Gay Bombay: Globalization, Love and (Be)longing in Contemporary India (26 page)

The majority, however, are appreciative that I have chosen to focus on issues dealing with contemporary gay life in Bombay. They respond to me personally and warmly—and go out of their way to help me in my efforts. Gopal offers to send me relevant magazine articles to Boston whenever required. Karim loans me his private collection of press clippings and makes sure that I am well-connected with a diverse range of people while I am in Bombay. Mohnish takes me to see a drag
lavni
—a traditional Indian folk dance being perfumed by male dancers in female clothing and make-up (it is a huge hit among the Marathi speaking audiences in Bombay)—and even arranges a private backstage interview with the performers and director. The Humsafar Trust opens up its premises and archives to me. Mike gives me his cellphone when mine stops working—and lets me keep it for the entire duration of my stay in Bombay. There are many other incidents, both big and small, but by far, the most important gifts that my interviewees give me are their valuable time and their fascinating stories.

I exploit my ‘multiplex subjectivity’77 to win the confidence of my potential interviewees in various ways. Sometimes, I utilize my privileged class background to gain access to people who might not have spoken to me otherwise. My relative youth and somewhat zany style-sense means that I can connect with a lot of people in their 20s and even younger, as a peer. When needed, I flaunt my academic punditry—and use my MIT research position as a door opener. In other cases, my prior life as a corporate citizen of Bombay comes in handy.

While I always try to be as much of
myself
as possible in my interactions with group members, I fine-tune certain aspects of my personality to suit
152
Gay

Bombay

the need of the hour. For example, if I feel that a particular interviewee might bond better with me if I act or sound a little campy, then I do so. Likewise, other decisions like meeting place and clothes to wear are all conditioned by my prior knowledge of the interviewee. If I feel that it is advantageous to bring up my American connection, I do so, but if I sense resentment, I quickly play up my innate Bombayness.

My age is also a factor in the role that I play with my interviewees. Older respondents tend to treat me with indulgence. If we go out for a meal, they refuse to let me pay the bill and I feel pampered in their company, perhaps like a younger sibling. Correspondingly, with respondents who are younger than me, I tend to assume a big-brother kind of role, paying for our meals and advising them on their lives.

My respondents get irritated when I ask them for basic demographic information—they presume that I already know these details through my interaction with them. My strategy for asking open-ended questions is not always well received—some respondents interpret this as vague-ness. Sometimes, when I ask them basic questions that I should already know the answers to due to my
insider
position, they think that I am unprofessional and ill informed. Or they think that I am just joking or teasing them. Occasionally, they get angry and lash out that I should know
how it is
.

I want to tell them that I do know, but my situation is different. I have been very lucky actually—my parents have accepted my sexuality without a fuss (well, more or less). I am economically, educationally and socially privileged, I have always had a place of my own to bring guys to if I so desire, in Bombay. So, yes, I can speculate, but have no idea how it
really
is! Of course, I cannot say all this or I will lose my rapport.

But I can certainly sense that I am a cause of resentment within some of my respondents (although they do not voice it directly) due to my upper-middle class South Bombay origins and my multiple-entry American visa that allows me to cross (at least certain) borders with ease.

I find it very hard to do research in the city in which I have spent most of my adult life. My non-researcher life is always trying to intervene.

Because I am so involved with my field or homework, I do not return calls from friends, delay many personal appointments and even cancelled two out-of-town trips at the last moment. This causes a lot of irritation Up Close and Personal
153

among my friends and family members. While doing research, I am constantly aware of the fact that my work is going to be judged by an audience for its professionalism and methodological and theoretical rigour. This is frustrating and quite nerve wrecking. On other occasions, like Joseph (1998), I find it ‘difficult to think of my relationship with

[my subjects] as a source of research data. They became active subjects, rather than objects of research’ and I often forget to record important data while I am with them,78 or as the following chat excerpt reveals, reverse roles with them—

Parmesh says: Have you ever deceived or been deceived by someone online—and in specifically in settings like GB? If so, what

was the experience like?

Ormus says:

Not applicable

Ormus says:

Never been deceived

Ormus says:

We could make this into a Drew Barrymore movie

Ormus says:

Have you?

Parmesh says: Several times

Parmesh says: In my youth

Ormus says:

Person turned out to be completely different from what

he claimed to be, huh?

Parmesh says: You bet…

Ormus says:

Are you happier now or were you happier then?

Parmesh says: Hehehe

Parmesh says: I’m always happy

Parmesh says: Or the reverse

Parmesh says: I’m never happy

Ormus says:

How extremist…

Parmesh says: Is it me interviewing you? Or vice versa?

It is impossible to be emotionally detached. At one Gay Bombay meeting, I am carried away by the drift of my argument and maliciously attack Pratham, someone who I have just interviewed before the meeting, for not being
out
enough. For this, Karim publicly chastises me. I apologize to Pratham and he smiles and tells me to relax—it is no big deal.

There are many ways in which ethnographers may choose to disguise the identities of the individuals and community they research. These include ‘creating composite characters out of individuals in the community, fictionalizing certain details and breaking identifiable individuals
154
Gay

Bombay

into multiple identities in the write-up’79 (Cherny, 1999). In my case, because of the online or offline nature of my work, I decide to adopt Amy Bruckman’s (2001) guidelines for treatment of names and online pseudonyms in published accounts.80 She delineates a disguise ‘continuum of possibilities’ ranging from ‘no disguise, light disguise, moderate disguise, to heavy disguise’. I choose
light disguise
as my strategy, which stipulates that—

(
a
) The group is named.

(
b
) Names, pseudonyms and some other identifying details (place names, organizational and institutional names, and so on) are

changed.

(
c
) Verbatim quotes may be used, even if they could be used to identify an individual.

(
d
) Group members themselves may be able to guess who is being discussed.

(
e
) An outsider could probably figure out who is who, with a little investigation.

(
f
) Details that are harmful to individuals should be omitted.

I think that it would be difficult for an outsider to guess the identities of the individuals that are mentioned in my study. However, for those within the group—it may certainly be possible to guess which pseudonym stands for whom. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, a large number of my interviewees ask me to use their real names in my work; others ask me to use their online nicknames. I decide to change all names, instead of having a confusing mix of real character names and pseudonyms. I also change the names of some locations that are used by the community as meeting or party places. For the reflexive passages that deal with my own personal history, I use fictionalized initials for those who I have been in close sexual or emotional relationships with and fictionalize some but not all other names, thereby preserving a balance between authenticity and identity disguise. I acknowledge that my method may simply be ‘a useless middle road between privacy protection and research rigour’81

(Cherny, 1999)—but it is a road that I believe is a pragmatic one to take for a study of this nature.

Up Close and Personal
155

Altorki and El Solh (1998) write that ‘[indigenous] fieldworkers are not only held accountable by those who constitute their academic frame of reference, but also may be expected to be conscious of their moral obligation to the subject of their study’.82 I am acutely conscious of this unstated obligation; I am responsible to the Gay Bombay community for my actions and the way I write about them. I am also responsible to the greater Indian gay community at large.

Describing and analyzing the culture of one’s own community is also affected by the realities of one’s group membership.… While all ethnographers have to deal with questions of confidentiality and exposure of data, for those who return to live with the people they study—even more for those who are participating members—these considerations have more drastic consequences. It is not whether a book will be read or not, assigned or banned from use. It is a question of potential and severe ostracism for the ethnographer. (Altorki, 1998) 83

As a friend and community member, my respondents sometimes reveal very private information about their lives—although these revelations may be helpful, I do not include them in my write-up; I think that doing so would be both ‘dishonest and disloyal’ (Jones, 1970).84

Sexual involvement with one’s research subjects has in general been taboo for ethnographers for a variety or reasons, including the power inequality that often exists between researchers and those researched.

Recently, this taboo has begun to be questioned. Thus Clifford (1997) asks—‘Why should sharing beds be a less appropriate source of knowledge than sharing food? There may of course be many practical reasons for sexual restraint in the field, just as certain places and certain activities may be off-limit to the tactful…but they are not off-limit in all places and at all times’.85 Mark McLelland too argues against sexual prudish-ness in the field—in fact, he bases an entire study on sex that he has with participants encountered via the Internet.86 Bell and Valentine (1995) declare—‘Our research relationships and the way we report them cannot (and indeed must not) be kept impersonal and clinical. We must also be reflexive about how we feel about our respondents—owning up if we feel sexually attracted to them rather than struggling to maintain a false front of objectivity’.87

156
Gay

Bombay

I acknowledge the existence of sexual tension between me and

some of my respondents—both online and offline and adopt Campbell’s methodological device of ‘bracketing’ as a means of addressing this tension; that is, being upfront with my respondents whether I am ‘speaking to them as a researcher or as a friend and community member’.88

Like Campbell, I avoid ‘initiating any discussions I suspected would be construed as libidinous or even as deeply personal’89 during formal interviews, leaving these for another occasion when I am not performing my researcher role. I am successful in this endeavour, however, like Campbell, I realize that my participants do not ‘always observe such bracketing themselves’.90 Sometimes, this makes for interesting scenarios—on one occasion, when I declared to an interviewee that I cannot respond to his sexual innuendo as we were in the midst of a formal interview, he volunteers to stop answering my questions so that I can start thinking of him as a sexual playmate instead of as a research subject! In another case, I am tremendously attracted to an interviewee and go out with him to a gay party where I try to hit on him, but am unsuccessful. One of my online interviewees happens to be someone at whose company I have interned many years ago as a fresh high school graduate. He is now married, with two kids and he reveals to me over email that he was very attracted to me during the time we worked together, but unable to declare his feelings.

One of the people I become close to is Ormus. He is the first person I contact off the Gay Bombay list, after reading a post by him describing his first experience at a Gay Bombay party. It is eloquently written and extremely expressive. I mail him immediately, telling him about my project and he agrees to be interviewed for it. Subsequent to that, we exchange emails, have several informal chats on MSN and speak to each other twice on the telephone, long distance. He tests the waters and flirts, not overtly, but using clever wordplay that could be read in multiple ways. I do the same.

We finally meet on MSN chat for a formal interview. As with our other conversations, we start off by catching up with our respective lives. Ormus knows about the film festival I have organized at MIT and wants to know how it went; he shares with me details about his recent out-of-town trip. He is training in the same professional school as my Up Close and Personal
157

ex-boyfriend Z and so we have connections across several levels. Ormus has obviously read the questionnaire I sent to him in advance of our online meeting in detail—his answers are eloquent and well-framed.

He is being honest and sharing intimate details of his life. I feel privileged to have this trust, but I also feel strangely exploitative. Is Ormus being so honest and open because he wants to make a good impression on me? Would he be so forthcoming even if we had not established our bond earlier? Am I attracted to him? I am enjoying the conversation immensely…we really have an excellent rapport and my previous

conversations with him have meant that I have enough background information as well as a level of comfort established to ask him probing questions without wondering if I have gone too far. The formal interview goes off excellently.

Informally, we exchange pictures and decide to meet in Bombay for a date when I visit the city. During the course of this date, it is clear that there is a possibility of romance. Although this does not eventually materialize (we develop a platonic friendship instead), it results in my not conducting an offline interview with him and only retaining the online component as my data for research.