“I am not a Male
to them”: Negotiating the Intersection of Masculinity, Disability and Sexuality
in Firdaus Kanga’s Trying to Grow
Purusattam Rajak,
Ph.D. Research Scholar,
Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University,
West Bengal, India.
Abstract: Masculinity is not a natural or innate human
attribute but rather a complex, dynamic, and ever-evolving concept conditioned
by social, cultural, and historical factors. Masculinity studies, a newly
emerged branch of interdisciplinary studies that seeks to subvert the
conventional perceptions of masculinity that glorify power, aggression,
dominance, violence, and so on. It challenges its monolithic nature by
generating a spectrum of possibilities. The intersection of masculinity and
disability is a rich and complex field of study that is still relatively new
and underexplored. This paper will critically examine Firdaus Kanga’s
semi-autobiographical novel, Trying to
Grow, which narrates the story of a physically challenged Parsee-boy
Brit, gay by sexual orientation, against the backdrop of traditional, orthodox
Indian society. The novel, set in the claustrophobic town of Mumbai, unfolds
how a boy born with an incurable disease, ‘osteogenesis imperfecta’, undergoes
several layers of objectification and marginalisation at the hands of
discriminatory societal norms. Thus, it will be interesting to locate whether
Brit’s disability demystifies the traditional forms of masculinity or turns him
into a victim of this normative machinery. This paper, employing the theoretical
framework of intersectionality, aims to understand the complex nature of power
and privilege and to explore the diverse forms of oppression faced by
individuals with multiple marginalized identities.
Keywords: masculinity, disability, intersectionality, queer,
subversion
Introduction
Intersectionality,
which has its roots in Black Feminism, is a theoretical framework that
emphasizes the construction of self through the convergence of multiple axes of
socio-political identities, offering insights into how one axis of identity
intervenes and influences others to create advantaged or marginalized subject
positions. The rapid rise of intersectionality as a credible method for
interpreting social injustice lies in its inclusivity and openness to all potential
advantages and disadvantages, such as race, class, gender, sexual orientation,
religion, disability, nationality, and many more. As an individual is placed
within a complex and multilayered social structure, obliteration of any one
axis of identity could lead to an erroneous outcome as these crossing and
overlapping social identities have the potential to be simultaneously
liberating and oppressive. Aristea Fotopoulou, in her article Intersectionality
Queer Studies and Hybridity: Methodological Frameworks for Social Research,
defines intersectionality as “the systematic study of the ways in which
differences such as race, gender, sexuality, class, ethnicity, and other
sociopolitical and cultural categories interrelate” (19). Kimberle Crenshaw, a
black feminist thinker and legal practitioner who coined the term
intersectionality, recognizes that multiple forms of marginalization are
interconnected and cannot be studied in isolation. Her works, primarily focused
on black women, contend that race and gender should not be addressed as
independent categories under the law. On the contrary, the law needs to
acknowledge that the experiences of black women are extensively contingent upon
both their race and gender. Stressing the fact that the experience of blacks
cannot be equated with that of whites, as Crenshaw has argued that black women
frequently find themselves at the junction of several oppressions, and it is
impossible to properly comprehend their experiences without considering the
intersection of gender and race. Additionally, the legislation must acknowledge
this intersectionality and make sure that the various forms of discrimination
that black women experience are not sustained. This implies that the law must
acknowledge that race and gender are mutually constitutive and that black
women's experiences are influenced by both of these factors rather than seeing
them as independent and different categories. Her observations are critical of
traditional feminism, which emphasizes the experiences of white women while
neglecting to take into account the realities of Black women and other women of
colour effectively. Crenshaw demonstrates how the indifference of laws and
policies to sufficiently consider the intersectionally placed identities can
lead to unfavourable consequences. Patricia Hill Collins, another leading
scholar on intersectionality, in her book Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge,
Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment, asserts that
intersectionality shows “the interconnected nature of social categorizations
such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group,
creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or
disadvantage” (1). Intersectionality allows a deeper understanding of how power
operates and how different social categories interact and influence each other.
It has evolved into a crucial instrument for perceiving and analysing
underrepresented people's experiences in order to develop efficient social
justice strategies. It allows the newly emerged branches to conjoin and
understand the modalities of oppression and formulate opinions on them. Thus,
intersectionality can be deployed to gain insight into the experiences of
different disadvantaged populations, including LGBT+ persons, untouchables, or
persons with disability. They emphasized that the formation and implementation
of law without considering intersectionality can lead to consequences that
worsen the marginality of any underprivileged category.
Man, Manhood and
Masculinity
Within the ambit
of intersectional studies, this paper will try to draw a link between
masculinity, disability, and sexuality. Although the concept of androgyny
embodies that self is made up of both feminine and masculine elements that are
present in varying quantities in every person's psyche but during the 1960s
masculinity was primarily defined as an internalized social and psychological
disposition mirrored through certain codes like ‘aggressive’, ‘ambitious’,
‘assertive’, and ‘athletic’ which were/are considered superior to feminine traits
like ‘affectionate’ ‘kind’, ‘compassionate’, and ‘sensitive’ etc. But, in the
1980s, masculinity studies started to gain currency when a group of mostly
White, pro-feminist males initiated the theorization of masculinity in the
United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. The majority of these men
were social scientists and sociologists. The rise of the women's movement was
one of the major reasons that contributed to the development of masculinity
studies. Drawing on the necessary impetus from feminist theoretical premises,
Raewyn Connell’s seminal work, Gender and Power: Society, the Person, and
Sexual Politics, a critical examination of the complex and nuanced nature
of gender, argues that gender is a social system structured by power.
Stressing that gender identity is not a fixed entity, scholars of this
field emphasize that even masculinity is also ‘fluid’ and ‘diverse’, which is
contingent upon several socio-economic and external factors. Judith Butler’s
theory of performativity emphasizes that identity is not a permanent or
intrinsic attribute, but rather fluid, consolidated by repetitive performance,
and her theories on gender and sexuality criticize the essentialist notions of
identity. In this regard, the observations of Kaufman in his The Construction
of Masculinity and Triad of Men’s Violence provide us with some deeper
insights. He observes, “Masculinity is power. But masculinity is terrifyingly
fragile because it does not really exist in the sense we are led to think it
exists, that is, as a biological reality- something real that we have inside
ourselves. It exists as ideology; it exists as scripted behavior” (7).
Therefore, it becomes palpable that men may not restrict themselves to one
particular masculinity type for their entire lives. Instead, they choose from a
culturally constructed repertoire of masculine traits and actions based on
particular circumstances. Following that, it can be derived that masculinity is
also a social construct, as no one is naturally endowed with it; rather, it's a
skill that a person gradually cultivates and inculcates through practices. The
traits and behaviours of superiority and toughness are taught in a way that the
hegemony of patriarchy can be consolidated and established. The nature of
masculinity in postmodernity is ‘fragile’ because it is constantly under threat
from changing social and economic conditions. Zygmunt Bauman, in his book Liquid
Modernity, a ground-breaking book that asserts that an individual, placed
in a highly globalized space, can rapidly shifts from one social position to
another, one ideology to another very swiftly. In such a society, a person is
found learning, exploring, and embracing new possibilities. Therefore,
masculinity is the process of ‘socialisation’ into certain gender roles
produced in connection to social and cultural codes and which can be enacted
and sustained by men, women, and other genders.
Disability: A
part of Human Diversity
Disability is a
complex term that encompasses various kinds of impairments (mental or physical)
that negatively impact an individual’s ability to function effectively in
society. Genetics, birth abnormalities, accidents, and illnesses are all
potential causes, along with social issues such as impoverishment, prejudice,
and a lack of access to education, and many more. Societal prejudices restrict
people with disabilities from expressing their economic, social, and cultural
rights by means of neglect and discriminatory attitudes. Disability studies, a
relatively new academic discipline, encourages us to consider disability in
unconventional ways. It allows us to perceive disability as a part of human
diversity rather than an issue that needs to be resolved. Critical disability
studies contribute to our understanding of disability by examining the
socioeconomic, cultural, and power dynamics that impact disabled people, as
well as the existential reality that people with disabilities’ experiences are
primarily critical in interpreting their own place in the able-bodied society.
Davis, in his book The End of Normal: Identity in a Biocultural Era, argues
that disability is a natural part of human diversity, not a medical or social
problem to be solved. He further argues that people with disabilities are just
as diverse as any other population group. They have a wide range of
experiences, and they identify with their disability in different way.
Several models of disability, offer distinctive viewpoints on the nature
of disability and its repercussions. The able-disable dichotomy is the binary
way of thinking about disability, which divides people into two categories.
This duality is problematic because it perpetuates the notion that able-body is
the norm and disability is an anomaly. It also fails to recognise that
disability is a spectrum of possibilities or an area open for meaningful
exploration. People with disabilities are more prone to discrimination when
they are perceived as ‘abnormal’ and ‘unfit’ for survival. In the introduction
to Critical Disability Studies Journal, Anita Ghai points out:
But persons with
disabilities are signified as being irresistibly the ‘Other’, their disability
is symbolically considered a bundle of ‘deprivation’, ‘calamity’, ‘loss’, lack,
‘dependency’, and ‘deviation’. The construction is that of- substandard human beings,
powerless and incapable of independent existence. This experience of disability
exceeds fault lines of nation, gender, class, caste, race, and myriad other
identities (Ghai 5).
The intersection
of masculinity and disability creates an intricate space open for exploration.
Men with impairments frequently encounter special difficulties and prejudice.
Traditional masculine norms and expectations, which put pressure on individuals
to live up to unattainable standards of power, independence, and self-reliance,
could further aggravate these difficulties. It has been observed that disabled
people are often subjected to medical and social ‘surveillance’ that regulates
their behaviour. They claim that in a society that values able-bodiedness, men
with impairments frequently experience special obstacles in negotiating their
gender identities.
Disability and
Body Politics
The body is at
the centre of how men define themselves and are defined by others. Bodies are
used to determine value, which translates into status and reputation. Men's
physicality enables them to exhibit socially important attributes such as
toughness, competitiveness, and ability. In the discussion of disability and
masculinity, the body occupies a crucial position, as in modern consumerist
society, the body has been reduced to a mere ‘commodity’. Nadia Brown and Sarah
Grehson, in their article Body Politics, articulate, “Bodies are sites
in which social constructions of differences are mapped onto human beings.
Subjecting the body to systemic regimes – such as government regulation – is a
method of ensuring that bodies will behave in socially and politically accepted
manners” (1). Men with disabilities are frequently subjected to external
pressure to adhere to traditional masculine ideals and standards. In this
condition, men with disabilities may completely disregard typical masculine
standards and norms. They may embrace their physical limitations as part of
their identity and reject the notion that they are compelled to conform to
typical standards applicable to men.
ANALYSIS
The
representation of disabled bodies and queer sensibilities in mainstream literature
usually registers negative approaches, treating them as either a lifelong
burden to the family or a matter of shame by relegating the issues to physical
defects and perversions. By challenging the orthodox norms and taboos of
society, the emergence of disability and queer studies seeks to provide an
alternative viewpoint to dismantle the discriminatory binaries like
able-disable, normal-abnormal, and straight-queer. In a homophobic nation like
India, people with transgressive desires become victims of traditional values
and dominant ideologies. In India, disability is often seen as a lack or
deficit. This is reflected in the language that we use to talk about
disability, such as "disabled," "handicapped,"
"crippled," "differently-abled," and "special."
This language can be harmful because it reinforces the idea that people with
disabilities are less than or different from people without disabilities. The
normative culture in India and around the world often carries existential and
aesthetic anxieties about differences of any kind, including disability. This
can lead to the marginalization, discrimination, and stigmatization of people
with disabilities. As a result, people with disabilities may feel like they
have to live up to certain standards in order to be accepted.
Firdaus Kanga’s
semi-autobiographical novel, Trying to Grow, narrates the story of a
physically challenged Parsee-boy Brit, gay by sexual orientation, against the
backdrop of traditional, orthodox Indian society. The novel, set in the claustrophobic
town of Mumbai, unfolds how a boy born with an incurable disease, osteogenesis
imperfecta, undergoes several layers of objectification and marginalization at
the hands of discriminatory societal norms. Scholars and critical thinkers are
prompted to reframe and reconceptualize disability in a new light by his
constructive consideration of sexuality and disability. Brit’s early years are
covered in the first section of the book, “The Brave Act”, which includes his birth, family history, parents, sister,
friends, and his attempts to acquire knowledge. The story places “disability”
at the intersection of orthodoxy, tradition, culture, liberalism, and
multiculturalism while revealing a distinctive and funny portrait of an
eccentric Parsee family with all of its absurd obsessions and worries.
Additionally, it depicts an odd similarity between Brits’ sensation of being
ripped from mainstream macho society and Parsee's uprooted mentality. It turns
out that his moniker, "Brit," is a derogatory word for his medical
ailments as well as a representation of their Anglophilic disposition. He was
born with a rare genetic condition called osteogenesis imperfecta, also known
as brittle bone disease. It inhibits someone's ability to undertake
"masculine," powerful duties, which frequently results in fractures
of delicate bones. This physical impairment, consequently, may obstruct the
growth of muscles, making it more difficult for the subject to bear his own
weight. Thus, his name appears as a metaphor for his physical limitation. But
his desire to grow let him overcomes fear, shame, prejudices, and all negative
stereotyping of his body. Shilpa Anand, in her Disability and
Modernity: Bringing Disability Studies to Literary Research in India,
observes
Brit embraces the
contours of disability subjectivity and all its modern emancipatory rhetoric
because it is there for him to embrace. Brit’s condition is genetic, his
economic situation is secure and he is cultured and socially groomed. Brit’s
middle-class upbringing and liberal-humanist schooling enables him to grow into
disability as personhood (254).
His ‘economic
situation’, ‘liberal humanist schooling’, and ‘middle-class upbringing’ play a
decisive role in the construction of Brit’s identity. In conversation with Brit,
Madam Manekshaw reveals that “if you’re rich…it wouldn’t even be trouble having
a son in a wheelchair” (56). In response to that, Brit also admits: “rich
people feel nothing when they see me. That’s fab!” (56). The intersection of
‘economic status’ with disability creates an alternative space conducive to the
growth of disabled subjectivity.
Synthesis of any
global phenomena through a binary perspective establishes the nuanced notions
of acceptance and rejection, normal and abnormal, appropriate and inappropriate
by prioritizing one category over the ‘other. Unfortunately, the binary
politics is all pervasive, and it proliferates into almost all sections of
life. In the discourse of marginality, ‘binary’ exclusionary politics is highly
critiqued and interrogated by critical thinkers. Without any doubt, the
storyline of the novel persuades its readers to interpret disability through an
alternative viewpoint that is beyond the conventional norms. Brit Kotwal’s life
journey registers a myriad of psychological and physiological strategies to
negotiate the conventional discourses on disability, masculinity, and
sexuality. His disability is persistently contested and questioned by the
presence and interaction with the able-bodies around him. As soon as he was born,
the attending doctor predicted the Parsee family’s impending catastrophe as the
newborn did not meet the defined parameters of ‘normalcy’. It has been
expressed by the articulation of the doctor: “When sera (mother of Brit Kotwal)
came out of her anaesthetic fog, she saw the Saint Bernard faced doctor more
Brandish than ever. ‘I’m afraid I have bad news for you Sera. Your boy is born
with bones as brittle as glass, the bones in his legs are as delicate as
test-tube. I doubt he will ever walk. He’ll probably be toothless, too. His
tooth will break soon as he will bite something” (Kanga 28). The prognosis and
his selection of words for depicting the disease trace the history of treating
disabled people as a lifelong burden to the family. This particular articulation
also unfolds the attitude of doctors, a progressive section of society, towards
disability.
Brit’s father,
Sam, is found engaged in an endless struggle to restore Brit to normalcy
through the formation of a ‘correct body’. His unwillingness and inability to
accept Brit’s disability not only generates anxiety, fear, and frustration in
him but also negatively affect his son for being the source of his father’s
unhappiness. He left no plan untried to ‘cure’ him. Following the advice of a
priest, he tried Parsee prayer, but when he did not get the expected result,
his desperation even led him to a Holy man, Wagh baba, having the
reputation of miraculous divine power to drive away disease and distress. Lying
naked in front of his women assistant and children, Wagh baba suggested to
“appli (apply) warm salt on legs” (6). Although Sera, Brit’s mother,
accompanied them but she strongly opposed his husband decision to visit such
fake and lustful. Moreover, when her husband said,“the only way we will know he’s
genuine is if Brit stops breaking his bones” (7), she retorted, “Brit’s getting
more cautious as he’s getting older; he’s had just two fractures in the last
three years. And he is getting better anyway, no thanks to any Wagh Baba Faba
Gaba” (7). Sera’s proclamation is a testimony to her assimilation of her son’s
disability as ‘normal’. She emerges as a sharp contrast to her husband as she
accepts her son’s physical disorder normally. Even after confronting so many
negative remarks from her doctor, friends, and relatives, she remains same
towards her son throughout the narrative.
Association
of disability with past ‘karma’ or equating their physical disability with
mental crookedness, as perpetuated by the characters of Manthara and Shakuni in
the great Indian epics, is deeply rooted in Indian consciousness. Thus,
disabled people are many times left die as they are born only to suffer due to
past karma. They are debarred from auspicious occasion. Even after being
sidelined form the mainstream society, if they are found happy, people suspect
it as a mere pretension happiness. Sam also perceived Brits joyful disposition
unreal like a circus player and thus he asked: “Or is it just your brave act?
Smiling face and weeping heart. Y’know, like that movie we saw last week about
the circus clown how he was always putting on his comic act while he was really
having a rotten time” (43). He does not even hesitate to make a mockery
of his disabled son even in front of strangers by comparing his son’s teeth to
windows, and “one can look through them.’ His interactions with Brit expose the
orthodox discriminatory temperament.
Wheel chair
ridden Brit, chiefly confined within the narrow space of their apartment,
‘really do(es) love reading, especially Enid Blyton’ (51). Sam has pessimistic
attitude towards his habit of reading as a futile effort reflected when he
states ‘you’ll study but you won’t get a job. You know, it’s very tough getting
a job these day’s (44). As per him. When ‘healthy’, ‘good looking’ and ‘MA’ s are
struggling for job, his son all knowledge will be wasted as getting a placement
with osteogenesis imperfecta (even the name of the disease itself
symbolizes his imperfect and unfit existence in a milieu of physical elitism)
is hardly possible. Brit is apprehensive of how disability is treated. He
wonders, “I am afraid the way handicapped are looked. You know the hesitant
gait and the robot stiff movements of the blind, the lolling heads and the
strangulated speech of a spastics. whenever I saw them, I wondered if I seemed
as ugly and pathetic. I’d shudder and turn my mind away” (32).
Along with the
medical limitation, Brit needs to undergo multiple layers of ‘prejudices’ by
embracing several emotional inflictions helplessly from family, friends, and
relatives. Disabled individuals are regarded as helpless victims who need
constant support and help. Brit observes that “when you can’t do something,
people feel you can’t do anything” (52). In order to project himself as a
‘macho man,’ he even resorts to smoking in his teen years. It is indeed
disheartening for them that their one aspects of their identity cancel out all
other intersecting positive qualities. They are reduced to a mere lifeless
object- a disabled thing who need ceaseless human and technical support to meet
the basic needs of life. Our protagonist is a psychologically strong
personality who embraces the setbacks and challenges of life with a smiling
face. He feels humiliated when he gets a prize, not because he deserves it, but
due to his physical limitation. He prioritizes the other aspects of life over
the inevitable limitations imposed on him by disability. But the overprotective
nature, fear, and lack of faith often stand as an obstruction in the way of the
formation of disabled subjectivity. In the case of Brit, though he was capable
of doing so many things on his own but his overprotective parents always
suspect his ability. As a result, “Whenever we had to go somewhere important,
Sam washed me. It was safer. As for dressing no one would believe it, but
till I was fourteen I came out of my bath naked lay down on a bath-mat, spread
over my bed. Then Sera and Dolly would sprinkle me with talc all over, cooing”
(52). Even Brit is not beyond the prejudice, as he himself states: “I didn’t
want a deaf girlfriend even though she was a gorgeous girl and a fabulous
friend” (92)
While the
first part of the novel shows the dominance of taboo and prejudices around a
disability, the second half of the novel captures how the protagonist overcomes
those difficulties through mental strength. As a novel of growth, it explicitly
deals with Brit’s realization of his own sexuality, although the majority of
individuals dissociate sexual desire from impairment. Historically, ‘body’ has
been pigeonholed as heterosexual that is capable of procreation. Any diversion
from this established mode of sexual relation has been sidelined as a mental
condition or perversion. Along with subverting the notion of correct body,
Brit’s exploration of sexuality as a growing adolescent boy challenges the
fixity of heteronormativity.
Rusty Barrett
argues that because masculinity is typically defined in relation to
heterosexuality, gay masculinities are often viewed as inferior and placed at
the bottom of the masculine hierarchy. Similarly, Gill Valentine notes that
many lesbian and gay individuals have, at some point, engaged in heterosexual
relationships. This may be due to social pressure from family and peers, or
because they come to recognize their sexual identity later in life, often after
already being involved in such relationships. As a result, many individuals who
identify as gay have experienced a phase of maintaining dual sexual identities.
While growing up with constant negotiations with the constrictive environment
around him, Brit’s realization of his own sexuality is pivotal to the story,
and it grabs the attention of the critical thinker of gender and sexuality
studies. It exposes the nuanced and discriminative perception of TAB (all
bodies can be considered as temporary Able Body) regarding the sexual desire of
a disabled person. The narrator is found critical of society's conception of
masculinity and how they attach male sexual virility with physical robustness.
Tina’s mother allows her daughter to play with Brit because she thinks that, on
account of Brit’s disability, he is incompetent for any kind of intimacy. This
makes it evident that their bodily impairment is almost synonymous with their
sexual impairments, coupled with a lack of masculine strength, agility, and power.
As he discovers his sexuality and attraction to males, Brit rejects attempts to
label him as a victim or an object of pity. His attraction towards Cyrus, the
handsome boy next door, is the embodiment sexual fluidity. As the storyline
narrates, the Brit’s sexuality is somehow ambiguous and does not fit into the
rigid sexual binary.
Conclusion: This paper has
explored the interrelationship between three central axes of Brit’s identity- disability,
sexuality, and masculinity- arguing that none can be understood in isolation
from the others. By situating Brit at this complex intersection, the analysis
reveals a deeply contested space where normative expectations are both
forcefully imposed and subtly destabilized. His fears, fantasies, and desires
emerge as a dynamic interplay between structures of oppression and acts of
resistance. As a coming-of-age narrative, the text effectively traces Brit’s
development through his ongoing negotiation with prejudice, social bias, and
entrenched cultural expectations. Positioned at the convergence of multiple
marginalities, Brit embodies a form of strategic resistance that unsettles
fixed and reductive notions of identity. In line with intersectional thinking,
his character underscores the plurality and fluidity of identity formation,
resisting any attempt to define him through a single limiting attribute.Rather
than being confined to the stereotype of a deficient or undesirable body, Brit
asserts his agency by challenging the devaluation imposed upon him. In doing so,
he not only reclaims his own subjectivity but also exposes and disrupts the
exclusionary structures and repressive norms that seek to marginalize him.
Works Cited
Anand, Shilpaa. "Disability and modernity: bringing disability studies to literary research in India." South Asia and disability studies: redefining boundaries and extending horizons (2015): 246-262.
Brown, Nadia E., and Sarah Allen Gershon. Body Politics. Routledge, 2020.
Collins, Patricia Hill. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge, 2022.
Davis, Lennard J. The End of Normal: Identity in a Biocultural Era. Cambridge University Press, 2016.
Fotopoulou, Aristea. "Intersectionality queer studies and hybridity: Methodological frameworks for social research." Journal of International Women S Studies (2012).
Ghai, Anita. (Dis)Embodied Form: Issues of Disabled Women. Har-Anand Publications, 2003.
Kanga, Firdaus, and Firdaus. Trying to Grow. Penguin Books India, 2008.
Kaufman, Michael.“The construction of masculinity and triad of men’s violence.” Oxford University Press,1987.
.