Chandra N.
Political Leader vs Business Man: A Study of Masculinities In Nayantara Sahgal’s The Day in Shadow
‘Masculinity’ is ‘the quality of being masculine and masculine is having the qualities or appearance considered to be typical of men; connected with or like men’. (Hornsby). The theory, masculinity, later on develops the notion that masculine is not an integral feature of men but there can be instances when women too depict these qualities. If one attempts to make a comparative study of this quality one understands that it varies leading to the existence of multiple versions of masculinity. To get a clear perspective of masculinity one can use the statement of Connell:
Masculinity is socially constructed and has a material existence at several levels: in culture and institutions, in personality, and in the social definition and of the body. It is constructed within a gender order that defines masculinity in opposition to femininity, and is so doing, sustains a power relation between men and women as groups. (A Whole New World… 454)
As Connell has mentioned and already stated multiple masculinities are possible due to the variations among individuals or due to cultural influences, historical influences, etc. Certain masculinities are not always dominating and they just expose their different attitudes when compared to femininities while there are other masculinities that need to dominate to exhibit the power over inferiors thereby leading to the existence of hegemonic masculinity. It is also to be noted that it is not essential for all masculinities to be hegemonic nor is it essential that all hegemonic masculinities be hegemonic at all times.
Hegemony is a collective cultural practice and not an individual one. The main concept of hegemony is it claims authority more than violence. It leads to cultural domination in the society. Connell opines that his approach to look at social change is based on the “…relational character of gender, whereas some are hegemonic and rest are subordinated or marginalized. Relations of hegemony reflect and produce social dynamic; struggles for resources and power, processes of exclusion and incorporation, splitting and reconstitution of gender forms” (Very Straight Way…736). In Masculinities, Connell continues his definition of hegemonic masculinity as:
Hegemonic masculinity can be defined as the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women. (77)
The main reasons for this masculinity/femininity construction are power relations, division of labour, and social organization of sexuality and attraction. Hearn points out, “…professions assist in the ‘self-control’ of men and their emotions, so contributing to definitions of masculinity” (140). To consult other critics regarding the term, Beynon proclaims that hegemonic masculinity is “…established either through consensual negotiation or through power and achievement” (16). Differing from this view on hegemonic masculinity, Wetherell and Edley look at the term based on ‘heterosexuality and homophobia’, and they differ by claiming that some are hegemonic by distancing themselves away from hegemonic, “…what is most hegemonic is to be non-hegemonic!” (351). Donaldson gives another motive for the reason for hegemonic masculinity that the fundamental element of hegemonic masculinity is women. He says, “…women exist as potential sexual objects for men while men are negated as sexual objects for men. Women provide heterosexual men with sexual validation, and men compete with each other for this” (645).
Other than hegemony, subordination and complicity structures such as class and race creates further relationship between masculinities. Thus, coming back to Connell’s opinion, --who is considered to be the father of Masculinities--, one realises that there are two reasons for hegemony among men. They are: “(i) the formation of different patterns of motivation or commitment in personal life (e.g., heterosexual versus homosexual, liberation versus controlled) and (ii) the formation of conflicting interests at the social level (e.g., capitalists versus gentry, bureaucrats versus militarists)” (Whole, 454). Connell makes this contrast using “hegemonic masculinity” and “emphasised femininity”, and both go together to understand the concept (Hegemonic, 831). Thus hegemonic masculinity can be perceived by the contrastive character, which is subordinated or different from dominating person. This paper thus takes two such different characters to understand the term by studying their different attitudes or performance of masculinities.
The aim of the paper is to examine hegemonic masculinities of two types in Nayantara Sahgal’s The Day in Shadow and to find out which dominates the most by its hegemonic nature. The masculinity in the novel is revealed through two men, Som, a businessman and Raj, a politician. Simrit the protagonist of the novel is a journalist and is married to Som (who is named as Raman). Som is a businessman who is interested in his business ventures and in the process neglects his wife and also in his attempt to establish authority, dominates her. Unable to put up with his inattentiveness and his overriding nature, Simrit seeks divorce but when the divorce materialises she finds that the settlement becomes problematic. The reason is that the terms and conditions of the agreement state that the property of Som given to the children will be utilised only after nine years; and that till then she needs to pay tax from her share of money. Now, Simrit is placed in an economically weak situation, as she not only has to run the family but also to manage the education of the children. She gets help from Raj, a Member of Parliament, whom she later marries.
Raj is a politician and his aim is to save the common man. His motive is different from other politicians, who usually are self-centred. By being a politician, by possessing power, he does not use it for his personal ends and he remains principled and idealistic. His determination to serve the society gives him the ability to override other politicians. He does not misuse the colleagues/politicians when he gets chances and that shows his self-confidence. His successive victory proves that he is winning other politicians’ hegemony and proves his masculinity stronger. “Raj had a fanatic’s devotion to Parliament. As an outsider, a non-belonger to any party, he knew that what he belonged to was the Constitution, the laws, the whole intangible edifice constructed at “daybreak” (Sahgal 150). This shows his sincerity and patriotic notion as a real politician. Of course politics can be considered to be a patriarchal world with no place for women. Simrit therefore thinks that it is a “husband-centred world” (2). However in this patriarchal regime too Raj is different one in his belonging to the minority and other is his regard for his mother. As a different personality, he still survives as a successful politician overcoming all the difficulties he faces through other senior politicians and this nature shows his stubborn masculine nature.
Raj knows that he belongs to minority community in the society and since politics is dynamic he cannot exist in it for a long time and he has to make use of the opportunities he gets. “Raj felt he was responsible for India. It was almost his personal possession, in turn his delight and his devastation” (15). Raj lives a simple life and this is due to his love towards his mother who moulded him into a mature, honest, hardworking man. “…he had loved his mother and because of her had become an ardent lover of life and a strong and immediate reactor to human beings” (104). He is different from other politicians in his ideas regarding women and their issues. He believes that women have to be given equal rights and even to Simrit once he advices that she has to come out and mingle with the society. He readily introduces her to other officials such as ministers, Members of Parliament, and other council members. He feels that Simrit has to come out of her reserved character and has to enter into a new world, “…she should get out of the house more often, meet more people” (2). Though it is difficult for him to face the world without weapons to protect himself and his principles, he is courageous and bold enough to face it and nothing can hinder his progress: “Men like him were born to lead and educate, sometimes to triumph just when it seemed fortunes could go no lower. Raj would be alright” (236). His courage, boldness, fearlessness, and humanity are the qualities that construct his masculinity, which is different from others.
Som, the husband of Simrit, is a businessman and he, in his business endeavours, behaves much more like a politician. Business, in his sense of the term is a money-making venture. Usually a businessman’s angle is to get some profit out of anything but in his case this goes a step further as he views even his wife and his children from that perspective. By being the breadwinner of the family, he treats his other family members as non-entities. He shows his power at every possible moment and often shows that as only he has money, he can decide what to spend on the family. He is determined and dominating at all levels, let it be personal or business. Once Simrit points out this as, “He’s very–determined” (47), which shows his stubborn nature even towards his wife. He believes only in his success, by crushing others and proudly claims that, “I’ll be right on top” (48). He is thus determined in his principles and doesn’t bother whether it is right or wrong, human or inhuman while he makes decisions and he never compromises or adjusts, “he’ll never agree to any change” (39). Thus he remains hegemonic in his business. As a businessman, his friends or companions are also decided based on the opportunities. He easily rejects his friendship with old ones when he has no use for them and strikes new friendships whenever there is a need. He is also ready to renew his friendship if he is benefited . He is ready to deceive others for his business upliftment and once refuses to send a car to a man of higher authority because he is of no use to him now since he had changed his profession. His jealousy and lust for money and business converts him into a heartless person. He even supports one of his business partners, Lalli, who murders his wife since he doesn’t want to cut off a profitable deal he has with him. He spends time with others, only when it is benefiting him, even if it is his wife. Som’s inhumanity, cruelty, brutality, dominance, selfishness, authority over family, inconsideration thus constructs his masculinity.
All these attitudes can be found in his family life, proving his hegemonic masculinity, where Simrit is never ever given equal importance as a human being or her life partner. At least when he deals with other men, he pretends to join with them but he does not do the same with his wife and thus at home he is more hegemonic than in his business. Som has the full control over her including her dress, food habits and even for sex, she has no priority. Simrit decides to get divorce from Som because she wants to lead the rest of the life in a sensible way and this added fuel to his anger. “Som could have forgiven her if she had been a weaker being, unsure, dependent, even deceiving” (53). Som as a cunning, cruel husband thus changed Simrit’s life into a miserable one, after their divorce by writing a cunning agreement. This attitude shows his business ‘brain’ even to his wife and kids. “Well, it (divorce) took two years actually; but that was phenomenally quick when it took a year to get a Birla car, four or five to get a Fiat, and all eternity, according to Som, to get a license to manufacture something” (4). The bond which Simrit signed without understanding what it meant drives her into trouble. As a patriarchal father Som wants to give his money only to his only son Brij and the daughters will be given very less share of it. He also says more than one son make them to fight for money. “Brothers always quarrel for money” (25). Even his son can use this money after nine years, till then Simrit has to spend her whole part of money by paying tax to her son’s share. “The strange part of this document was its butchery, the last drop of blood extracted. It was revengeful. But revenge for what, she wondered” (39). Even after that he cunningly deceives Simrit by changing Brij’s mind and takes him abroad for studies, which means Simrit has to spend her money and won’t be getting anything out of it. “She could hardly believe it – after all these years to find that Som was a man without pity or concern, or even real responsibility” (221). She is left penniless while he enjoys travelling in plush cars, having stable bank accounts and so on. On the other hand, she has to wait even to get simple things such as a telephone connection or a milk card. When she is aware of the bond she signed, when she talks about it again he gets angry and tells her, “My dear girl, you can’t expect me to provide for every possibility” (223) and finally he agrees for a bond that she has to remain unmarried to use the money. This also shows that he is more informative than his wife, who can be cheated easily since she is unaware of legalities; this also supports his masculinity by being more informative of certain legal things.
Comparing the two male depictions, one can easily make out that Raj is more responsible than Som who in spite of having a family does not shoulder any responsibility over his wife and children. Raj, although can shirk responsibility like other politicians, does not do so and constantly endeavours to be responsible to the public and society at large. Som’s irresponsibility is also revealed in the big family he has. He insists on begetting children and has no plans about their future whereas Raj questions Simrit on her future plans for the children. Raj wants to show his masculine nature by being stronger in his principles and thus survives hard in the political scenario. By that he proves that he is the stronger person who cannot be easily tempted by cheap aspirations, which most of the politicians succumb to in the novel. The strife he faces shows his masculinity, which may not be hegemonic but which is strong. In Som’s case, his representation of masculinity is arrogant in a way, since he makes his wife and children to suffer for the sake of money. He remains hegemonic and this is seen when he treats his wife merely as a sexual object and as a servant maid at home without payment.
Both in business and politics, it is expected that the stated words have value and need to be followed up by suitable action. Som fails here to do so and Raj does that at all circumstances. Thus Raj remains as an honest man and Som loses it. Raj is more courageous than Som and Simrit is impressed by Raj just because of this. She met Raj for the first time in a meeting where he refused to accept the speech of a minister saying his ideas are borrowed. In Som’s case, even if he feels the same he would still put on a false front in order to gain something from them. Som grows more selfish and money-minded towards the end of the novel. “Som and his money had stayed in two separate compartments, newer settling down comfortably with each other” (3) whereas Raj is not like Som rather he is more humane. Raj feels that the minority society has to come up well and thus he is service-minded.
Raj’s affection to Simrit is real and Som’s is mechanical. This is proved when the agreement is signed. Raj is tensed and thinks Som is cruel to make her sign such a brutal agreement “And Raj had said no court in any other part of the civilized world have allowed it” (58) whereas Som hesitates to negotiate for the same. “I wish” she said passionately, “we could be friends” (97). This she demanded from Som and failed to achieve and the same she got from Raj. “I nothing lack for I am His and He is mine forever” (207).
Som does not adjust within the family in any way and instead creates difficulties. He imposes his ideas on Simrit while Raj not only does not do that but respects her ideas. Raj agrees that opinions differ and this gentleness cannot be seen in Som. Even when the letters of her daughter’s lover were brought as an issue, Raj says it is the age they get and handles it maturely. When one thinks about equality to a woman, Som doesn’t bother about it. He thinks his wife has to be a woman serving her husband and children, who should be happy with her purchases and one who needs to be ready when her husband calls her to bed. Raj gives equal importance to woman and even he exclaims at her ignorance and helps her to understand that she has to learn a lot. Som never allows her to mingle in the public and business and he feels more comfortable when Simrit is ignorant. With Som, her equality is questioned even in bed so much so that he decides when to share bed with her and not. When she refuses to sleep with him he is enraged to the core. “Think this bed will hold us both? Tell me if you get tired” (49). These incidents shocked her very much but she tolerated it for many years. Raj’s approach is different and it is she, who initiated the affair with Raj. Som discusses their personal things with his business partners and once complains about Simrit’s changes without consulting her. All the plans of Som used to be secretive whereas Raj’s plans or ideas are more open. In short they can be compared as:
Som’s world had been commerce, never shared with her at all. And here was politics, utterly confusing. The imposing red sandstone buildings where all government debate and activity centred had been to her just buildings until Raj had started investing them with a huge snarled personality. (12)
Both business and politics are not static but keep on changing their characteristics based on societal ebbs and flows. As Connell (A Whole New World… 454) has mentioned these two characters as opposite poles to study the concept of masculinity, the first one fits for Som, who is hegemonic; the second one for Raj, who is not hegemonic yet powerful. Som is masculine as a problem-creator and Raj is masculine as a problem solver and both compete to represent their masculinities. Raj is going with his conscience and Som kills his conscience for his growth. It’s easy to kill one’s conscience and grow misusing power in one’s hands. The real achievement lies when one really struggles in achieving it by not misusing the power even if one can do it. Raj, thus, becomes the hero by not disturbing anyone though he knows his progress would be slow and difficult. Som remains the villain to all, since he dismisses even his wife/friend when business counts for him. Though both achieve their aim and succeed in their attempts, Raj is more courageous than Som to face the risks. It is understood that Som’s masculinity is more hegemonic than that Raj’s yet Raj has to make more efforts to tackle than Som’s and thus, Raj, from the perspective of the novel, can be considered as the better one. Som’s masculinity, on the other hand, is not hard to achieve and can be followed by anyone who is cruel and heartless. As already revealed, Raj’s masculinity is a unique one, which is very difficult to follow, in the midst of crisis, which he boldly faces and surmounts. Though Raj remains humane and compassionate, (which are feminine traits,) he does reveal that this is a strain of strong masculinity as it is built on moral code of conduct and not on the normative physical attributes of masculinity. Som’s masculinity fails as his adoption of the aggressive nature of the masculine only leads to his alienation. Therefore, hegemonic masculinity need not be considered as successful and the successful masculinity is the one that reveals power judiciously.
Works Cited
Beynon, John. Masculinities and Culture. Buckingham: Open University Press, 2002
Connell, R.W. “A Very Straight Gay: Masculinity, Homosexual Experience, and the Dynamics of Gender.” American Sociological Review. 57.6. (Dec. 1992). American Sociological Association
---. “A Whole New World: Remaking Masculinity in the Context of the Environmental
Movement”. Gender and Society. 4.4 (Dec, 1990). Sage.
---. Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995.
Connell, R.W., and James W. Messerschmidt. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept”. Gender and Society. 19. 6. (2005) Sociologists for Women in Society.
Donaldson, Mike. “What is Hegemonic Masculinity?” Theory and Society. 22.5. Spec. Issue: Masculinities, (Oct. 1993) Springer.
Hearn, Jeff. The Gender of Oppression: Men, Masculinity, and the Critique of Marxism. Sussex: Wheatsheaf Books, 1987.
Hornsby, A.S. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Sahgal, Nayantara. The Day in Shadow. (1971) New Delhi: Penguin Books, 1991.
Wetherell, Margaret, and Nigel Edley. “Negotiating Hegemonic Masculinity: Imaginary Positions and Psycho-Discursive Practices”. Feminism Psychology. 9. (1999). Sage.