From a Being of ‘Emphasised Femininity’ to a
Becoming of ‘Oppositional Femininity’: A Study of Female Protagonist in Manju
Kapur’s A Married Woman
Sahadev Roy
State Aided College Teacher
Department of English
Dewanhat Mahavidyalaya
Cooch Behar, West Bengal, India
&
Ph. D. Research Scholar
Department of English
O.P.J.S. University
Churu, Rajasthan, India
Abstract:
The paper endeavours to redefine the feminine identity of Manju Kapur’s
female protagonist Astha through the subversion of hegemonic masculinity.
‘Hegemonic Masculinity’ emerged as a theory to postcolonial studies in the
1980s. It denotes to masculine hierarchy of power and position over feminine
gender. While coining ‘Hegemonic Masculinity’ Connell also coined ‘Emphasised
Femininity’ which serves as a counterpart, or subordinated ‘Other’, to
hegemonic masculinity, ‘performed especially to men’ by woman. Rewording and elaborating Connell’s
definition, though Schipper later defined ‘Hegemonic Femininity’, the concept
of femininity, though here terminologically different from Connell, remained
the same in tone and spirit. In order to resist unequal gender relation, a
recent non-hegemonic form of femininity has emerged as a feminine source of
power when Messerschmidt gave the concept of ‘Oppositional Femininity’ which
“refuses to complement hegemonic masculinity in a relation of subordination.”
Manju Kapur’s female protagonist Astha in A
Married Woman neither corresponds to Connell’s concept of ‘Emphasised
Femininity’ nor Schippers’ concept of ‘Hegemonic Femininity’; rather, in
conformity with Messerschmidt’s concept of oppositional femininity, she is
non-compliant with hegemonic idea of female subordination. The paper is an
endeavour to deconstruct the stereotypical construct of womanhood as defined by
Connell and Schipper in order to redefine it as per Messerschmidt’s concept of
oppositional femininity through the character of female protagonist in Kapur’s A Married Woman.
Keywords: ‘Emphasised Femininity’; Gender;
‘Hegemonic Femininity’; ‘Hegemonic Masculinity’; ‘Oppositional Femininity’
‘Hegemonic Masculinity’, a coinage of
‘hegemony’ (i.e., power) and ‘masculinity’ (i.e., manliness), appeared as a theory
to postcolonial studies in the decade of 80s in the last century. It is
indicative to the establishment of masculine hierarchical position and power
over feminine counterpart. The concept is indebted to Gramscian idea of
‘Cultural Hegemony’ that describes the maintenance of power and power by the
ruling hegemonial class over working subaltern class consensually rather than
coercively:
“The
‘normal’ exercise of hegemony… is characterised by the combination of force and
consent, which balance each other reciprocally, without force predominating
excessively over consent. Indeed, the attempt is always made to ensure that
force will appear to be based on the consent of the majority.” (Gramsci, 80)
On the basis of Gramscian idea of hegemony,
Connell first coined the term ‘Hegemonic Masculinity’ in relation to man-woman
relationship as per gender construct and since then the concept of ‘Hegemonic
Masculinity’ has been a subject of debating issue. Connell gives definition of
‘Hegemonic Masculinity’ as:
“The configuration
of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem
of the legitimation of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee)
the dominant position of men and the subordination of women.” (Connell’s Masculinities, 77)
Connell’s “configuration of gender practice” is narrowly
confined within the configuration of male gender practice and he hardly
mentions anywhere about the configuration of gender practice pertaining to
feminine gender; rather he defends,
“There
is no femininity that is hegemonic in the sense that the dominant form of
masculinity is hegemonic among men.” (Connell’s Gender and Power, 183)
In lieu of associating hegemony with feminine gender,
Connell employed ‘Emphasised Femininity’ which works as a foil, or subordinated
Other, to the idea of ‘Hegemonic Masculinity’, “performed especially to men”
(Connell’s Gender and Power, 188).
Connell’s idea of ‘Hegemonic Masculinity’, on account of being formed in the
larger and solely interest of masculine gender over feminine gender, results in
controversies and debates among many. Amidst such controversialists and
debaters, in the last decade of the last century, Schippers is one of the
emerging personalities who, opposite to Connell’s unequal treatment of hegemony
that establishes male as a centralized figure over female as a marginalized
figure, proposes hegemonic masculinity in parallel with the idea of hegemonic
femininity. Reassessing and reevaluating
to what Connell has defined, Schipper coins ‘Hegemonic Femininity’:
“Hegemonic
femininity consists of the characteristics defined as womanly that establish
and legitimate a hierarchical and complementary relationship to hegemonic
masculinity and that, by doing so, guarantee the dominant position of men and
the subordination of women.” (Schippers, 94)
However, neither Connell in his idea of
‘Emphasised Femininity’ nor Schipper in her idea of ‘Hegemonic Femininity’
probed deeper over the man-woman equality, free from gender stereotype.
Schipper merely affixed another ‘good for nothing’ chapter in Connell’s idea of
‘Hegemonic Masculinity’ with ‘Hegemonic Femininity’. Both ideas, though
terminologically difference, bear the same meaning. The result was that
femininity remained in the same position as it had long been and was much away
to its most desired goal of equality with its masculine counterpart. In reaction to ‘Hegemonic Masculinity’, a
number of writers appeared to raise their voice and held their pen to protest
it. However, the way and manner Manju Kapur has showed it in her novels, is a
greater achievement in itself than many others. Kapur’s novel A Married Woman can be studied through
the critical lens of counter-hegemonic masculinity. The storyline that
initially frames the journey of its female protagonist as a part of subaltern
class who has no voice against her derogated and devalued position within
patriarchy for being totally submissive to hegemonic masculinity, finally turns
a hundred and eighty degree when the narrative develops by becoming a
free-willed and emancipated figure beyond the controlling power of ‘Hegemonic
Masculinity’.
In reaction to Connell’s idea of ‘Emphasised
Femininity’ and Schipper’s idea of ‘Hegemonic Femininity’, a body of Indian
female novelists came upfront in the beginning of present century. Among them,
Manju Kapur is the most celebrated name. Instead of becoming a character caught
between tradition and modernity, Manju Kapur’s women characters live on their
own. They never sacrifice their freedom on the altar of tradition. Out of
tradition they appear completely as new and modern women who know how to
challenge the male hegemony. In this perspective Manju Kapur’s A Married woman presents a controversial
picture of female emancipation from subaltarnity of sexual status in the form
of lesbianism challenging the male hegemony of heterosexuality which was
completely new in the history of Indian novel writing in English. Prior to
Manju Kapur Shobha De dealt with the same theme in “Strange Obsession” but failed to bring brighter side of lesbianism
from feminist point of view.
Protest of subalternity is very common in
almost all the novels written by Kapur.
Her Virmati in Difficult Daughters
reacts against the family conservatism in order to seek educational freedom,
her Nisha in Home cherishes the
desire to transform the world she lives in into a world of equal compatibility
with male counterparts; her Nina in The
Immigrant involves into pre-marital sex with her teacher and in the present
novel under study A Married Woman the
protest of subalternity takes something new in the form of lesbianism hardly
written earlier. Opposite to sexual subalternity, Astha in A Married Woman acts not as a counterpart of male hegemony, rather
she takes refuge in new, something unconventional relationship in the form of
lesbianism. Reconsidering the new image
of womanhood, Manju Kapur deconstructs the man-made image of female
subalternity in A Married Woman where
her heroine Astha is like the phoenix getting new identity after being borne out
from ashes of subalternity. Kumar has truly opined reflecting on Manju Kapur’s
protagonist Astha and her escape from becoming a voiceless subaltern caught
between tradition and modernity: “Astha likes to have a break from dependence
on others and proceeds on the path of full human status that poses in threat to
Hemant and his male superiority. Although, she finds herself trapped between
the pressure of the modern developing society and shackles of ancient biases
she set out on her quest for a more meaningful life in her lesbian
relationship.” (Kumar 134) Manju
Kapur presents Astha’s growth and evolution at various stages through different
relationships and she appears to be the first Indian novelist who focuses
woman’s desire and longing for homosexuality. The origin of traditions, living
up as per ideal Indian woman, giving up self-interest for family, keeping self
behind, devaluing herself, being satisfied
to live in the safety and security of the husband, home and family
deliberately come in conflict with Astha’s postmodern sensibilities that drive
her to make a flight on her wings of freedom to interrogate founded norms, to
search for her real identity, to desire for a true soul mate, to develop, to
enter and to embrace socially forbidden relationship.
The very title of the novel A Married Woman indicates its
protagonist Astha, a married woman who gets married to Hemant, an attractive
young man. Astha leads a happy conjugal life with Hemant for a few years and
becomes a mother of a baby girl, Anuradha. Her husband Hemant insists on taking
due care of the child. The keen interest taken in the baby girl enhances
Astha’s love and affection for Hemant. When Astha was expecting Anuradha,
Hemant tells her that he longs for a baby girl. He gives Ashta his negative
remark over categorization between male and female in India: “In America there
is no difference between boys and girls. How can this country get anywhere if
we go on treating out women this way?” (Kapur
57). Astha is drawn more to her husband. Her enjoyment knows no boundary when
she notices her husband’s keen interest in the upbringing of their daughter.
But what seems real proves false reality in her later life. Soon reversal of
situation takes place in Astha’s life. Hemant becomes more and more occupied
with his business and thus he struggles to spare time to spend with Astha. She
observes an unexpected behavioral change in Hemant when he demands a son before
Astha. ‘“I want to have my son soon,”
declared Hemant, looking emotional and manly at the same time. “I want to be as
much a part of his life as Papaji is of mine.” ’ (ibid 61) “Hemant’s desire to have a son and his insistence that
he would not stop until he has one, makes Astha dissatisfied and uneasy. She
cannot fathom her man.” (Chakravarty
202) Hemant’s indifference and unsupportive attitude fills emptiness in Astha’s
life. Astha’s craving for Hemant’s love and appreciation remains incomplete all
the time. Physicality of love completes but there always remains wanting of
emotion. “For Astha a marital life meant participating in all activities,
discussing all issues with her husband but for Hemant this relationship meant
physical relationship and just fulfilling the social needs of his wife.” (Verma 56) However, Astha does not violate sanctity of relationship between
her and her husband making relationship with other man, rather she seeks
alternate sexuality in Pipeelika’s embrace.
“Astha does not want to cross the threshold of her married life: she
does not want any other man. What Manju Kapur is hinting at is that had Hemant
been more appreciative of and sensitive to his wife’s needs Astha would have
felt a more complete woman” (Chakravarty 204).
Astha meets Pipeelika, a widow woman whose
husband Aijaz recently has met a sudden death in an act of religious animosity.
Soon there develops intimacy and friendship between them as condition of both
women is same – one has lost her husband and other is deprived of what she
expects from her husband. The meeting proves fruitful in the life of both women.
Pipeelika enters into Astha’s life like the first few raindrops on parched
land. “Astha’s slow discovery of her differences with her husband, her change
from a hopeful bride to a battered wife and her meeting with Pipeelika leads
her to an immoral, rather amoral, guilt consciousness of lesbian love
rationalizing her outmoded morality.”(Sharma 2) Pipeelika renews Astha’s life with what the later feels wanting
in her life. Her presence in Astha’s life fills the gap of Hemant in her life.
She discovers the long forgotten pleasures of life. There follows a torrid
affair between them. Both of them overstep social boundaries to find solace and
understanding in each other’s arms. Astha
begins to go Pipeelika whenever she gets opportunity for gratification of her
sexual needs. Sexual satisfaction as observed by Joseph Bristow “Is a
fundamental human need.” (Bristow 12) Both the women are benefitted of this
relationship. While Pipeelika drinks the water of Leethe (i.e. the River of
Forgetfulness) to forget her husband Aijaz making lesbian relationship with
Astha, Astha takes a sweet revenge on her husband Hemant through the weapon of
this relationship. Astha’s choice of
alternate sexuality in the form of lesbianism destabilizes the whole system of
sex regulation.
The physicality of their relationship proves
satisfying through their lesbian relationship because it is based on care, love
and mutual respect for each other.
Instead of becoming the desired object of male hegemony, often distant
and enigmatic, and not the subject of (not the one who experiences) passion,
both Astha and Pipeelika go beyond their subalternity of position breaking the
age old tradition which divides role of woman different from that of man and
create their own domain violating tradition and social code. Lesbianism gives
them escapade from desired objects to desiring subjects. Through this lesbian
relationship they come under certain circumstances, there was no aphrodisiac
more powerful than talking, no seduction more effective than curiosity. With this relationship Astha faces
same difficulty of subalternity faced by colonial Indian women as specified by
Spivak , “caught between tradition and modernization” finding herself torn between two halves-her desire for love and
affection and her duty towards her family. However she tries to hold the grip
of lesbian relationship firmly even after finding herself standing between the
forces of traditional male hegemony and the desire of individuality over
subalternity.
Contrary to what Spivak asserts in her most
celebrated book “Can the subaltern Speak?”, “the subaltern has no history and
cannot speak, the subaltern as female is even more deeply in shadow” , (Spivak 271) Manju Kapur’s female
protagonist Astha comes out from the shadowy life of subalternity challenging
male hegemony. In the act of lesbianism both Astha and pipeelika act neither
the subjective role of male hegemony nor the objective role of female
subalternity, rather they play a role what Simone de Beauvoir has justified in
“The Second Sex” , “Inversely, a woman who wants to enjoy the pleasures of her
femininity in feminine arms also knows the pride of obeying no master…the
association of two women can take many different forms; it is based on feeling,
interest, or habit; it is conjugal or romantic; it has room for sadism,
masochism, generosity, faithfulness, devotion, caprice, egotism, and betrayal;
there are prostitutes as well as great lovers among lesbians.”
(Beauvoir 431) Through reversal role of her protagonist Astha in terms
of subalternity Manju Kapur reconsiders the institutions of love, marriage and
relationship: “Manju Kapur has exposed a woman’s passion with love and
lesbianism, an incompatible marriage and ensuing annoyance with passion to
revolutionize the Indian male sensitivity, she describes the traumas of her
female protagonist from which they suffer and perish in for their triumph.”
(Kumar 165)
Astha in Manju Kapur’s A Married Woman, appearing as a new woman who is educated,
self-conscious, and introspective and one who knows how to carve a life for
herself and even one who conveys a personal vision of womanhood by violating
current social codes, does not come into the class of sexual subalternity
dominated by male hegemony. Astha neither corresponds to Connell’s idea of
‘Emphasised Femininity’ nor Schippers’ idea of ‘Hegemonic Femininity’. In both
concepts, the status of woman is neglected. The main idea of both Connell and
Schippers is based on traditional outlook that woman can never equal to man.
The concept of both Connel and Schippers establishes the superiority of man
over woman. Showing relationship between hegemonic masculinity and femininity,
Charlebois argues, “(T)he relationship between hegemonic masculinity and
femininity is not built upon principles of mutual compatibility and equality,
but rather on the dominance of masculinity and subordination of femininity”
(Charlebois 41). Discussing the difference between ‘Hegemonic Masculinity’ and
‘Hegemonic Femininity’, Charlebois further states, “Crucially, a salient
difference between hegemonic masculinity and hegemonic femininity is that men
are empowered through embodying hegemonic masculinity, while women are
disempowered by embodying hegemonic femininity.” (Charlebois 41) In order to resist unequal gender relation, a
non-hegemonic form of femininity may become a source of power. For this, Charlebois suggests Messerschmidt’s
concept of ‘Oppositional Femininity’ which “refuses to complement hegemonic
masculinity in a relation of subordination” (Messerschmidt 206). In conformity
with Messerschmidt’s concept of ‘Oppositional Femininity’, Astha in Manju
Kapur’s A Married Woman is
non-compliant with hegemonic idea of female subordination. She contests the
unequal gender relation based on hegemonic principles of Connell and Schippers
and emerges as an embodiment of oppositional femininity and in doing so, she
hardly checks her action in pulling everything apart that comes on her way of
personal freedom.
Works
Cited
Beauvoir, Simone de. The
Second Sex. Translated by Constance Boorde and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier.
Vintage Books, 2010.
Bristow, Joseph. Sexuality.
Routledge, 1997.
Chakravarty, Joya. “A Study of Difficult Daughters and A
Married Woman”. In Indian Women Novelist
in English, edited by Jaydeepsinh Dodiya.
Swarup and Sons, 2006.
Charlebois,
Justin. Gender and the Construction of
Dominant, Hegemonic, and Oppositional Femininities. Lexington Books, 2011.
Connell, R. W. Gender and Power. Cambridge: Polity
Press, 1987. Print.
---. Masculinities.
Polity Press, 1995.
Gramsci, A. “Selections from the Prison Notebooks of
Antonio Gramsci.” Edited by Q. Hoare
& G. Nowell-Smith. Lawrence and Wishart, 1971.
Kapur, Manju. A
Married Woman. India Ink, 2002.
Kumar, Ashok. “Social Web and Cry of the Self: A Critical
Analysis of Manju Kapur’s A Married Woman.”
In New Lights on Indian Women
Novelists in English Vol. 4., edited by
Amar Nath Prasad. Swarup and
Sons, 2008.
Messerschmidt, J. W. “The Struggle for Heterofeminine
Recognition: Bullying, Embodiment, and Reactive Sexual Offending by Adolescent
Girls.” Feminist criminology, vol. 6,
no. 3, 2011, pp. 203-233.
Schippers, M.
“Recovering the feminine other: Masculinity, femininity, and gender
hegemony”. Theory and Society, vol. 36, no. 1, 2007.
Sharma, Ram. “Feminist Voices in Manju Kapur’s A Married
Woman”. <http://www.ask.com>
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In In
Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg. University of Illinois Press, 1988.
Verma, Anuradha. “Manju
Kapur’s Astha: A Married Woman”. New
Perspectives on Indian English Writings, edited by Malti Agarwal. Atlantic
Publishers & Distributors (P) Ltd., 2007.