The Clashing of Cultures in Monsoon Wedding

Situated in the globalized, modern, and vibrant city of New Delhi, Mira Nair’s Monsoon Wedding follows the events of a middle-class Indian family as they prepare for the marriage of their beloved daughter, Aditi. As the extended family of the bride and groom begins to come together from all corners of the globe for this special occasion, Nair effectively portrays some of the challenges people from the same ethnic background can face in today’s globalized world when traditional customs clash with modern values. Through these conflicting cultural differences that is clearly seen in the arranged marriage, the modernized city, and the diaspora family, Nair suggests that in the clashes between traditional and modern values, it is important that we maintain a healthy balance between the two with an open-mind.

The arranged marriage between Aditi and Hemant during the movie provides insight on how both modern views and traditional values could bear the same problems. It is obvious from the beginning of the film that Aditi is largely influenced by westernized views as portrayed through her non-traditional street clothes and reading of Cosmopolitan magazine (Sharpe 70). Similar to the values shared in western cultures, Aditi is driven by her individualistic desires to make her own decisions in life, as demonstrated in her affair with a married television producer, Vermat. But, as Aditi soon realizes, her affair with Vermat is an imprudent choice given his instability and continual failure to divorce his wife. As a result, she decides to trust her family’s decision in an arranged marriage because it is traditionally believed in India that the family’s choice is always for the good of their children’s future (Sharda 23). However, despite deciding to go forward with an arranged marriage with the traditional Indian wedding proceedings, her future husband remarks to Aditi that all marriages can involve an element of risk (Monsoon Wedding). Regardless if it was an arranged marriage or a love marriage, any marriage can have the possibility of failing. In saying so, Nair evokes the idea that both traditional and modern values poses their risks and that perhaps one should not choose to embrace solely on one set of values, but be open and accepting to other values as well. 

            In the metropolitan city of New Delhi where the film is set, Nair deliberately depicts the clashes between Indian tradition and western modernity to present the importance of seeking a balance across different cultural perspectives. Throughout the film, “computers and cellphones used by people who continue to live a cultural life” (Geller 43) overwhelm New Delhi’s riotous streets. These scenes of a fast-paced, modernized India convincingly highlight how age-old customs such as wearing saris and modern technologies like using emails co-exist under the same time-space  (Sharpe 59). Furthermore, during one of the opening sequences of the film, the camera pans towards the monitor screens as the hosts of a television show begin debating on a social topic regarding censorship in Indian media (59). This use of this framing not only emphasizes the power of mass media in globalizing India, but also the ongoing conflict between western and traditional values. The debate presents two opposing perspectives. One panelist strongly approves of censorship, arguing that it will threaten India’s traditions, while another panelist strongly disapproves of censorship using the United States’ first amendment as an example. Through this discussion of opposing views and the imminent impact of mass media in India, Nair suggests that globalization works as long as modern and traditional ideas are balanced.

The reunion of the family members coming from America, Australia, and the Middle East further demonstrates the clash between traditional and modern ideas. For example, the director shows the internal conflict of Rahul, Aditi’s cousin from Australia, who had become so integrated into western values that he has trouble interacting with the rest of the family members who subscribe to traditional customs. Throughout the film, Rahul only wears Western clothes. Rahul wears his western-styled suit even at the traditional wedding ceremonies, where the men are expected to be dressed in their traditional Indian gowns. This showcases his lack of interest in integrating back with his traditional identity after abandoning it for five years. His flirtatious relationship with Alyssa further adds to this point further adds to this point. During the wedding ceremony, when Varun, Alyssa’s dance partner, suddenly withdraws from the dance choreography, Alyssa asks Rahul to perform with her, as she knew that he could dance. However, Rahul rejects her invitation saying: “This is not a night club in Melbourne, I can’t dance to this kind of music” (Monsoon Wedding).  Thus, it is evident that Rahul’s departure from India and assimilation into western cultures has led him to abandon some of the traditional customs that most Indian men should follow. But his final decision to disregard his lack of understanding of Indian dances and to join his family in the traditional dance reveals his acceptance in embracing his western cultural differences whilst still appreciating his Indian customs. Consequently, Nair stresses the importance of seeking to find a balance between western values and traditional customs. If one becomes too distant from one’s traditional culture, one will lose the connection with to one’s heritage.

In conclusion, Monsoon Wedding reveals that even a society with deep cultural roots can still function effectively if they are able to find a balance between modernized values whilst having an appreciation for their traditional heritage. From Nair’s vivid contrasts of the clashing of western modernity and traditional values as depicted through an arranged marriage, a globalizing India, and a diaspora Indian extended family, she exposes the fact that both age-old customs and modern values can have their limitations. However, if one maintains an open-mind and is accepting towards the two, both cultures can dynamically coincide with one another and serve to enrich our lives. As Nair establishes, culture is just about as complex as the people who embraces it. Thus, similar to many things in life, it is necessary find a balance so that one can enjoy the strengths of tradition while still welcoming the fact that the culture is changing.

Works Cited

Geller, Conrad. "Monsoon Wedding by Mira Nair; Caroline Baron; Sabrina Dhawan." Cinéast.e 27.4 (2002): 43-44. Web.

Monsoon Wedding. Dir. Mira Nair. USA Films, 2011. DVD.

Morris, Mark. "Monsoon Wedding 1." English 123. University of Alberta, Edmonton.15 October 2014. Lecture.

Sharda, Bam Dev. "Marriage Markets And Matrimonial: Match Making Among Asian Indians Of The United States." International Journal of Sociology of the Family. 20.1 (1990): 21-29. Web.

Sharpe, Jenny. "Gender, Nation, and Globalization in Monsoon Wedding and Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge." Meridians. 6.1 (2005): 58-81. Web.

“It is a poison disguised as medicine.” – the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines

I find it ironic to see the word, shame, associated with Canada and our commitments towards environmental sustainability. After all, Canada was one of the first governments in the world to support and ratify the Kyoto agreements in 1997. Since Canada’s departure from the Kyoto Protocol after the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference, it is clear that our federal government’s interests is no longer lie in becoming a global environmental leader committed towards reducing carbon emissions, but rather, a global economic leader committed towards producing carbon emissions.

The $7-billion Enbridge Northern Gateway Project proposal for the 1,170 kilometre pipeline between Bruderheim, Alberta, and Kitiman, British Columbia has generated lengthy hearings over the past several years on whether or not our nation should support such a controversial project. Considered as “a poison disguised as medicine” by the Executive Director of Greenpeace International, the endless debates for and against this project can be simply summarized in one statement—the economy versus the environment.

On one hand, according to CBC, proponents of the proposed Gateway pipeline claim that the project will bring new opportunities for economic development to Canada. By exporting our natural resources to the massive energy consumers in the Pacific markets, the Gateway pipeline will create over 3,000 construction jobs and 560 long-term jobs in British Columbia. This, as Enbridge claims, will eventually translate to 32 million dollars in earned income each year that will be funnelled back into local economies for years to come. Furthermore, the project addresses a number of major safety issues by ensuring that over 70 percent of the proposed pipeline route will go through previously disturbed land and that the pipeline will be constructed from steel that is 20 percent thicker than required.

On the other hand, opponents of the pipeline argue the potential environmental risks the Gateway pipeline poses for the sensitive ecosystems in Northern British Columbia and the western seacoast. Critics of the Gateway pipeline have stated on The Globe and Mail that the project has caused significant anxiety for many people in the surrounding areas, in particularly, for those working in the thriving forestry and fishery industries. Concerns were expressed that the heavy, molasses-like diluted bitumen transported from the Alberta oil sands will be more corrosive and difficult to clean up in an event of an oil spill. Thus, in an event of an accident such as the 2010 Deep-water Horizon oil spill and 2011 Little Buffalo oil spill, irreversible damage will be done to overall health of these priceless and delicate ecosystems. Moreover, the opponents assert that the increased activity in oil sand processing facilities and amplified tanker traffic throughout the Douglas Channel once the pipeline is built will contribute to an upsurge in the emission of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.   

Even though this contentious issue can be broken down and analyzed as two distinct positions each with its pros and cons, I believe another way of looking at the issue is to consider the parties who will benefit from these pros, and the parties who will have to bear the consequences of these cons. It is very obvious to me that all the benefits will go straight to the major proponents for the Gateway project, including the Pacific countries, the Alberta’s oil and gas industries, and the Enbridge stockholders. This is because all aspects of the Gateway project are directly controlled and influenced by these major players. However, on the contrary, those who do not have direct control or power over the Gateway project, which includes the people of British Columbia and the First Nation communities, will have to endure all the risks and consequences that the pipeline raises. Consequently, the project no longer becomes a simple question of: “Should we build the Gateway pipeline?”, but instead, a complicated socio-ethical question of: “Should one sector benefit at the expense of another sector in the same country?”.

My answer? Absolute not. As evident from Canada’s departure from being a major leader in environmental sustainability to a major player in the energy sector, I think Canadians are becoming more and more similar to our close neighbours down south to the extent of even importing some of their abstract economic ideologies to Canada. For the better or worst, which I firmly believe is the latter, these superficial values for economic growth and wealth will not get us far. Yes, the economic potential associated with the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project will bring over 81 billion dollars in revenue to our federal government and increase Canada’s gross domestic product (GDP) by 270 billion dollars over the next 30 years. However, this will be short-lived as The Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board claims that the oil sands will eventually run out by the next century. If the estimates are correct, what will we do then? Additionally, we must consider how much these benefits will actually be going directly back to the average Canadian citizen? A study by the Centre of Policy Alternatives indicates that the share going to workers will only be 18 percent of the total GDP, which is extremely low by Canadian economic standards that have “traditionally seen a labour share of income in excess of 50 percent of GDP”. Hence, aside from the selected few who have total leadership over the project, the common Canadian will not be benefiting a whole lot from the Gateway pipeline. Instead, Canadians will have to confront a growing inequality in the distribution of wealth, where Statistic Canada has already revealed in 2012 that the top 10 percent of Canadians accounted for 47.9 percent of all wealth, while the bottom 30 percent of Canadians accounted for less than 1 percent of all wealth. Consequently, if this trend continues, it will increase social tensions and weaken social cohesion between Canadians.

Essentially, what I think our Federal government is doing at the moment by exporting our resources through the Gateway pipeline (and various other pipeline projects) is to fulfill our impulsive thirst for economic growth. What they do not realize is that by doing so, they are not only leaving a wasteland for our future generations, but they are also giving other foreign superpowers opportunities to have more control in our economic and political systems. By embracing the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, we are basically taking in “a poison [that is] disguised as medicine”. In this case, the Gateway project is poisonous such that it will completely destroy the integrity of this nation, while giving the illusion that it will help develop Canada’s economy well into the twenty-first century. Thus, the Canadian leaders of today and tomorrow must be able to seek past the narrow frame of the dollar sign and ensure that we are creating a virtuous and sustainable Canada for our children and ourselves.