Veröffentlichungen von Urmila Goel / Desis in Deutschland
Forschungsprojekt "Die virtuelle zweite Generation"
Urmila Goel, September 2014
The editors of the internet portal Indernet wanted their virtual space to be open for all. Nonetheless the user Ram more or less stopped visiting the site. He did not feel comfortable as everything was so heteronormative. Queer or feminist voices were hardly audible on the Indernet. The users all seemed to be cisgendered, heterosexual and positioned within the political mainstream. There were hardly discussions questioning this normative order.
The article summarizes, how and why heteronormativity established itself so well on the internet portal despite the editors' openness for deviations from the norm. I will first give some information about the Indernet and my research about it. Following this, I will discuss how (the female) gender is addressed on the Indernet and how issues around sexuality and relationships are debated. The article ends with thoughts on the stability of heteronormativity.
The term Indernet is a German play on words, merging the German word for Indians Inder with the terms internet and network, thus creating the idea of an online network of (German) Indians. The internet portal Indernet was founded in the summer of 2000 by second generation Indians for second generation Indians in Germany. It was used a lot up until about 2007, thereon it became more or less inactive (but still online) until 2011, when the Indernet was relaunched as a blog and a Facebook page.
I have been observing the Indernet since autumn 2000 and have visited the virtual space almost every day since then, mostly as a lurker. Between the years 2004 and 2006 I occasionally participated in the forum and chat as well as contributed a few articles to the editorial section. More importantly in this time I conducted more than 80 open interviews about the Indernet with founders, editors and users, as well as observers. With some of these I am still in contact, in particular by befriending them on Facebook. In my ethnographic approach (cf. Goel 2014) I was guided by Miller and Slater (2000), theoretically I was guided by critical racism theory (Mecheril 2003) and methodologically I was inspired by the grounded theory approach (Creswell 1998). In my writing I anonymize my material to prevent my interview partners being easily traceable by search engines. Therefore I will neither offer the url of the Indernet nor the real (nick)names of my informants.
Until 2007 the Indernet created a space of belongingness for second generation Indians (Goel 2009). It was a space, in which they belonged to the norm, where they could imagine that the other users shared their experiences and where they did not feel the need to always explain themselves. It was a space firmly rooted in Germany (Goel 2008a), offering an alternative to the spaces of the dominant German society (and its racism) and to those of their parents (and their attempts to preserve culture and community). It was a space, which could be shaped on their own terms as second generation. Using the freedom granted by the new media (cf. Miller and Slater 2000: 16-18) they could construct their own image of India and what it means to be second generation Indian (Goel 2008b). After 2007 a sense of belongingness to the virtual space Indernet remained, but due to technological and demographic changes it served no longer as a space of belongingness (Goel 2012).
The internet portal had a women's section, consisting of an editorial part and a forum. According to an internal chronicle the female editors in charge of the section founded it. I was repeatedly told that the Indernet editors all chose the field of reporting they were most interested and competent in. This stood in contrast to the interviews with the editors of the women's section. None of them had chosen this section of their own, nor were they particularly interested in this topic. Rather they recounted that the male editors had seen the need of a women's section in order to attract female users and had asked them to be the editors. They had agreed to do so since there were few women in the editorial team. The attributed competence of the women's section editors was thus not founded in their fields of interest or skills but in their attributed gender. This short account of the implementation and representation of the women's section shows that the Indernet editors thought in the dichotomy of men and women, attributing different mentalities and roles to these two genders and setting men as the unmarked norm. The whole internet portal was made for men, but for women there was the need to offer something extra - and it was the women's task to do so.
The editors of the women's section followed this logic to some extent, but they wanted to develop the women's section on their own terms. Although they had the impression that what was asked for was a replication of women's magazines with articles on fashion, make-up and recipes, they refused to offer this. Rather than reducing women's issues to beauty and household duties, they told me that they wanted to portray strong and successful women and the women's movement in India. Like the Indernet as a whole wanted to represent a new modern image of India (Goel 2008b), the editors of the women's section wanted to represent a new modern image of Indian women, who were independent and active.
They introduced the rubric 'woman of the week', which was more or less regularly updated for five months and afterwards received only few contributions. Among those portrayed were the astronaut Kalpana Chawla, the policewoman and head of a prison Kiran Bedi, an athlete, several writers, a film maker, a dancer, several singers and a former Miss World. Many of these were Indian women also known abroad or they were themselves part of the Indian diaspora. While all of the portrayed women were successful, only the occupations of Chawla and Bedi challenged heteronormative gender roles. In contrast to them, in particular the Miss World (re)produced a patriarchal image of women since beauty pageants are manifestations of gender inequality (Dewey 2008: 4). The contestants of Miss India pageants are according to Dewey (2008: 19) constructed as embodiments of the ideal urban Indian femininity. While they are required to talk about women's power, they learn to do this in a way, which respects traditional gender roles and abstains from radical or controversial statements (Dewey 2008: 140-141). In some way the Indernet and its women's section fulfilled a similar function. While they put much effort into creating a modern image of India and Indians, they did so mostly without challenging traditions and in a non-controversial manner, thus stabilizing the heteronormative order.
In the early time of the Indernet and the women's section there was one major deviation from this strategy. One editor of the women's section wrote an article about the lacking gender equality in India, challenged prevailing traditions and positioned modern successful women against these. This provoked a user to write a reply, which was quite differentiated. He questioned talking only about inequality in India but not in Germany, pursued economic arguments and most of all challenged normative ideas about masculinity. But this discussion was not continued. The women's section in fact hardly offered articles written by and focusing on issues of the second generation Indians. Instead, it mostly relied on copied articles from other internet sources. Few of these were about organizations of women in India; none of them was particularly feminist. Despite the self-set aim of not writing about fashion, make-up and recipes, a fashion rubric was introduced. However, the special on the Miss India Germany pageant 2003, of which the Indernet was a media partner, was not featured within the women's section. Several male editors (and the female entertainment editor) attended the event on behalf of the Indernet. One of the men was even one of the jurors. Heteronormative images of the ideal German-Indian woman were thus (re)produced on the Indernet without involving the women's section and its editors.
Meanwhile the women's forum was not very much used. The editors of the women's sections attempted to involve users in discussions and receive recommendations for the 'women of the week' rubric, however with little success. There were some threads about fashion, make-up and relationships. Many of the latter were initiated by men, some of these were very sexualized, sexist and aggressive. In 2006 the user Judy initiated the thread 'what about feminism?!'. She started it with: 'I am new on the Indernet. Had expected something different from the women's forum. Hair oil and bangles - is that everything? No feminist discussions?' (my translation). The first reactions to this post were very hostile, anti-feminist and sexist, using the terms feminist and lesbian as derogatory terms. This set the tone for the following discussion. Some supported the need for feminist discussions, but most did so very guardedly, agreeing also to anti-feminist statements. Judy replied once, arguing her demand for feminist discussions and then disappeared from the Indernet. The thread both showed the need for feminist intervention and that the Indernet was a rough space for feminists. Too controversial posts, which challenged the normative order, were sanctioned by aggressive reactions. Using lesbian as a derogatory term was, however, not particularly typical for the Indernet. Gay was used much more often to degrade other users. This as well as sexualized language and (aggressive) flirting was part of constructing masculinity and asserting heterosexuality among users.
The Indernet was very much a space for heterosexual flirting, looking for and talking about potential partners and talking about relationships and marriage. From the long-term observation I know that not only many intimate relationships started through the Indernet, but several actually lasted for many years and some led to marriage and children. While all of this is typical for virtual spaces, there were aspects which were specific about the Indernet. Since it was a space of the second generation, it was a good environment to look for a partner, who was also of the second generation. Such a partner was sought for at least two reasons. Firstly, Indians of the second generation told me that they were looking for a partner, who shared their natio-ethno-cultural background. Following Palriwala and Uberoi (2008: 40-45) I argue that thus they hoped to preserve their felt link to India and an Indian community in Germany, to follow traditions and to found families, which were acceptable in their natio-ethno-cultural community. Thus, they could not only please their Indian parents, but also (re)produced nation and community (Yuval-Davis 1997). Secondly, the Indernet users argued that they were looking for someone, who experienced the same in Germany as them and thus could understand them better than somebody from another natio-ethno-cultural background. This partly refers to experiencing India and Indian cultural practices, but in particular it refers to sharing the feeling of being othered in Germany. Just like the Indernet was a space of belongingness for Indians of the second generation, they also sought (with the help of the Indernet) a partnership in which they were understood without explanation.
The need to discuss among equals was apparent in the recurring discussions about arranged marriages in the Indernet forum. While this cultural practice was common among many relatives of the users in India as well as among many of their parents, in mainstream Germany it was equated with forced marriage and condemned (cf. Bredal 2005). This knowledge about a cultural practice being normal in one context and absolutely despised in the other produced a need among Indians of the second generation to find their own standpoint. In the Indernet discussions they debated arguments for and against arranged marriages and sought a way to reconcile both positions somehow. These discussions mostly stayed abstract and focused on India rather than on their own lives. From my observations, I have the impression that most of the users were heading (with the approval of their parents) for a love marriage. The discussions were thus more about dealing with images of India and conflicts between normativities than about practices they were faced with themselves.
The Indernet editors saw that their users were looking for partners of the same background. Thus they not only advertised their bulletin board as a space to do that, but in 2004 also wanted to organize a speed dating event offline. While a number of male users were interested and willing to pay the entry fee, only a few female users applied. Thus this modern version of arranging a suitable partnership did not actually take place. I assume that particularly the women preferred the anonymity of the internet portal to flirt with the other sex. Looking for a partner at an offline event might have been too prone to cause lewd comments and a bad reputation, since in the normative natio-ethno-cultural framework women are not supposed to be sexually proactive (cf. Yuval-Davis 1997).
When I asked the editors whether they could envisage organizing also a speed dating event for homosexual users, they were open to the idea. They doubted, however, that there was a large enough market. They did not believe that users would dare to out themselves since they considered the Indian community very homophobic. The editors might have been right with this assumption. My queer interview partners very much stressed the need to stay anonymous. Going to an offline queer event with unknown participants might have been considered as dangerous as outing themselves in the Indernet forum. Most probably a safe subspace of the Indernet or an independent virtual space would have been more suitable for queer users to interact and establish trust (cf. Shahani 2008).
While the editors did not see a necessity to install a moderating system, which sanctioned homophobic statements, they were open to queer content. When I offered them articles on queer Indian issues in 2005 and 2006, they published these in the editorial section. At that time, however, the user Ram had already stopped visiting the Indernet. He had not found any articles about queer issues on the Indernet, had seen homophobic remarks in the forum and noticed how the term gay was used to provoke. Even with my two articles the Indernet did not change to a space, where queer users could feel very comfortable. None of the regular users outed themselves online. In all arguments against homophobic remarks users were careful to stress their heterosexuality. Non-heterosexuals used the Indernet only hiding this part of their identity.
Heteronormativity is a very stable system, because it is (re)produced as long as everybody follows the norm (Butler 2007). This is also apparent on the Indernet. Non-heteronormative content does not appear on its own in the editorial section. There must be somebody, who has an interest in promoting non-heteronormative content, in order for it to be included and this person has to see to it regularly. Only then the heteronormative framework will be disturbed somewhat. In the interactive elements it requires active engagement of the site administrators to prevent homophobic and sexist posts. Without this interference the interactive elements are not safe for those who deviate from the heteronormative order. Those users will be either silenced or will leave the virtual space (cf. Gajjala 2004: 2). Even if the editors and site administrators are earnest in their wish to include all users, unless they act proactively, the virtual space remains exclusive.
By developing safe sub-spaces for female and queer users, the Indernet might have opened spaces, where female users could have discussed problems they encountered (cf. Gajjala 2004) and queer users could have come out to each other (cf. Shahani 2008). This would, however, have required some effort put into the technological development and implementation of the safe spaces as well as a committed moderation of them. Also, the need for these spaces would have had to be argued to the general Indernet community. The security of the heteronormative order would have been disturbed and most likely users would have shown resistance. It would also have disturbed the image of an Indian space, which is both modern and preserves traditions, as heteronormativity is a fundamental corner stone of nation and community building (Menon 2007, Yuval-Davis 1997). Including non-heteronormative content and openly allowing the existence of such users, might well have driven away other users and disturbed the imagination of inclusiveness. The claimed inclusiveness could only be upheld by normatively excluding those, who supposedly did not exist.
Bredal, Anja (2005): "Arranged marriages as a multicultural battlefield". In: Andersson, Mette/ Lithman, Yngve Georg/ Sernhede, Ove (eds.): Youth, Otherness and the Plural City: Modes of Belonging and Social Life. Göteborg: Daidalos, pp. 75-105.
Butler, Judith (2007): Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge, 2nd edition.
Creswell, John W. (1998): Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Dewey, Susan (2008): Making Miss India Miss World. Constructing Gender, Power, and the Nation in Postliberalization India. Syracruse: Syracruse University Press.
Gajjala, Radhika (2004): cyber selves. Feminist Ethnographies of South Asian Women. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
Goel, Urmila (2014): "From the German Periphery - On Ethnographic Explorations of Indian Transnationalism Online". In: Sahoo, Ajaya K./ de Kruijf, Johannes G. (eds.): Indian Transnationalism Online: New Perspectives on Diaspora. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 63-80. Online: http://www.urmila.de/UDG/Forschung/texte/periphery.html [22.08.14]
Goel, Urmila (2012): "The virtual space of belongingness Indernet - A long-term observation". Paper presented at the conference: Digital Crossroads. Media, Migration and Diaspora in a Transnational Perspective. Utrecht, 29.06.12. Online: http://www.urmila.de/UDG/Forschung/texte/GoelLongterm.pdf [22.08.14]
Goel, Urmila (2009): "The German internet portal Indernet - A space for multiple belongingness". In: Goggin, Gerard / McClelland, Mark (eds.): Internationalizing Internet Studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 128-144.
Goel, Urmila (2008a): "The Indernet - A German network in a transnational space". In: Anghel, Remus Gabriel / Gerharz, Eva / Rescher, Gilberto / Salzbrunn, Monika (eds.): The Making of World Society. Perspectives from Transnational Research. Bielefeld: transcript, pp. 291-309. Online: http://www.urmila.de/UDG/Forschung/texte/transnational.html [22.08.14]
Goel, Urmila (2008b): "Imagining India Online: Second-Generation Indians in Germany". In: Esleben, Jörg / Kraenzle, Christina / Kulkarni, Sukanya (eds.): Mapping Channels between Ganges and Rhein: German-Indian Cross-Cultural Relations. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 210-232. Online: http://www.urmila.de/UDG/Forschung/texte/imagining.html [22.08.14]
Mecheril, Paul (2003): Prekäre Verhältnisse. Über natio-ethno-kulturelle (Mehrfach-)Zugehörigkeit. Münster: Waxmann.
Menon, Nivedita (2007): "Outing Heteronormativity: Nation, Citizen, Feminist Disruptions". In: Menon, Nivedita (ed.): Sexualities. Delhi: Women Unlimited, pp. 3-51.
Miller, Dan/ Slater, Don (2000): The Internet. An Ethnographic Approach. Oxford: Berg.
Palriwala, Rajni/ Uberoi, Patricia (2008): "Exploring the Links: Gender Issues in Marriage and Migration". In: Palriwala, Rajni/ Uberoi, Patricia (eds.): Marriage, Migration and Gender, Delhi: Sage, pp. 23-62.
Shahani, Parmesh (2008). Gay Bombay. Globalization, Love and (Be)Longing in Contemporary India. Delhi: Sage.
Yuval-Davis, Nira (1997): Gender & Nation. Delhi: Sage.
Siehe auch: