Thoughts on M.I.A.’s Kala

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.


M.I.A.: KalaIf you’ve been a faithful Riff reader, you’ve heard a lot about M.I.A., otherwise known as Maya Arulpragasam: from the YouTube debuts of “Bird Flu” and “Boyz,” to the arrival of advance copies of the new album, to her streaming all of Kala online. So, the album arrives in stores tomorrow: what’s the final verdict?

ArularWith Kala named after Arulpragasam’s mother, it’s illustrative to look back at Arular, her 2005 debut, named after her father. The first singles, “Sunshowers” and “Galang,” featured similar downtempo dancehall beats, with edgy lyrics that seemed to invite analysis as part of the London-born singer’s Sri Lankan heritage and her father’s participation in militant Tamil activism: “shotgun, get down / too late, you down.” My experience with the full-length was a kind of gradual awareness: certain tracks grabbed my attention at first (the rollicking freestyle of “10 Dollar”) while others took time to adjust to (the aggressive Baile funk of “Bucky Done Gun”). As time went by, the album seemed to capture both a forward-looking electronic sound (partially thanks to its edgy producers, including Diplo and Richard X), as well as a political mood informed by both anger and ebullience.

So, two years later, M.I.A. is back in action, with production duties mostly taken over by Switch, a UK electronic artist and DJ whose chopped-up style teeters on the bleeding edge of dance music. Again, the first singles, “Bird Flu” and “Boyz,” featured similar triple-time beats and lyrics with obtuse references to violence and politics. But as Robert Christgau pointed out in Rolling Stone, the rest of Kala doesn’t seem accessible, with jagged beats and even more eclectic references: Bollywood, didgeridoo, The Clash, The Pixies, Baltimore house. While he calls this an “art music,” it may be helpful to remember that Arular‘s catchiness was by no means immediate, and tracks like “Bucky Done Gun” seemed brittle and abrasive at first. M.I.A. has a tendency to shift the world to her point of view, and while Kala forces your ears to adjust to its pressurized depths (and vertigo-inducing heights), I’d buy stock in Kala sing-along futures.

Politically, some have accused M.I.A. of being “indistinct.” The New York Times says she’s prone to “Bono-esque declarations” and that “her objectives have not been spelled out very clearly,” and even well-informed reviews of Kala seem perplexed: The Guardian gives her four out of five stars, but then fills paragraphs with sneering insults of M.I.A.’s “egocentric smugness,” “glib sloganeering,” and, most appallingly, compares her multiculturalism to “Angelina Jolie’s attitude towards starting a family… just order in the constituent bits from various far-flung corners of the world.” While these reviewers seem to say M.I.A. doesn’t really stand for anything, I think the opposite is true: as a mixed-culture “Other,” M.I.A. can’t help but stand for something, whether or not she even wants to. Her heritage is, in the context of 21st century America, inescapable. As both a London hipster and a dark-skinned third-world woman, she straddles our definitions and defies our conventions, just by virtue of her very existence. In that context, the fact that she approaches her music and visual art with an eclectic punk-rock playfulness and sarcasm, instead of an easily-pigeonholed cultural literalism, is in itself an almost unthinkably radical statement: the disenfranchised sampling themselves.

To again reference Christgau’s insightful Rolling Stone review, there’s a riot on Kala, and while he insists it isn’t dangerous, I’m not so sure. Our prejudices are strong, our arbitrary boundaries of race and gender are often all we’ve got, our visions of a world full of unwashed masses desperate for capitalism deeply entrenched. These city walls (as Bono might put it) don’t even get talked about much these days, in our desperate, fearful times, let alone scaled, or plastered with day-glow posters of the missing in action. Like a pirate broadcast, like a bomb thrown over the border, Kala proves that those of us inside the walls are the truly disenfranchised, and with that in mind, it’s hard to believe M.I.A. ever got that visa.

From the desk of Mother Jones CEO, Monika Bauerlein...

Newsrooms can be funded in many ways. One of the most controversial (and volatile) ways is by a for-profit corporation or a billionaire owner. We see it across the headlines on a weekly basis: the claw backs in public media, the gutting of The Washington Post, the bending over backwards to appeal to Trump and his allies.

But not here.

When Mother Jones first started publishing 50 years ago, our founders made a critical decision: to be a reader-supported nonprofit. They knew that no corporate owner would be interested in a muckraking newsroom; they also knew that no muckraking newsroom would be interested in following the agenda of a corporate owner.

And so, we’ve been reader-funded for half a century. We rely on contributions from our readers—readers like you—whether it’s $50, or $15 a month, or whatever fits your budget. People give what they can, and every donation makes a difference for our newsroom, which has grown tremendously—in size and reach and renown—since its inception in 1976.

You may be wondering: What does it take to publish an investigation? And what does my donation actually fund? The answers are one and the same: It takes people, resources, and time. And that’s what your donation funds directly.

Every donation Mother Jones receives from readers fortifies our newsroom, whether we’re covering underreported scandals out of Washington, DC, or the most important news of the day. And right now, each donation will be doubled because of our $50,000 match. So when you make a donation—$5, $50, any amount—it’ll go twice as far.

Your support keeps us going. If you’re able, donate today.

Thanks for reading.

—Monika

From the desk of Mother Jones CEO, Monika Bauerlein...

Newsrooms can be funded in many ways. One of the most controversial (and volatile) ways is by a for-profit corporation or a billionaire owner. We see it across the headlines on a weekly basis: the claw backs in public media, the gutting of The Washington Post, the bending over backwards to appeal to Trump and his allies.

But not here.

When Mother Jones first started publishing 50 years ago, our founders made a critical decision: to be a reader-supported nonprofit. They knew that no corporate owner would be interested in a muckraking newsroom; they also knew that no muckraking newsroom would be interested in following the agenda of a corporate owner.

And so, we’ve been reader-funded for half a century. We rely on contributions from our readers—readers like you—whether it’s $50, or $15 a month, or whatever fits your budget. People give what they can, and every donation makes a difference for our newsroom, which has grown tremendously—in size and reach and renown—since its inception in 1976.

You may be wondering: What does it take to publish an investigation? And what does my donation actually fund? The answers are one and the same: It takes people, resources, and time. And that’s what your donation funds directly.

Every donation Mother Jones receives from readers fortifies our newsroom, whether we’re covering underreported scandals out of Washington, DC, or the most important news of the day. And right now, each donation will be doubled because of our $50,000 match. So when you make a donation—$5, $50, any amount—it’ll go twice as far.

Your support keeps us going. If you’re able, donate today.

Thanks for reading.

—Monika

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

INDEPENDENT. BECAUSE OF YOU.

Mother Jones has no billionaires calling the shots—just readers like you making fearless reporting possible

Donate