During my undergraduate days, there was a particular feminist scholar, Nirmala PuroShotam that blew my mind away with her view on family and relationships in Singapore, that I (and so many of us) have always assumed as "normal".
One of her more memorable phrases that I still remember until now is how every marriage is inter-racial, seeing that the performance of "race" is not universal even amongst the group of people that are legally defined as being in the same "race". Take my parents for example, according to the state, they are both "Malays" but in practice, my mother is Javanese while my father is Bugis/Boyanese. In terms of language alone, they are not similar and more so in terms of cuisine. I remembered my mother having a lot of difficulty learning the Boyanese dishes that were not similar to her own Javanese recipes. Yet, their marriage rested on their use of societal knowledge that is drawn from a variety of sources - some, as the case of language and food can differ, but some interpretations of "Malay-ness" is still similar. For example, both value "Hari Raya Aidilfitri/Aidiladha and would see to it that we visit all the elders during that period. Both also placed great importance in the religious upbringing of their children. However, in terms of secular education, my parents' view of "Malay-ness" differed. My mother felt that Malays needed to prove themselves and not be pushed to the back of the class. I would say that my mum was hardass with me which was why I scored well in school I suppose. On the other hand, my father was more the "relax one corner" type. He encouraged our non-academic interests in music, arts and was happy as long as we passed our exams.
However, hardly do we ever stop to think of marriage as being inter-racial this way, although it is. So then what makes an "inter-ethnic marriage" so... controversial (and complicated)? According to PuroShotam, it is the recognisably visible phenotypical differences perceived to exist between the concerned couple. In Frenchy's and my situation, it would be the lack of similar societal knowledge concerning "Malayness" and "Frenchness".
In one occasion, I had brought him along to a Malay wedding and we were served Sambal Goreng Pengantin (a spicy dish of mixed meat). While eating, he suddenly made a strange face and asked what was the piece of meat he was eating and I told him it was paru (cow lung). I was proud of him for still swallowing it and not puking his guts out. A fine example of mismatch in societal knowledge. Eating almost all parts of the cow (and here you can add chicken and lamb/goat) is common not just in the Malay culture but also in Asia. I suppose it's because protein from meat was expensive back in the kampung days that it was crucial to make the most of the animal.
However, in a postmodern world (or high modernity, whichever school of thought you belong to), does the performance of race matters that much? In Singapore, the introduction of a double-barrelled race already challenges this discourse, as with the increasing inter-racial/nationality marriage trends. Taking away race, marriage and everything else, doesn't really make us lifeless, directionless souls I feel. Surely, we are more multifaceted than just the titles on our identity cards?
For more reading on PuroShotam's work, see: PuruShotam, Nirmala. 2004.“Bride Pride and Grooming Prejudices: Race Matters in Marriage.” In (Un) tying The Knot: Ideal and Reality in Asian Marriage.
No comments:
Post a Comment