The 'typical' Malaysian Indian

The ‘typical’ Malaysian Indian

Part I of II: Stereotyping and Prejudice

I recall many years ago during my attachment with the state athletics team, I collected numerous sports memorabilia from Perak, who had shamelessly splashed all their sporting apparel with bright yellow. I would proudly wear a bright yellow tee bearing the words ‘Perak’ written in bold across the back, but I began to realise that I was turning heads in my direction for the wrong reasons. I was a little bemused until an Indian friend commented in disgust that I looked like a ‘typical’ Indian. A little apprehensively I asked her in return to describe what a ‘typical’ Indian would look like. Her answer was:

“Greasy hair smelling of coconut oil, shabbily dressed in bright coloured clothing that could probably blind you if you stared long enough, foul mouthed, looking scruffy and dirty.”

I laughed and shrugged of her words, but I never wore my bright yellow tee outdoors afterwards.

Skip a few years; during a visit to my former college during its alumni weekend, I was most unfortunate to be caught by a former teacher (who was also a good friend) whilst playing sports, not looking my usual best: dressed in a dirty cap, a worn out tee and shorts. His first words to me at our reunion were, “You look like you came straight out of the estate,” which I presumed was referred to the ‘typical’ Malaysian Indians who in masses used to live in estates under the British rule. It took me a while to appreciate that there was not a hint of malice in his words, but only misplaced humour by drawing comparison to a ‘typical’ Indian.

The word ‘typical’ itself is defined as, ‘of the nature of, or serving as a type, or representative specimen; distinctive or characteristic’. Taking the term ‘typical Indian’ and translating this into statistics (accepting that ‘typical’ meant a representative specimen) would be the equivalent of a scatter of characteristics, around a defined set of racial stereotypes towards Indian which serves as a mean (or median) sample of the given Malaysian Indian population. Simply put, the term ‘typical Indian’ when used to describe a certain pattern of (usually undesirable) behaviour or character refers to the fact that it is consistent with their stereotypes and views of the general Malaysian Indian population; a pattern which they recognize and pertain to the average Malaysian Indian.

I acknowledge that racial stereotypes are inevitable in any given multiethnic society, even more so in Malaysia where ethnic ties are constantly at friction with each other. Whilst these stereotypes may not necessarily be true, it provides us with a crude idea on how a particular race is viewed or perceived by the others, regardless if it is justified or not.

There are many explanations and theories behind why stereotypes exist. I choose to highlight two which I believe are relevant in most cases in Malaysia: 1) to predict the social world by which one accumulates several distinctive characteristics of a number of individuals belonging to a particular group, and then projects these views into a broader generalized picture of what one perceives or expects this group to be. 2) is the ‘in-group favourability bias’ which by belonging to a particular group, one believes that he/she is part of group that one views positively, and the others (out-groups) negatively; a phenomenon (closely related to ethnocentricity) that is observed predominantly in groups that lack social mobility e.g. the divided multi-ethnic Malaysia in its early years.

The need of the ability to predict the social world is easy to understand. It dictates our approach in social situations at the most basic level; the way one talks, dresses, behaves in front of a particular type of audience. This can be achieved by numerous ways, such as experience of encounter or more significantly imposed beliefs by an influential person such as parents, family or close friends. Erving Goffman (1959) wrote:

“…when an individual enters the presence of others they commonly seek to acquire information about him or bring into play information already possessed… information about the individual helps to define the situation, enabling others to know in advance what he will expect of them and they may expect of him…”

The ‘in-group favourability bias’ is somewhat more subjective. In Malaysia (and Malaya alike) whilst ethnic mixing is common, it does not necessarily reflect on the harmony of these ties. Inter-ethnic tensions are well known and intra-ethnic groups tend to gel together much more willingly. However, when comparing an individual (regardless of ethnicity) who mixes freely with other races against another who does not, do they both hold the same stereotypes against other races?

According to A. Rabushka, who researched stereotypes in Malaya they both should do. In his paper titled ‘Racial Stereotypes in Malaya’ in 1971, he concluded that stereotypes are invariant and independent of social interaction. Rabushka argues that ethnic mixing does not alter one’s perception of an ‘out-group’ and display distinct beliefs of members of other ethnic groups, whilst acknowledging that this may not necessarily affect social or political behaviour.

Here Rabushka defines the fine line between prejudice and actual discrimination which may be a difficult concept to grasp. Anthony Giddens a leading social theorist defines prejudice as:

“…opinions or attitudes held by members of one group towards another…preconceived views are often based on hearsay rather than on direct evidence, and are resistant to change even in the face of new information…”

Whereas discrimination is defined as:

“…the actual behaviour towards another group or individual by making a distinction in favour for or against based solely on the group in which one belongs to...”

But there is much reason to doubt Rabushka’s conclusions in view of more recent psycho-sociological research on stereotyping between ‘in-groups’ and ‘out-groups’. It is simply common sense that an individual who spends more time together with an ‘out-group’ will be able to experience by encounter and gauge accordingly if any of his/her preconceived stereotypes hold and discard any stereotype should they prove false.

But what if they are true? Are these stereotypes then retained?

To explore this, I scourged the internet, literature and even took the liberty to conduct a quick survey amongst friends on their views of the ‘typical’ Indian. I must admit that I was nowhere near elated with the pattern that began to emerge from my ‘research’. The internet and existing literature generated a long list of negative stereotypes. My quick survey drew an immediate almost apologetic opening from most respondents, as though to warn me of unpleasantness and to prep me for their opinions before generating the already familiar long list of negatives.

I list down some the negative stereotypes regarding the ‘typical’ Indian that I encountered to provide readers with what I believe is a true snapshot picture of what people think of the Malaysian Indian population in general, in no particular order:-

“…passive, non-competitive, smelly, hairy, snaky, uneducated, gangsters, drunks, class/caste based, just the type of guys who you would expect to disturbs/harass the girls, pitiful, lazy, involved in petty crimes, way behind the Chinese/Malays in economic terms…”

I also choose to quote a selected excerpt from Peter J. Wilson from, ‘A Malay village and Malaysia’, 1967:

“…In general, villagers seem to regard Indians as people to laugh about: the blackness of skin, hairiness, and skinny men and fat women seemed to amuse them most… Village men and women alike object to, and find most peculiar, the smells associated with Indians. Most Indian stores have an incense stick burning, and there is often blended in with this the smell of scent. The smell of Indian cooking seems characteristic to Malay villagers, to whom the body smell of Indians is also oppressive. A major reason given by villagers for not travelling on a bus at night is that the smell of Indians is so strong… But whereas the Chinese are ritually or mystically dirty, Indians are considered squalid…”

John Crawfurd, a former colonial administrator in Malaya also wrote:

“…with respect to their intellectual faculties, the Indian islanders may be pronounced slow of comprehension, but of sound, though narrow judgement… it must be confessed that an Indian islander of the best capacity is unequal, in most respects to an individual not above mediocrity in a civilized community…”

N.B John Crawfurd has often described the Malay Archipelago as the Indian Archipelago, and therefore the term ‘Indian Islanders’ in his writings may potentially be a misnomer and could possibly be a reference to the Malay race. Or perhaps he was actually referring to the Indian race? I make the assumption in my text, that the term ‘Indian Islanders’ was in reference to the Indian race (perhaps at my own folly).

(to be continued; Part II will be posted on the 28th January 2007)