Deity, Identity, Interdisciplinary Indigineity: The Music Videos of M.I.A
The work of Sri Lankan born Mathangi ‘Maya’ Arulpragasam, or M.I.A as she is known as a performer, is inherently based within her Tamil ethnic identity and the conflict surrounding the systematic government — led oppression, within Sri Lanka, of Tamil peoples. As an immigrant, world famous musician, visual artist and activist, M.I.A occupies a unique place within contemporary discourses — both artistic and intellectual — pertaining to the visual culture, politics and future of the Tamil diaspora.
The term ‘heritage’ is a problematic one: a concept that relates more to the inheritance of material wealth rather than a less tangible notion of shared, acquired cultural awareness of one’s origins. Heritage is part of a loaded jargonistic nomenclature that has consistently been used by dominant political bodies such as UNESCO and national Heritage organisations to sanction the dismantling of tracts of common-access land in the interests of preservation, or more often private control for monetary gain. This issue can be traced back to the conception of the Anthropological discipline which came about through colonial interests in the study of colonised peoples, often as a means of instilling unrepresentative, intolerant notions of indigenous communities who were consequently deemed to be culturally inferior to the conquering forces, or actively supports the legitimacy of one group over another when exchanging power — an equally, if not more, problematic process. Common in discussions surrounding heritage is the implication of memory and, latterly, commemoration — which often paradoxically relegates issues of socio- political struggle to being events of the past: a problematic dilemma when one is attempting to negotiate issues which are still in process. M.I.A’s work seeks to counter narratives of erasure of identity by dominant forces whilst simultaneously publicising, and keeping current, issues that may otherwise be categorised unsettlingly under the umbellifer of ‘heritage’; moving towards a concept of proud, performed, indigenous self — awareness as a distinct political way of life. As a contemporary artist dealing with ever-shifting issues and definitions it is tricky to distinguish M.I.A’s work as having one fixed perspective of a gamete of issues whose complexities cannot be reduced to a singular level, especially when handled in an interdisciplinary manner.
As an asylum seeking immigrant who has subsequently become assimilated into UK culture, having received an MBE in 2019, M.I.A articulates the fault lines between indigenous identity and adoption by a dominant society. The interplay between cultural identities can be expressed through Bakhtin’s discourse on double — voiced narratives: M.I.A’s individual position provides one reading of her cultural story whilst her celebrity status aswell as agitative position within political debates has placed her within a broader multinational dialogue. It seems fitting that so much of the content of Arulpragasam’s work comes from a place of personal, often anecdotal, connection — in keeping with the sub-continental tradition that relies heavily on a rich basis of oral history and storytelling — further allowing her messages to be accessible and associated with by a wide populous in a familial, even informal, manner. M.I.A’s obvert hybridisation of her ethnic identity, language and it’s impact on her musical, visual and psychically stylised art, is an act of resistance against cultural divisions that have been entrenched by the history of colonisation and following that, the government — backed oppression of Tamil peoples by the Sri Lankan army that forms the background socio-political context for the content and commentary that is latent within her work. The perceived controversy and outspoken nature of M.I.A’s work has elevated her visibility and the issues to which she wishes to bring attention, through her use of ‘positive cultural appropriation’ as an activist artistic technique. Appropriation and assimilation are two forces in constant dialogue here, loaded with emotive associations of power dynamics, race and history. Navigating through this is the emphatically political lifestyle of M.I.A who owns but questions her social position — as indigenous both locally and internationally, often to the outrage of the media who wish to label her actions as “guerrilla” in association to her volatile upbringing during the civil war in Sri Lanka. M.I.A’s stance only goes further in highlighting how the West still sees the Indian Subcontinent (including Sri Lanka) as Other.
Central to M.I.A’s work is the importance of her family history and pertinently, her parentage — her father Arular Pragasam having been a key figure in the struggle for the independent Tamil Eelam state. M.I.A’s activism and visual communication can be seen as a convergence of the backgrounds of her parents — on one hand outspokenly political and on the other, embedded in the visual and material traditions of her ethnicity, influenced by her mother’s work as a seamstress. Of particular import is Arular’s significance as a figurehead for Tamil people, arguably a comparison can be drawn to the Adivasi freedom fighter and folk hero of the late 1800s Birsa Munda, as Pragasam’s leadership of student protest groups during the 1970s earned him notoriety by the dominant government of the time and honour amongst his fellow indigenous people. Such examples of direct autochthonous storytelling can be used by communities in order to redefine their histories as a movement towards communal autonomy and broader decolonisation. The inclusion of stories in analyses such as this provide a basis for understanding in contexts where western concepts of ‘history’ may not be available because of its personal nature or western archiving not existing in these cultures.8 One of the most significant commonalities amongst various indigenous communities is the place of storytelling in their societies, as a means of connection and awareness of their group’s history and identity: in the life of M.I.A we see the intertwining of the overtly public politicisation of her life and the impact that has had on her work and private life. The praxis of M.I.A’s work can be seen as a continuation of the issues and motivations of her father’s fight against dominant injustice towards the Tamil community yet these struggles have been transmogrified, mapped and transferred onto new visual mediums in order to adapt to the new socio-political challenges of the contemporary period.
Negotiating the trauma, conflict and displacement experienced by an indigenous community is a common theme in many indigenous artist’s work and can provide anthropologists with clear cases for tracing the seismic socio-political changes within minority groups — a very real heritage for M.I.A. One of the most formative legacies affecting M.I.A’s work is that of the continued efforts by The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a resistance movement employing direct action, to further the cause for Sri Lankan Tamil’s independence. Women have taken an active role in the movement since the 1980s and it has been the context for pursuing issues surrounding emancipation and gender equality yet there is no direct translation of these terms in the Tamil language which problematises the discussion of these issues for those attempting to gain autonomous status within the group. The continued ethnic struggle in Sri Lanka has also impacted directly on the perception of female economic mobility and, in turn, their morality: the dissolution of urban and rural divides has lead to increased social mobility for women which has called into question the traditional gender roles of both the dominant Sinhala Buddhist and minority Tamil communities in the shifting political fabric of a country adapting to modern globalisation in the midst of a civil war. M.I.A’s often confrontational stance, in both her actions and expressions of Tamil solidarity play on these current debates of what it means to be female, empowered and Tamil: her work continually references the iconography of the LTTE and directly associates and elevates the participation of women in positions of power and active service — the uniforms of which M.I.A has drawn on the visual language of in her clothing and images. Whilst M.I.A does not heroise the war in Sri Lanka she does however make it visible in her work as a means of communicating the significance of an otherwise lesser-known conflict to the rest of the world — whether part of the Tamil diaspora or not: providing a commentary on accountability of the dominant state and its impact on the struggling minority and the effects of half a century of fighting, the trauma of which must be dealt with on both sides of the ethnic divide.
Resulting from the political oppression and civil war over Tamil independence the Tamil peoples have become a diaspora due to mass emigration in order to seek asylum from persecution. As an international community connected by shared association to their homeland of Sri Lanka yet displaced by conflict, the strength of Tamil connection to their indigenous culture is arguably reinforced by the experience and status of being a political asylum-seeker. Ethnic consciousness in Tamil communities living outside of Sri Lanka itself can be said to help maintain bonds and relationships with the topical issues of their original country in a time of crisis — whether due to personal investment through family members or a wish to exercise their involvement in politics, albeit from afar. Furthermore, new media such as the internet has played a significant role in communicating events, shifting political dynamics and the organisation of protest movements, allowing for an international awareness made more possible due to the modern phenomena of social media and the publicity and democratisation of these virtual platforms. The spread of digital forms has directly influenced the work of M.I.A allowing her videos, artworks and songs to be shared instantaneously: a medium she has embraced as her career and visibility as an artist has increased, directly mirroring the exponential increase in the influence of the internet and virtual media on our lives. For the formation of diaspora identity in the modern age, the internet and the abilities it affords those displaced or itinerant community members means that autochthonous — derived identity is now not only easy to express but easier to access, building virtual communities that are able to exercise and further their causes in an ever more public and efficient fashion.
The shrine like visual language of M.I.A’s sets and video-graphic displays that are installed and projected during her performances draw attention to her, whilst simultaneously contextualising her within a framework of references intrinsically influenced by Sri Lankan artistic modes, combining this with the politicised symbolism of the Tiger’s resistance slogans and symbolism. Traditionally within Sri-Lankan society, artisans, including musicians, were seen as liminal figures: outside the stringent codes of the caste system, allowing them a mobility amongst classes, at the same time being most commonly associated with ceremonial happenings — whether folkloric or religious. M.I.A’s defiance of being pigeon-holed as an artist and simultaneously creating spectacular events is a continuation of this traditional artistic role yet whilst augmenting it to the structures of the modern music industry. M.I.A’s work can be said to be simultaneously self aware of the traditions of her native peoples whilst also inverting and augmenting these in line with her, at times, controversial and acerbic political rhetoric. As a globally recognised figure who, through self fashioning and curation of her public persona, can be seen as a modern day pop music heroine for the Tamil diaspora — her fame has helped to elevate the plight of those displaced by conflict and has brought their issues to a global socio-political level. Coming to terms with, and expressing, through media and technology, the negotiation of post-colonial indigenous identity in the contemporary period is one of the most topical issues of visual culture — allowing for the self-definition of groups and individuals as redress for the muting of their culture and autonomy by invasive colonial powers.
MIA’s mixed media approach allows for a broad reach of influence and accessibility within her work, reaching all social classes and communities, indigenous, Sri Lankan or otherwise. As a truly modern artist, she has embraced the power of digital editing to heighten the visual qualities of her work — adapting and visually remixing traditional motifs, colours and linguistic script. From an early age her interest in film making and editing has intrinsically affected the formal qualities of her work — often using stills as part of designs and collages that incorporate the socio-political and visual, combining the traditional and contemporary debates of Tamil and immigrant experience. As democratised audio — visual work has become increasingly prevalent in our lives globally, M.I.A’s main medium has become that of music videos whose visual language is dense with comment and debate surrounding the issues of human migration, gender in non- occidental countries and the phenomenon of modern globalised materialism. The plurality of Arulpragasam’s work in its material process reflects the era and influences that she has been affected by — living between the analog and digital ages aswell as navigating, as a politically aware individual (from a very young age), what it means to be indigenous, persecuted, international and female — to name just a few of the complexities dealt with in her work. Moreover, Arulpragasam’s heritage is reflected not only in her individual performance persona but in her respectful adaption of traditional modes — maintaining the liminal and ceremonial position of previous Tamil artists: for those in her audience’s au fait with the symbolism of her nationality the specific references are obvert yet regardless of religion or background, her performances create unity and shared experience — the cornerstones of any ceremonial happening.
Arulpragasam’s approach and visual exploration of her indigeneity is a conceptual one: challenging national identity boundaries, issues of appropriation and cultural remixing. M.I.A has had many identities attributed to her by reviewers and academics alike, courting herself to the media through provocation as a means through which to explore the controversies, atrocities and impact of overt public minority and indigeneity in the world of modern mass media and celebrity — most famously when breaching a contract when performing with Madonna at the Superbowl. One of the most evident applications of her cultural background is in her name: synthesising a play on hip-hop acronyms whilst drawing upon the beliefs and mythology of the Hindu Goddess Matangi — associated with peripheries and the arts — particularly those involving words: one can immediately see the parallels to the music and lyricism of M. I. A. . In perhaps a similar fashion to the significance of Birsa Munda in the plight of Adivasi people of the mainland Indian subcontinent, the attributes of Matangi are inherently relatable to the Tamil people who are on the periphery of the societies they live in, in Sri Lanka and across the world. Arulpragasam’s adoption of features related to sacred iconography into the visual language of her album covers, artworks and touring stage set designs have the effect that the audience sees the formation of Arulpragasam not only as a pop icon (icon as in the religious sense) but for Tamils specifically, a deified figure of hope and advocacy. The adaptability and fluctuations in Arulpragasam’s public persona speak not only to the ever shifting features of the global landscape of cultural politics but more basically to the versatility of individuals who may be refugees, asylum seekers or those of diasporas striving to strike a balance between their own religious, cultural or national identity in a foreign country or community.
The complex conceptual navigation of mixed national identity, activism and cultural politics in the work of M.I.A and its ambiguity, is perhaps a comment itself on the continuing mediation between modern and traditional heritage and agency that comes with being part of a diaspora. As an artistic response to the complexities of migrant or refugee life, and global flows of the modern age, her work deals with many of the issues that make up the contemporary human condition in a world of increasing multi-nationalism and the consequent navigation of this at all levels of society — from the global political diplomacy to the intimate personal perceptions of identity. For M.I.A, music is the medium she has used most: in acknowledgement of its universal accessibility — a means to an end for self expression and indigenous visibility that harnesses the processes and structures of contemporary fame culture and publicity, in order to elevate the plight of the subjugated people in her homeland of Sri Lanka. Furthermore the implicit referencing and incorporation of Tamil tradition and the history of struggle throughout Arulpragasam’s upbringing is conspicuous in the making of her work: a visual and audio-visual praxis for explicating the nature of autochthonous diasporic identity, immigration, hybridity and the remixing of cultures and how these are related to on a globally international, and more pertinently, personal and societal level. If ‘heritage’ by definition is ownership or inheritance then the concept of heritage in the work of M.I.A speaks to the individual power that comes from owning one’s own identity, cultural awareness and pride in where that is from, to the purpose of furthering the cause of coexistence between communities by giving a voice to those people whose experience may otherwise forgotten by dominant cultural projections, interpretations or dialogues. Like her namesake, the Goddess Matangi, M.I.A’s aim is the manifestation of innermost thought and truth through creativity: a protectorate of untouchables, who speaks for the otherwise disregarded who nonetheless hold their own truth and definition of who they are — in essence championing the assertion of Tamil independence and determination, ownership and acknowledgement of Tamil culture and distinct indigeneity. It is hoped that such visibility and pride will lead to Tamil self- determination and acknowledgement of their people as a autonomous nation by the majority, ensuring independence from a regime in Sri Lanka that has persecuted them for their differences. This will no doubt not be a seamless process but instead will necessitate an equally challenging cultural demand for artists to respond and react to, relative to cultural heritage being laid in place for the future.
