Cultural Reflections: Indian Matchmaking
Photo: IMDB
Netflix’s Indian Matchmaking is an unscripted docuseries about the arranged marriage industry. It follows a Mumbai based matchmaker, Sima Taparia, as she aspires to find the perfect life partners for her clients in India and the US. Its creator and executive producer, Smriti Mundhra, is a US based Oscar-nominated filmmaker who - fun fact! - worked with “Sima Aunty” for her own matchmaking travails many years ago. Throughout the series we meet a number of young people and their families attempting to follow the tradition of arranged marriage, albeit in this current era of shifting values and rapid change. As an Indian-American woman who dealt with my own fair share of marriage pressure, I have to admit watching IM was both wildly entertaining and mildly-to-wildly triggering. This Journal post will look different than my previous posts - instead of digging into a psychological theme in this show, I’m going to share my thoughts on the cultural critique of this series, and, more broadly, how culture shapes well being.
IM has received a hefty amount of criticism for its raw depiction of various cultural practices and norms. One of these is its unfiltered view of arranged marriage, which, in Hindu culture, holds its roots in caste preservation; this article notes the many ways caste is alluded to implicitly and explicitly in matchmaking and in the series. Others have commented on the problematic depiction of colorism (explicitly seeking a “fair” skinned bride or groom) and narrow standards of beauty; lack of representation by including only upper class / heterosexual / Hindu participants; and generally depicting our culture as a “burden”. In some cases, the show - and any coverage not focused on fully bashing it - is met with pretty extreme vitriol, as the comments on this post clearly indicate!
Many others have acknowledged that while this critique is warranted, the problem does not lie with Indian Matchmaking but rather with reality itself. Colorism (and racism more broadly) is a problem amongst Indians; this series makes that clear. Despite claims that caste is a thing of the past, it most certainly is not; this series sheds light on that. How could IM possibly depict formal matchmaking amongst LGBTQ+ couples when the very existence of homosexual behavior was a crime in India until recently? How can equal gender roles be portrayed when so much gender based inequality persists? Sima, a Hindu, is most certainly not going to be arranging marriages between Muslims (who are currently facing state-sanctioned persecution and violence in India) or other religious communities. As for Sima collaborating with other matchmakers for “cross caste” / “cross religion” marriages (a suggestion brought up in this interview), I can assure you those aren’t happening through a matchmaker; to this day people in India are killed for marrying outside their communities. So why criticize the series for failing to depict a fantasy world that doesn’t exist?
As many have written, IM holds a mirror to our society, in India and abroad. Some of the articles I’ve linked emphasize it’s not only Indian culture that suffers from biased views in dating, narrow ideals of beauty, or stratification in society. For more evidence, consider patterns of racism and anti-Blackness in online dating in the US, or the abysmal lack of of diversity on American dating shows; consider the way arbitrary elements like skin color and zip code determine health outcomes (and much more) in America. Plus, all things considered, IM does include a fair amount of diversity including people who are: divorced or have divorced parents (still taboo in Indian culture); from different regions of India and the diaspora; and of various size, shade, and age. Could it do more, be better? Of course - read on for my suggestions on one possible strategy! But much of the anger seems misdirected in my opinion.
Furthermore, interviews with Smriti Mundhra indicate that she wants this series to provoke conversation and spark change; in fact, it was an intentional decision not to edit out problematic references in an effort to avoid “sanitizing” the reality. My favorite interview is this one, where she states that to buck tradition in any realm - especially dating and marriage - is a privilege. Decolonizing our minds, questioning patriarchal norms, opening ourselves to new ways of living and loving - all of this is a privilege. Perhaps through conversation and questioning, others can begin to fight for this privilege too. Another theme from the interview is representation: there’s not enough of it when it comes to South Asians in American media, and one series can’t tackle everything. For all those criticizing, get out there and go make more content! We are desperately in need of it, and if the hype around IM is any indication, audiences are ready and waiting.
So how does this relate to psychology and well being, you may be wondering? As I wrote in my Journal post on The Farewell, culture molds our sense of self, and is a crucial factor in how we think, feel, and behave. Culture shapes how we see ourselves, and it shapes our health. Holding a mirror to our culture - however harsh the reflection may be - is necessary for increasing awareness around harmful practices (like many of those listed above) and understanding how they impact us. For example, it’s well documented that narrow standards of beauty contribute to serious mental health problems, such as eating disorders. Stigma stems directly from societal and cultural norms, and mental health related stigma often results in tragic effects on our health and well being. Productions like IM have the opportunity to reflect the problematic practices within our culture and in other cultures as well, and to help us engage in dialogue around how to make shifts.
That’s why the critique of this show seems so important: rather than watching this program and shrugging it off, so many of us seem compelled to discuss and debate, to demand change and seek understanding. Holding a mirror to our interior and exterior worlds, all the layers within and around us, is the ultimate form of truth telling is it not? This is precisely why diverse and varied media productions - and art in general - are so necessary. In this long overdue era of fighting for racial justice and reckoning with prejudice, perhaps this is exactly what we need: To stare back at ourselves, warts and all, and question, modify, grow in the hopes that something more powerful and pleasing emerges. If it’s not already clear, I fall into the ‘don’t hate the player, hate the game’ camp when it comes to this series. If you haven’t checked IM out yet - I recommend giving it a try and doing some reflecting of your own!
** A note on how to make it better: If Indian Matchmaking gets a second season, the criticism around not confronting the problematic realities depicted could be addressed by a “going deeper” segment following each episode, potentially with Smriti + one rotating cast member. HBO programs, such as Insecure, do this really well (in a different context given the different type of shows of course). I agree reality should not be sanitized, but providing an opportunity for participants themselves to comment on certain aspects (colorism, gender inequity, casteism, etc.) might allow the series to provide greater context without losing the format of the show.
Here’s another documentary examining dating and marriage in Indian-Americans:
Meet the Patels / Geeta & Ravi Patel
And one of my all time favorite films, which also focuses on marriage and family in India:
Monsoon Wedding / Mira Nair
