride or the groom.19 Popular depictions of arranged marriages in films produced by Indians or independent Indian Americans or British Indians often feature both individual and family approval of the match.20

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

270 << Shilpa Davé

Two dramatic television programs that focused on issues related to marriage and matches on American television were Cupid (1998–99, 2009) and Miss Match (2003).21 Dramatic roles and plotlines, while often limited by a strict sixty-minute commercial television format, allow for the representation of conflict and discomfort that is not always resolved by humor. While Cupid was more related to personal counseling and single life, Miss Match attempted to meld divorce law and family stories with personal stories of love and romance. Arranged marriage brings into focus the distinction between the ideas of a match versus an arrangement. A match implies a certain degree of compatibility that is based on indi- vidual characteristics, whereas an arrangement can be done without the consent or knowledge of the individuals. However, the meeting is one of strangers, and the intent is to enter into a long-term relationship. The idea of a match fits in with American notions of dating and dating services and also into the more formal arena of the matchmaker. The inherent val- ues underlying the match still align with freedom of choice and individu- alism. Love, however, is an elusive factor in both matches and arrange- ments. Kate, the matchmaker in the 2003 Miss Match episode “Who’s Sari Now?,” tells her client Rashmi, “I can’t find you love in 10 days.”22 And yet, the show is titled Miss Match, not Miss Love or even Miss Cupid. The emphasis on the idea of a match and the plot of the show featured a varia- tion of an arranged marriage/meeting on a weekly basis. In The Simpsons episode “The Two Mrs. Nahaseemapetilons” (1997), the second and third aspects of arranged marriage appear when we dis- cover that Apu has been engaged since he was eight years old and has not seen his future wife for more than ten years.23 Apu and Manjula are strangers to each other, and their engagement is depicted as an exchange of goods (rather than romantic love) between the adults in the family combined with the proper matching astrological horoscopes. Although The Simpsons episode is older, similar scenarios in other television shows follow the pattern that the episode sets forth in shows where Indian Americans are significant characters such as the physician assistant Divya Katdare (Reshma Shetty) in the series Royal Pains.24 In this case, she has been engaged for many years to a family friend, but when she breaks it off because she is not in love with him, her parents disown her, and she is forced to pay off a wedding debt to her once future in-laws. Her entangle- ment with an arranged marriage influences all the decisions she makes in

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Matchmakers and Cultural Compatibility >> 271

the first three seasons of the series. Thus The Simpsons episode becomes an important basis of comparison as representative of the most stereotyp- ical images of arranged marriage. In Miss Match, these aspects (“forced” marriage, no love, and marrying of strangers) of arranged marriage are the subjects of the episode “Who’s Sari Now?”25 Both of these shows are interesting case studies that illustrate how the portrayal of arranged marriage reflects generational and social change in American ideals of romance and marriage. While The Simpsons represents Indian American cultural traditions in opposition to American cultural norms of mar- riage, Miss Match portrays an alternative representation of arranged mar- riage that highlights the convergence of Indian American and American attitudes toward the idea of arranged marriage and reconfigures Indian practices as compatible with American cultural values.

The Swinging Single and the Dutiful Son: Apu and Arranged Marriage

In The Simpsons episode “The Two Mrs. Nahaseemapetilons,” creator Matt Groening presents a side-by-side comparison of American and South Asian dating and marriage practices.26 After being pressured to participate in the local bachelor auction, Apu describes himself as the following: “I have a doctorate in computer science. I run my own busi- ness. I do like to cook, I’m not much of a talker but I love to listen, and in my leisure time I like to build furniture and then have a discussion about where it could be placed in a room.” The practice of the bachelor auction illustrates how consumerism operates in the American context. While not paying for marriage, you are in fact buying a meeting or date for a possible match. Apu’s self-pre- sentation results in a fierce bidding war for his company by the single women of Springfield. Each of his descriptors (from having a doctorate to owning his own business to being a good listener), although humbly delivered, represents economic, cultural, and gendered traits associated with an idealized and romantic man who happens to be Indian. As a potential date, he demonstrates that he is smart and an entrepreneur but also is modest and sensitive to the needs of others. He is handy around the house but also has a sense of taste and aesthetics. He is also domes- tic and so appeals to the modern woman who does not feel pressured to

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

272 << Shilpa Davé

put a meal on the table. He is someone who will listen (hence be appre- ciative—not selfish) and he is a carpenter/artist. He possesses the tropes of masculinity (education and business) but also appeals to women because he is not bound by traditional gender roles. Since the character speaking is Apu, we hear his difference in his accent, but his voice does not detract from his attractiveness to the women of Springfield. Apu’s appeal and markers of compatibility bear no trace of Apu’s racial identity. Instead, he is shown as the heteronormative romantic idealized man for single women. It is only when he is faced with an arranged mar- riage to an Indian woman that his cultural background takes him off the singles market in the United States and separates him from the other resi- dents of Springfield. The comic element of the episode “The Two Mrs. Nahaseemapetilons” centers on how he tries to avoid his cultural obli- gation but eventually embraces whom and what his Indian mother has chosen for him. In the end, arranged marriages are depicted as Indians marrying other Indians and do not include interracial weddings. Apu’s cultural traditions and relationship with his family are set in opposition to his single life in the United States, thereby setting up an East versus West dichotomy in attitudes toward dating and marriage. The core value at issue in Apu’s marriage is that of freedom—the free- dom to choose a spouse rather than having one chosen for you, and the freedom of the individual versus the duty of children to family. The classic binary setup in Asian American narratives often emphasizes the conflict of family duty versus individual desire and cloaks it in an East- ern versus Western cultural conflict. This episode goes one step further by characterizing Apu’s choice as an indicator of his ability to be an American citizen—to exercise his individual rights as a citizen of the nation, or to “remember his past” and exist as the cultural repository of Indian culture and a representative of Indian arranged marriage. The episode’s flashback to the marriage negotiation illustrates how arranged marriage is also an economic transaction that is based on a bartering exchange involving goats and factories. The families make the final details of the arrangement across a table in a gazebo, and we are introduced to the idea that marriage is a serious business transaction that combines family intimacy with economics. The contract of marriage serves as a permanent arrangement, so as audience members, we tend to judge the agreement made on the couple’s behalf as a practice that does

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Matchmakers and Cultural Compatibility >> 273

not include Apu’s or Manjula’s desires or wishes. As a result, the context of his arranged marriage is much more foreign when juxtaposed with Apu’s success with the American rituals of courtship and romance. Why would he follow an alienating custom when it is clear that he could be involved in a long-term relationship with a woman in Springfield? When Apu lies to his mother that he is no longer an available bachelor, he evokes sympathy from Homer Simpson and his family because the alternative is a forced, arranged marriage. In the episode, he rejects his past and physically remakes himself (with a new hairstyle) to show that he has changed and assimilated the idea that marriage should include love and romance. His lie that he is already married “sets him free” until his mother (holder of family honor and cultural traditions) arrives in Spring- field. Interestingly, no one on the show questions the fact that Apu should not marry his intended, Manjula. Eventually Apu consents to the wishes of his mother because he finds that Manjula is smart, possesses a sense of humor, and is just as nervous as he is about the idea of an arranged marriage. Neither Marge Simpson, who usually defends the right of indi- viduals and particularly women in their choices, nor Lisa Simpson (her daughter), who is usually a crusader for justice, questions the manner of the marriage. They are only interested in making the ceremony culturally authentic. Their obeisance to Apu’s mother depicts respect for another culture over any individual qualms they may have about the marriage. While Marge and Lisa may not want this type of marriage for themselves (they do not admit this one way or the other), they accept that the prac- tice of arranged marriages exists, and they embrace the custom. The mar- riage is not about love. It is a contract of filial duty that Apu and Manjula fulfill, and while they joke about their situation, the unspoken message that is being sent is that Indian Americans on television must have Indian American marriages, with “strange” ceremonies that include elephants, fire, and colorful garments. Even though the scene is funny because it seems so unlikely, the fact is Apu has married Manjula. The last part of the episode shows Apu’s hesitancy, and he voices what many people think about arranged marriages: “Two people cannot fall in love sight unseen.” But he goes through with the ceremony because the marriage becomes a matter of keeping a promise between two families. Manjula is never shown as having a choice, though she points out to Apu that “we can always get a divorce.” Apu replies, “God Bless

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

274 << Shilpa Davé

America.” Thus, it is not romance that sanctions this marriage but the promise that relationships can be broken easily and freedom restored if they do not work out. Although the show constantly satirizes Ameri- can cultural practices, this is not necessarily a humorous moment. The ending redefines the marriage as a transaction that can be broken by a common American practice—divorce—and reiterates the contradictory meaning of the United States as a nation that espouses family values and also is a place where you can free yourself from the shackles of marriage. Part of the promise of being in America is the ability to release Apu and Manjula from traditional practices of Indian heterosexual marriage. The underlying message is that romantic love (this is shown in other Simp- sons episodes) will determine whether or not Apu’s marriage with Man- jula will thrive.27 While The Simpsons portrays a stereotypical representa- tion of Indian arranged marriage, the series Miss Match offers a notion of marriage that combines aspects of Indian American cultural practices with American romance and a more viable representation of how racial difference can be represented in American culture.

New Traditions: Miss Match and the Arranged Marriage Debate

The television series Miss Match, written and created by Darren Star (who also created HBO’s Sex and the City [1998–2004]) and Jeff Rake, premiered in the fall of 2003. Eighteen episodes were aired before the series was canceled by NBC because of low ratings. Critics described the show as “hovering between the sincere optimism of the 90210 kids and the wry cynicism of the Sex and the City ladies.”28 In other words, the formula of the week was to provide a guest star with a romantic match while empathizing with the trials and travails of the single matchmaker. In Miss Match, the South Asian marriage, although still culturally dis- tinct, is one of many types of marriages that occur on the series and is one of the only ethnic matches that is featured. The premise of the pro- gram centers around the idea that finding “your soul mate” or the “one” is not working out for American women and men. While the hopes of romantic love still remain, the reality of the people in the drama is that they are breaking up and getting divorced. Enduring relationships and long-term marriage are in crisis, and so, in this series, the idea of being matched or having an arranged marriage is not depicted as strange and

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Matchmakers and Cultural Compatibility >> 275

foreign but a solution to an American crisis. Kate Fox, aka Miss Match, works as a divorce lawyer in her father’s firm. Her economic security rests on the fact that marriages do not last, but her emotional security relies on her belief in love and that there is someone for everyone. Jaded by the constant and often hostile breakups that she handles in the court- room and the conference room, Kate (played by Alicia Silverstone) starts a side business as a matchmaker where most of her clients are friends or referrals.29 For her character, pairing up two people for a long-term relationship is dependent upon chemistry and romance, but her role as a matchmaker affirms that romance needs some help from someone who can recognize compatible individuals. In consumer society, the contem- porary matchmaker serves as a personal shopper, making it possible for men and women to meet a variety of people with a minimum invest- ment of time.30 The mediated and structured means of meeting is at odds with the romantic vision of seeing someone across a crowded room, but the supposed lack of feeling associated with the process of matching does not mean that there will not be an emotional connection. Miss Match focuses on the connections between the acts of divorce, marriage, and arranged dates by setting the majority of the series in the offices of divorce lawyers. The monetary settlements and the consumer aspect of marriage and relationships are often the topic of the show, and yet the ideals professed by all the characters still subscribe to the dominant cultural message that love should conquer all. The show does not challenge the institution of marriage as archaic or problematic but rather suggests that divorces happen because you are not with the right person and the solution is to find love with the right person. The series operates as an advertisement for romantic love while recognizing the contemporary economic realities of the divorce industry. Matchmak- ing as a business of love can be compatible with the tenets of arranged marriage because both practices are interested in finding compatible partners. Matchmaking relies on setting up individuals in a relationship (which will hopefully lead to marriage), whereas arranged marriages are predicated on the idea that a permanent arrangement and relation- ship between individuals and families will happen through marriage. These two practices are not at odds with each other, and Kate comes to see the similarities between what she aspires to do as a matchmaker and the philosophy behind arranged Indian marriage.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

276 << Shilpa Davé

The pun of the episode title “Who’s Sari Now?” describes the plight of Kate and also the “friend” (or guest star of the week) that Kate is going to help during the program.31 Besides referencing “Who’s Sorry Now?” (1958), a popular song by Connie Francis, the title explicitly states that this is going to be an episode that features Indians. In describing one of the clothing styles associated with South Asians and Indian Americans, the title is ask- ing what “sari” will be worn but, more important, what type of marriage, an arranged marriage or a love match, will occur for the protagonist. The opening of the episode sets up the cultural values of an American romantic love against the strict traditions of an Indian arranged marriage. Rashmi Chopra (Sunita Puram) has asked Kate to find her alterna- tives to the match her parents have arranged for her in the hopes that Rashmi can find love again rather than participate in a businesslike arranged marriage. Kate agrees to help Rashmi but tells her that she “cannot find her love in ten days.” Kate can only find her matches that may or may not lead to a compatible relationship. Rashmi tells Kate she is not interested in love; she wants to show her parents that she has other prospects besides the person they have chosen for her. She says, “I know what love is,” and the prospect offered by her parents is not what she would like. In other words, Rashmi has been in love before and had her heart broken. The episode sets up the stereotypical feelings associated with arranged marriage. Rashmi, a second-generation Indian American, is being forced by her immigrant parents to quickly marry someone she does not love. There is a communication and generation gap between what Rashmi wants for herself (a love marriage) and what Mr. and Mrs. Chopra want for her (a stable and settled arranged marriage). Despite the fact that Rashmi is a college-educated working professional who may have many viable prospects, her individual desires are initially seen as unimportant in her parents’ desire to get her married. The tone of the episode changes and offers up arranged marriage as a practical and perhaps appealing alternative when Rashmi’s family finds out that Kate has been setting up matches for their daughter. Mr. and Mrs. Cho- pra confront Kate in her office and insist that she does not understand their traditions. When Kate meets Rashmi’s parents for the first time, her inter- action with them addresses three different issues, but ultimately she hears a defense of arranged marriage that she finds convincing. The scene takes place in a mediation conference room at Kate’s office. Kate and Rashmi sit

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Matchmakers and Cultural Compatibility >> 277

on one side of the table, and the matchmaker and parents sit opposite them on the other side. Kate and Rashmi are cast as the Americans who doubt the practice of arranged marriage as one that is consistent with finding love. Mr. and Mrs. Chopra and their Indian matchmaker, Savita, are pre- sented as middle-class immigrant Indian professionals. They speak with a slight accent, but their clothing and speech are not exaggerated; thus, they are presented not as alienated but as comfortable in the environment of the conference room. Later we see their beautiful home, which is another testi- mony to their financial success and professional class in the United States. Mrs. Chopra’s opening remark, “Who are you to question our tradi- tions?,” immediately suggests that Kate is attacking an Indian cultural tradition that she does not understand. The narrative thus sets up Kate as a representative of the opinion that arranged marriage may not work for the Americanized Rashmi when she says: “I don’t mean to question anything [such as traditions]. I’m just trying to help your daughter find a compatible match” (my emphasis). Kate’s desire to “find a compatible match” shows that she sees herself as aligned with tradition. Kate’s choice of the word “compatibility” affects how she thinks about matches for oth- ers—that the process of matching is in fact more than just love but also about pleasing and reconciling all parties (including the families) to live and, hopefully, love without conflict. Her attitude reflects a change from classic assimilation narratives that separate American cultural practices from ethnic traditions. She offers an alternative that mirrors a pluralistic world where different practices of marriage can be compatible. In the second exchange, Savita, the Indian matchmaker, points out that marriage is more than an individual choice. She says Rashmi’s potential husband, Sanjay, is from a “good family, graduated from Yale, is a doctor.” Settling an arranged marriage for Savita involves both families and indi- viduals. A marriage is a community event that is not only about a single relationship but also highlights the compatibility of families. The quali- ties the matchmaker and the parents have sought in a potential match for their daughter include intelligence and education, financial security, and a good family environment. Couldn’t these characteristics be the foun- dation for a long-term relationship? Kate cannot argue with the qualifi- cations that the matchmaker and the parents have produced with their candidate and finally objects by saying that Rashmi wants love. Rashmi’s father counters with his own example, saying, “Why do you assume

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

278 << Shilpa Davé

Rashmi will not have love? We married as strangers and love grew.” He represents a generation of many Indian parents who had arranged mar- riages and are happy. In a world where young professionals are taught how to network, the idea of a matchmaker appeals to the business nature of setting meetings and the romantic nature of dating and marriage. The return to marriage as a business arrangement may not entirely resonate with a popular romantic ideal, but using the structure of a business in order to facilitate introductions to possible partners can be a prudent strategy because the idea of compatibility based on education, profession, and background is one with which most of the candidates are familiar and has been shown to be successful. In one sense arranged marriage is being portrayed as a very practical and measured process that makes the hierarchical nature of human relations visible, but it can also create a gap between the idea of feeling love and marrying for long-term rela- tionships. Mr. Chopra uses his own experience to argue his point that he is looking out for the best interests of his daughter and that he believes romantic love will also eventually be a part of Rashmi’s marriage. This series of exchanges is fascinating because there is a serious attempt in the narrative to address many of the questions that popularly whirl around the idea of arranged marriage. The setting of the confer- ence room plays as a mediation that is being performed with a busi- nesslike aspect that perhaps offers some hope to both parties and also shows there is a convergence between Kate’s and Savita’s approaches to marriage. At the end of the scene Kate advises Rashmi to consider talk- ing to the person her parents have selected for her: “[You] shouldn’t be forced to do anything but try it.” As with Apu, the key issue is one of choice. And so, although Kate says that Rashmi should not be “forced,” she is open to the idea that arranged marriage might work as well as, if not better than, her own system of setting up matches. At the end of the program Rashmi does marry an Indian American man acceptable to her parents, but she chooses the more assimilated and flexible Indian American brother that she had a relationship with and loved in the past rather than the brother with the accent, the medi- cal degree, and the almost robotic commitment to success. The younger brother, Raj, is a professional in the music industry and clearly the black sheep in his family. His parents barely talk about him because his edu- cation and professional pedigree do not match those of his brother. Raj

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Matchmakers and Cultural Compatibility >> 279

is shown as a man who respects his parents but also believes in indi- vidual choices. Rashmi and Raj met through their mutual interest in music and also fell in love. In this case their match is a combination of compatibility (education, family ties, and similar interests) and roman- tic chemistry. And yet neither brother is willing to discuss his interest or lack of interest (in the case of Sanjay) in marrying Rashmi because they are inhibited by the cultural traditions of their parents. Kate, as the matchmaker, has to intervene and facilitate communication between Rashmi and Raj in order for them to have a happily arranged match and marriage. In terms of compatibility, Rashmi finds romantic love; her individual situation is resolved and her parents are also pleased because she has married an Indian who is an educated man with a good family. While the love marriage versus the arranged marriage is a traditional trope in Bollywood films, it plays out differently in this context because of the way cultural traditions are laid out along national lines as well as gendered ones. When hiring Kate, Rashmi indicates that her only condi- tion for a mate is someone who likes music. Her match “doesn’t have to be Indian but he should be a Vedic astrological match.” She does qualify her statement by admitting her astrological signs also have to match her part- ner’s. While she is supposedly asserting herself to look for love, she also puts forth a condition that exoticizes and trivializes her respect and love for her parents and their interest in her well-being. So while on the one hand arranged marriages are being treated as a respectable and viable outgrowth of Kate’s own business of matchmaking, the drama still finds an aspect of Indian culture that has to be ridiculed and shown as strange and foreign.32

In Miss Match, although the Chopras express the idea that a non- American notion of family is not problematic for them, it is clearly an issue that the second-generation children cannot discuss with them. Although the plot is right out of a Bollywood film narrative, what this epi- sode does is engage in a debate about how we think about marriage and partnership. Off the small screen, Indians in the United States are shifting arranged marriage to make it more compatible with contemporary Amer- ican lifestyles (and Western ideals) through the establishment of marriage conventions and “assisted” arranged marriage practices.33 The converging relationship between arranged marriage and matchmaking through the idea of compatibility provides a new line of discussion and inquiry into how we talk about portrayals of love, romance, and marriage in American

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

280 << Shilpa Davé

popular culture. The proliferation of dating agencies and reality shows based on finding “the one” illustrates the inherent contradiction between the need for individual affection and compatibility and the emphasis on the institution of marriage to fulfill all feelings and needs. By focusing on the idea of compatibility, national and cultural identities are not the single determining factor in a relationship but instead become part of a larger conversation about the nature of marriage and long-term relationships.

Conclusion

The introduction of Indian arranged marriages as a viable strategy for long-term partnership for Americans provides an opportunity to represent South Asian American practices in American culture that do not depict Indians as foreign, strange, or distant but instead compatible with U.S. cul- tural practices. I theorize the term “compatibility” to show the blurring of racial, ethnic, and cultural boundaries in narratives of desire and marriage. Instead of the process of racial and cultural assimilation that requires Asian American and other immigrants to conform to white American dominant cultural norms, compatibility implies the ability to live together without conflict and to fit in while not exactly being the same. Compatibility as a factor in a potential relationship takes precedence over the “love at first sight” philosophy because it is focused on the long-term nature of a rela- tionship rather than first impressions. In terms of South Asian American and non–South Asian American traditions related to marriage, compat- ibility is a concept that spans the gap between two traditionally divergent marriage philosophies. In addition, the concept provides an alternative means to discuss how racial and ethnic difference are embedded in Ameri- can cultural assumptions about marriage and love. The primary associa- tion of Indians with arranged marriage racializes South Asians as the other without explicitly mentioning racial difference. In a post-racial narrative, racial difference still exists, but it is expressed in different terms. This chap- ter discusses how stereotypical representations of arranged marriage (as opposed to Western ideals of a love marriage) in mainstream American television reoccur and present Indians as culturally and racially foreign to the United States, but it also suggests an alternative reading of these stereo- types that promotes compatibility as a narrative that expands American cultural definitions and practices of marriage and partnership.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Matchmakers and Cultural Compatibility >> 281

Notes

1. The TV series Outsourced (2010–) is set in India and in the early episodes shows how the American characters balk at the idea of an arranged marriage even though it is the custom and everyday reality of the Indian characters and culture around them.

2. See Eduardo Bonilla-Silva’s Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003).

3. See ibid. 4. See U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind. In this 1923 case, the Supreme Court ruled that

the popular, or “the common man’s,” definition of racially identified language was instrumental in interpreting citizenship and naturalization law for both South Asians and Asian Americans, in general, for the United States. For more on this case, see Ian Haney Lopez’s White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race (New York: NYU Press, 1997).

5. For more on accent as a racializing trope for South Asians, see Shilpa Davé’s Indian Accents: Brown Voice and Racial Performance in American Television and Film (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2013) and “Apu’s Brown Voice: Cultural Inflection and South Asian Accents,” in East Main Street: Asian Ameri- can Popular Culture, edited by Shilpa Davé, LeiLani Nishime, and Tasha Oren (New York: NYU Press, 2005), 313–36.

6. Although popular rhetoric has proclaimed the age of postnationalism in the 1990s and a post-racial society in the early twenty-first century, the concept of Indian American arranged marriages represents an alternative model of Ameri- can culture that speaks to blurring of national and global trade and cultural boundaries of postnationalism and the negation of racial categories in post- racial moments. As many critics such as Dorrine Kondo, Aihwa Ong, Michael Omi, and Judith Halberstam have discussed, national and racial narratives have not disappeared but have been cloaked into other forms of expression.

7. For more information of South Asians and arranged marriage, see Shilpa Davé’s “‘No Life without Wife’: Masculinity and Modern Arranged Meetings for Indian Ameri- cans,” Catamaran: South Asian American Writing 5 (2006): 53–66; and Margaret Abraham’s Speaking the Unspeakable: Marital Violence among South Asian Immigrants in the United States (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2000).

8. Nancy Cott, Public Vows. A History of Marriage and the Nation (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002).

9. Stephanie Coontz, Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage (New York: Viking, 2005), 276.

10. Ibid., 276–77. 11. See Yen Espiritu’s Asian American Women and Men (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,

1992). Picture Bride and The Joy Luck Club are only a few of the films that portray arranged marriages in Asian American communities.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

282 << Shilpa Davé

12. See Karen Leonard’s history Making Ethnic Choices (Philadelphia: Temple Uni- versity Press, 1994).

13. “Who’s Sari Now?,” Miss Match, season 1, episode 11, NBC, WVIT, Hartford, Dec. 15, 2003. Television.

14. Bonnie Dow, Prime Time Feminism: Television, Media Culture, and the Women’s Movement since 1970 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996), xi.

15. The growing recognition of Bollywood films and themes televised in U.S. cable packages is a testimony to the power of performance (particularly dance, music, and fashion) and the spectacle of difference in ornate wedding dramas. Popular films among the Indian diasporic population in the United States include American Desi (2001), Chutney Popcorn (1999), Monsoon Wedding (2001), and Bride and Prejudice (2004). Each of these films features a debate about life part- ners and romance and also often includes a vibrant set that showcases Indian culture through marriage. Gurinder Chandra’s Bollywood-influenced Bride and Prejudice, an updated version of Jane Austen’s novel Pride and Prejudice, offers a contemporary discussion on arranged marriage, Indian immigration to the United States and the United Kingdom, and the expectations and approaches to marriage of Indian immigrant bachelors.

16. Dow, Prime Time Feminism, xxi. 17. Lizette Alvarez, “Arranged Marriages Get a Little Rearranging,” Nytimes.com,

June 22, 2003. This article discusses arranged marriages in the immigrant com- munity in Britain.

18. “Diwali,” The Office (2005–13), season 3, episode 6, NBC, WHGH, Boston, Nov. 2, 2006. Television.

19. See Davé, “‘No Life without Wife.’” 20. There are many examples such as Monsoon Wedding and Bride and Prejudice.

See Jigna Desai’s work Beyond Bollywood: The Cultural Politics of South Asian Diasporic Film (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2004).

21. In the 1970s and 1980s, dramas such as The Love Boat (1977–86) and Fantasy Island (1978–84) depicted singles finding love or couples reuniting under the auspices of true love. In the 1990s and after 2000, there was a change in the dra- mas and situation comedies, which started to feature young people out on their own who were finding it difficult to meet people. Facilitated matches became more of a prime-time event as older single people found it more difficult to meet people after college. Also, Love American Style as well as the game shows The Dating Game and The Newlywed Game were part of the staples of 1960s television programming. The revival in the 1990s signaled a new adult popula- tion and interest in dating. Many reality shows, including The Love Connection (1983–99), tried to match people up by compatibility.

22. “Who’s Sari Now?,” Miss Match, season 1, episode 11.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

www.Nytimes.com

Matchmakers and Cultural Compatibility >> 283

23. “The Two Mrs. Nahaseemapetilons,” The Simpsons: The Complete Ninth Season, episode 7, Fox, writ. Richard Appel, dir. Steven Dean Moore, 2006, DVD. Origi- nal airdate was November 16, 1997.

24. Royal Pains (2009–), USA Network. The first episode of season 1 aired June 4, 2009.

25. “Who’s Sari Now?,” Miss Match, season 1, episode 11. 26. “The Two Mrs. Nahaseemapetilons,” The Simpsons: The Complete Ninth Season,

episode 7. 27. In later episodes Apu does show how he falls in love with Manjula (he woos her

with romantic Valentine’s Day gifts), starts a family with her (they have octu- plets), and also betrays his marriage vows by seeing another woman.

28. Cariana Chocano, “TV Review of Miss Match” (2003), EW.com, Oct. 10, 2003 29. She teams up with another single woman who works in a local bar that becomes

the meeting place for the matched couples. Interspersed with the weekly sto- rylines of the matchmaking business is Kate’s own quest for love. Each match helps clarify her individual feelings about matches, relationships, and her search for a partner.

30. Ultimately the “lack of time” was the main reason people hired specific match- makers. As one interviewee explained to Melanie Thernstrom in “The New Arranged Marriage,” “He didn’t like the Internet, and as a partner at a large firm he didn’t have time to go to lots of social events searching for women” (New York Times Magazine, Feb. 13, 2005, 40).

31. “Who’s Sari Now?,” Miss Match, NBC, season 1, episode 11. 32. While her parents are pressuring the subject of the show, Rashmi, Kate’s rela-

tionship with her father is one that combines business (she works in his firm) with the shattered ideals of romance (he is a divorce attorney who is divorced). Her dilemma, however, is undercut by humor, when she reveals that to date someone, they have to be astrological matches in order to satisfy her and her parents. The story does not discuss Kate’s own family and instead deflects the discussion by focusing on Kate’s consultation of an astrologer. Though Kate ends up following the pop spiritual advice of an astrologer as her compromise (rather than thinking about her family and their relationship to the people she might date), her willingness to try something different exposes the problems in American mediated visions of romantic love and offers a somewhat alternative view of arranged marriage as a viable and successful approach to marriage.

33. Another alternative is what scholar Martin Manalansan, in his work on the nature of love and sexuality, identifies as “queer love,” a practice that involves the com- munity and the individual to challenge the national narrative of the American family as a heterosexual couple with children, a dog, and a house with a white picket fence. Queer love allows for a more expansive definition of marriage rela- tions that include extended families as part of the everyday life of life partners.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

www.EW.com

284 << Shilpa Davé

Works Cited Abraham, Margaret. Speaking the Unspeakable: Marital Violence among South Asian

Immigrants in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2000. Print.

Alvarez, Lizette. “Arranged Marriages Get a Little Rearranging.” Nytimes.com. 22 June 2003. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/22/world/arranged-marriages-get- a-little-rearranging.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm >.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003. Print.

Chocano, Cariana. “TV Review of Miss Match.” Ew.com. 10 Oct. 2003. Web. <http:// www.ew.com/ew/article/049241800.html>.

Coontz, Stephanie. Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage. New York: Viking, 2005. Print.

Cott, Nancy. Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002. Print.

Davé, Shilpa. “Apu’s Brown Voice: Cultural Inflection and South Asian Accents.” East Main Street: Asian American Popular Culture. Ed. Shilpa Davé, LeiLani Nishime, and Tasha Oren. New York: NYU Press, 2005. 313–36. Print.

———. Indian Accents: Brown Voice and Racial Performance in American Television and Film. Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2013. Print.

———. “‘No Life without Wife’? Masculinity and Modern Arranged Marriage for Indian Americans.” Catamaran: South Asian American Writing 5 (2006): 53–66. Print.

“Diwali.” The Office. NBC. WHGH, Boston. 2 Nov. 2006. Television. Dow, Bonnie. Prime Time Feminism: Television, Media Culture, and the Women’s Move-

ment since 1970. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1996. Print. Espiritu, Yen. Asian American Women and Men. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1992. Print. Leonard, Karen. Making Ethnic Choices. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994.

Print. Lopez, Ian Haney. White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race. New York: NYU

Press, 1997. Print. “Who’s Sari Now?” Miss Match. NBC. WVIT, Hartford. 15 Dec. 2003. Television.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

4. N

ew Y

or k

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/22/world/arranged-marriages-geta-little-rearranging.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/049241800.html