CAPITALISING THE NEW FACE OF MASCULINITY

by

Introduction: “This primordial investment in the social games (illusio) which make a man a real man – the sense of honour, virility, ‘manliness’, or, as the Kabyles say, ‘Kabylness’ (thakbaylith) – is the undisputed principle of all the duties towards oneself, the motor or motive of all that a man ‘owes to himself’, in other words what he must do in order to live up, in his own eyes, to a certain idea of manhood.” Bourdieu (2001). Strength, courage, mastery, and honour are the alpha virtues of men all over the world. (Donovan2012)

Manhood or masculinity is thought to be eternal, an essence that resides in the very heart of every man. It is often believed or thought to be something that is innate, residing in the very composition of the human male that is a result of androgens or the possession of a pen*s. 

But masculinity as a characterization of man’s gender, is in most certainty more than that,  masculinity is not static, nor timeless, it does not bubble up to our consciousness from our biological makeup. It is a product of culture; it is created by culture through our relationships with ourselves and others. Manhood, masculinity means different things at different times, it is constantly evolving. Social cultural as well as economic factors influence the conception definition of masculinity. (Kimmel1987) 

The subject of masculinity, according to me, seems to be unjustly neglected in comparison to today’s growing feminist literature. As R.W Connell, states that, ‘The concept of masculinity seems to be a fairly recent historical product, a few hundred years old at the most'(Connell, 2005). It was only with post industrialism and primarily with the impact of second wave feminism, that masculinity as a discipline emerged and along with that feminist also questioned the age-old masculine identities, relations, and practices.  The rise of feminism in the early 20th century along with the rise of a market-based economy, post industrialism was accompanied by a decline or questioning of virility as a social value. ‘This dramatic leap was less a reflection of the obsolescence of men in general than of masculine maladjustment'(Jabloka,2022).

 This so-called “dramatic leap”, or transformation, or even a “crisis” in the very socio-cultural understanding of traditional masculinity was well observed by many scholars as the beginning of, a break or a reconstruction of the notions that define the apparent ideal masculinity. Robyn Wiegman (2002), in her article ‘Unmaking Men and Masculinity in Feminist Theory’ talks about how in the 1990’s masculinity started becoming a part of popular culture, burgeoning as an academic subfield. He observes how this move towards the study of masculinity made men themselves question their own patriarchal dominance. Antony Easthope (1992) in his What a Man’s Gotta Do, states, ‘It is time to try to speak about masculinity, about what it is and how it works. […] Despite all that has been written over the past twenty years on femininity and feminism, masculinity has stayed well concealed. This has always been its ruse in order to hold on to its power. Masculinity tries to stay invisible by passing itself off as normal and universal.’(Easthope,1992)

This transpose was and is being further highlighted by the new generation, Generation Z. Young men belonging to this generation have taken up an active role in deconstructing traditional expectations of masculinity. Being a stereotypical man for this generation is contrite. Robinson (2019), through, The Book of Man[1], a web page that tries to voice the new type of man, talks about the need to redefine masculinity, as the “new” masculinity, where the objective of the new man is not to reassert his masculine dominance but a reinvention of masculinity itself, not reasserting control but releasing a desperate grasp on it, not about bottling up emotions but expressing them.

Through this research paper I try to understand this shift, the evolution of the characterization, in the understanding of the term masculinity, and what is understood by the evolved man, the new face of masculinity. What is trying to replace or is challenging the hegemonic traditional man.    

Hegemonic masculinity, as proposed by Connell (2005), refers to the masculinity that symbolizes the most dominant form of masculinity that, tends to enact power and superiority over other identities, such as homosexuals as well as women, which for the hegemonic male is inferior or submissive. Hegemonic masculinity is treated as synonymous with the identity of being “macho ” assertive, aggressive, courageous, stoic etc.

The rise of a neoliberal economy:

 This change in the ideal masculinity was attributed not only to the rise of second wave feminism but the changing global economic structure too. With the rise of neoliberalism as the dominant economic structure, whose main target was solely to keep the market afloat, also had a significant role to play, in challenging the hegemonic masculinity. David Harvey (2003), defines neo liberalism as the expansion and creation of markets. The neo liberal theory, seems to have an overarching effect across educational, financial, governmental, cultural, and social institutions. According to Harvey (2003), ‘Neoliberalism in short, becomes hegemonic as a mode of discourse. It has a pervasive effect on ways of thought to the point where it has become incorporated in the common-sense way, many of us interpret, live in and understand the world.’

The rise of neoliberalism also meant capitalization or marketization of everything; the new face of masculinity was most certainly not left out. With a rising concern amongst masses to redefine and reanalyse the conception of masculinity neoliberal enterprises such as multinational brands and entertainment industry have not shied away in taking quick and efficient steps in incorporating this new definition of masculinity. By showing their support and acceptance, they are in turn keeping the target market afloat, their main concern. Levi Gahman in his study of masculinity and neoliberalism in Kansas City states that, “Neoliberal discourse is pushing the prevailing ideals surrounding rural, working-class masculinities in distinctively market-oriented directions. The practice of neoliberal self-making is reshaping the assertion of manhood for working-class men” (Gahman,2014)

To understand how this, new face of masculinity was efficiently incorporated in Bollywood movies, I will be taking Bollywood films particularly as my subject of study, to showcase how there has been an evolution in the portrayal of the male protagonist. According to MensXP,2020 and Man’s Life 2021, The portrayal of masculinity in Bollywood cinema has evolved from the male protagonist being portrayed as Macho angry man to a man showing a more effeminate, emotional, and empathetic side. And lastly, I try to understand how the projection of the new face of masculinity creates a sense of legitimacy among its viewers. Lyotard (1992), in his book, Postmodern Explanation to Children, talks about how with postmodernity and Neoliberalism there is a crisis of legitimation and process of delegitimation.  Applying this concept to the study of the evolved masculinity, we can see how with markets promoting this new form of masculinity there seems to be a delegitimation of traditional forms of masculinity and a legitimation of the new form of masculinity. In turn strengthening the need to bring forth a change collectively and thereby challenging hegemonic masculinity.

Review of Literature:

“Being a man involves a ‘flight from the feminine’: that is, the male psyche is built around an almost hysterical need or desire to reject anything and everything that is commonly associated with women or girls.” Edley (1988). 

Masculinity as a concept, or as a characterisation of the gender, “man” is a relatively new concept. It broadly was, and still at times may be understood as something that lies in opposition with, what is understood as feminine or anything that is associated with women. Thus, masculinity largely meant a contrast to femininity.  It was only with, post industrialisation, neoliberalism and most importantly with the coming in of the second wave feminism, during the 1970’s that the subject of masculinity or masculinity a separate discipline of understanding came into being.  The 1970’s became a significant and an essential year in the history of masculinity, because it not only laid the foundation of masculinity as a new discipline, but it also sought to challenge the age-old understanding of man, as a stoic, aggressive, unemotional, being who is in complete opposition to the characteristics that define a woman. “Developed out of the U.S. women’s liberation movement in the early 1970s, feminist scholarship emerged with the intent to understand the causes and impact of gender inequity by applying the concepts of domination, oppression, and exploitation to women’s experiences and advancing antisexist theories and methods Feminist theorists, therefore, sought to expose and problematize the construction and role of masculinity as part of understanding patriarchy and the dominant positioning of men.” Brown and Ismail (2019). This reformation of traditional masculinity was not well wished by those men who associated themselves with the ideals of traditional masculinity, characterising this period as a “crisis in masculinity.” “Crisis in masculinity has been attributed to several causes; for example, second-wave feminism of the 1960s and 1970s and the civil rights movements of the 1960s such as Black Liberation and Gay Liberation. Social, political, and other inequities and injustices were traced back to the dominance and power of white, middle-class, heterosexual males, who were then compelled to examine the power structures and dynamics of their societies, and their own roles in these.” Buchbinder (2012). Post industrialism, neoliberalism, and the rise of the market that came to define the economy, brought about a shift not only in the global economy, but also, a change in gender perceptions. In this consumer-based economy where the market was the centre, and keeping the market afloat was the main objective, gender as a category for division became secondary. “Neo-liberalism is rhetorically gender-neutral. The individual has no gender, and the market delivers advantage to the smartest entrepreneur, not to men or women as such.” (Connell,2005). The market was more interested in efficiency and profit maximisation; thus, the competition was between individuals with merit, not on the basis of gender.

Neoliberalism was in some ways inconsistent with the idea of traditional masculinity. “The shift from industrial to consumer societies also demands that men must change – at least if they are to thrive in modern times.” Edley (1988). 

Thus, along with the establishment of a new discipline on masculinity, with the coming of the second wave feminism and the shift to a neoliberal economy, paved the way for a reformulation of the subject, man. These crucial events served as stepping stones, gradually leading to formulation of a new face of masculinity. 

The dramatic leap, the crisis, in masculinity has been well documented by books on masculinity, but there seems to be a lack, a gap in information, describing what came in place of the traditional masculinity, or with the crisis in masculinity. There was definitely a change in the conception of masculinity, but there is no definite definition of this new understanding of masculinity or the new face of masculinity that was believed to replace hegemonic masculinity. Through this research paper I try to understand what was believed to replace traditional masculinity, what came to be understood as the new face of masculinity.

“Both, hegemonic masculinity, and the hegemonic system must be broken down and removed to make way for an ‘alliance politics’ that will produce a ‘de-gendered world’ where all configurations of practice are set as transparent.” Howson (2006). Hegemonic masculinity, a concept first used by R.W Connell in his book Masculinities,1993, Connell had borrowed the term from Antonio Gramsci’s concept of ‘hegemony’ which he had used to study the power of the ruling class. Connell takes a similar approach, for the appropriation of the term and identifies it within the category masculinity, as there too exists a hegemony, where the traditional man, possessing characteristics of aggression, domination, stoicism, is the ideal man and stands at the top, at the pinnacle of this hegemony. Those men who are effeminate, who are identified as gay, homosexuals and so on occupy a much lower position in the hegemony of masculinity. “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. Gayness, in patriarchal ideology, is the repository of whatever is symbolically expelled from hegemonic masculinity, the items ranging from fastidious taste in home decoration to receptive anal pleasure. Hence, from the point of view of hegemonic masculinity, gayness is easily assimilated to femininity.” Connell (2005). 

Connell, in his book on Masculinities talks about how there is a gradual shift, a change in the power hierarchy, the hegemony of the traditional man. He acknowledges that with feminism and neoliberalism the idea of masculinity is sought to change, that masculinity will no longer be a single characterisation, but multiple, it will be dynamic, vibrant, it will be associated as ‘masculinities.’ But here too, Connell does not provide a definite definition of who will represent the term, “masculinities.”

 Through my research paper I wish to see how, with the coming of the neo liberal economy, whose main concern lies with the market, a change in gender hierarchy can be observed. How with the race to engulf everything under the purview of capitalism, how too this new understanding of masculinity, the new face of masculinity is capitalised. But solely because they consider the need to reformulate the idea of a traditional, toxic man, but simply because, they want to keep their markets afloat by being in line with the masses. I am particularly interested to look at how there has been a capitalisation of this new face of masculinity, through cinema or movies. Movies are a reflection of society, by studying the change in the very conception and perception of masculinity through films, it gives us an idea of what the consumers or the society at large wants to portray as masculinity. It also shows how this new face of masculinity is being capitalised. In this paper to study how there has been a capitalisation of the new face of masculinity through cinemas, I will look at Bollywood movies particularly, trying to observe a transition in how the male protagonist is being portrayed. The evolution of the male ‘hero’ in Hindi films from the 1960’s to the Present, and how the projection of the new altered form of masculinity is challenging the hegemonic position of traditional masculinity. “A confluent crisis in the legitimate authority of patriarchal masculinity in line with such social transformation can be witnessed, I argue, in the social, cultural, and academic concern with the question of masculinity since the 1970s.” Harman (2013). 

Thus, through this research paper I try to understand what characterises this new face of masculinity, how has the male hero in Hindi films evolved with time and how this evolution challenges the hegemony of traditional masculinity.

The Fall of Virility and the Rise of a New Face of Masculinity:

The term ‘virility’ comes from the Latin word ‘vir’ meaning ‘man’ or ‘hero.’ It refers to a wide range of masculine qualities which are opined to be of great importance to men.

‘Virility’ is synonymous to terms like ‘manliness,’ ‘masculinity,’ ‘machismo’, ‘toughness’, ‘strength’, ‘heroism’, ‘fearlessness’ and so on. To the Romans, ‘vir’ (man) was associated with martial valour, strength, courage, loyalty (McDonnell, 2006). According to the Greek poets, the soundest condition for a human mind to function and flourish is in ‘dryness,’ and it is men who are associated with ‘dryness, fire, and hotness’ (Carson, 1990). Thus, according to the Greek poets, a man and not a woman, is understood as a rational being. 

Traditional understandings of masculinity include dimensions such as “achievement of emotional control, anti-femininity and homophobia” (Plexk, 1995). David and Brannon (1976) identified four primary characteristics or components that define traditional masculinity: Men should not show any signs of weakness, men should not be feminine, men should have a daredevil nature, taking risks even if it meant the endorsement of violence, and lastly, real men should be respected for their achievement and success. To the traditional man, it is his quest to accumulate these so-called cultural symbols that denote manhood. Masculinity is irrevocably tied to sexuality and masculinity is historically as well as developmentally defined as the repudiation of femininity. Thus, we can broadly say that in the traditional sense masculinity primarily means a blatant opposition to femininity.  

However, a paradox emerges with respect to men’s issues. By the late 1960s and early 1970s the second wave feminists sought to understand and deconstruct the category ‘women’ and in doing so, they also “have become increasingly wary of yet again preserving ‘man’, as an ostensibly ungendered subject”(Shapiro, 1994).  The feminist theorists therefore tried to understand the concept of masculinity, challenging the very heart of what it means to be a man—power. Gardiner (2005), asserted “feminist thinking has been fundamental to the formation of contemporary men and masculinity studies as intellectual endeavours, academic subjects and social movements.” Thus, according to feminist scholars, the study of masculinity was likely due to feminism’s direct contributions. (Carrigan, Connell and Lee 1985, Gardiner 2005).  It was with feminism masculinity as a discipline emerged, not as a separate discipline but as a part of feminism, itself. This shift in interest has given rise to important new changes, by increasing the scope and incorporating a broader representation of men, redefining, reidentifying men, reformulating the concept of masculinity.  “Final act: redefining masculine identity on a new basis, and accepting the fact that the macho brute belongs to the past. To that end, one can borrow from a neo-Kiplinger ethic: discipline, moderation, elegance in other words the formation for a masculinity of control as opposed to brutal and potentially worrisome masculinity of ostentation.” (Jablonka,2022)

Along with the feminist liberation movements in the 1970’s, trying to reformulate the concept of masculinity, transformations in the very understanding of masculinity can also be traced back to the changes that came about with a shift in the global economy; globalization along with decisive shifts from large scale industrial economies to information and communication market-oriented economy. This post industrialist economy was solely based on the market and profit maximization. Gender based division as a concern in the workplace gradually took a back seat, the main target now being the market; all relations were based on cash nexus. The 1970s thereby placed the traditional role of men as breadwinners and patriarchs under threat (Ehrenrich, 1984).

 This very change in masculinity was sought to be understood by many as a crisis, “masculinity in crisis” (Bly, 1990). The crisis of masculinity seemed to challenge the traditional masculine values, leading to a gradual shift, an alteration in the views of masculinity. We can say, it was during this time that the new face of masculinity began to develop. Thus, not only did the 1970’s, mark the beginning of the study of the often taken for granted terminology ‘masculinity’, but it also laid the foundation for a new, a better face of masculinity. This brings us to the question, what is this new face of masculinity? As R.W. Connell in his book Masculinities identified, the future is not of a singular masculinity but of masculinities. There is no monolithic one-size-fits-all notion of masculinity; masculinity now is understood as a diverse, dynamic, evolving category, having multiple variables. The term ‘masculinity’ or ‘manhood’, which was for so long understood as a quality that is innate and residing in one’s particular biological composition, came under scrutiny. The conception of how sex precedes gender or how the procession of a male genial is directly proportional to certain characteristics, came under a process of reformulation. In the wake of many significant movements, especially that of the ‘#me too’ movement, not only was the rights for women re-thought of, but traditional notions of masculinity were questioned.

The term ‘new masculinity’ was first used by GQ, an American international monthly, men’s magazine in 2019.  With the publication of the “Issue of New Masculinity”, it became quite evident that there was some degree of change, an increasing awareness, and a concern to bring about a modification for good. This meant that the society was finally leaving the status quo and rejecting traditional masculine ideals which were now being described as constraining and toxic. This new masculinity as Marsden (2018) in the series, ‘Modern[2]

Masculinity’, states that the future of masculinity or the new face of masculinity is like a concoction, a blend of traditional masculinity, soft masculinity, positive masculinity, as well as the negation of toxic masculinity. This new face of masculinity sought to challenge traditional ideals of being unemotional, stoic, reserved, and uptight. It rather encouraged men to share their insecurities, giving them the right to be vulnerable, emboldening men to be involved in caring practices, such as being a more involved father. This new masculinity is a breakaway from the traditional ideals, allowing men to experience what can be referred to as “personal growth”. “The main work of men now doesn’t consist of learning new models, but unlearning those that have been imposed on them since birth” Suro[3](2022).

This new masculinity, positive masculinity, modern masculinity, can be understood to, break the shackles of toxic masculinity, and learning what it means to be a man of the new upcoming generation. Generation Z, the new, upcoming generation taking on from the foundations laid by the Millennials, seems to have taken upon themselves to actively dismantle patriarchy. Spurred on by social media, they have brought upon considerable movements, raising voices against the patriarchal misleads, going against, and raising accountability for misogyny, which obviously might have gone unnoticed for so long. This new face of masculinity questions the very idea of men being protectors. Patriarchal masculinity and all that comes with it, is nothing but an ill fitted shirt. This construct is artificial and dangerous men cannot be protectors if they are constantly controlled by the fear of being too vulnerable and emotional, too terrified of being emasculated. Traditional masculinity is nothing but fragile, constraining and restraining men within a set of rules as it feels it’s ideal character is always on the verge of imploding. The new phase of masculinity tries to expose patriarchal masculinity as a lie and create a new breed of men. Men should be given the space to be whoever they want, whenever they want, these new identities should not be restraining but limitless, healthier, and not toxic. (Sexton,2019)

The New face of masculinity: The New Male Protagonist:

Philip Goodchild, identifies, rather than studying only power and dominance in gender relations, one must also study capital and how it encompasses concepts of power and sexual difference. He further stated that gender relations in contemporary society is related to capitalism and more specifically to its neo liberal form. (Goodchild,2002)

The 1970’s was the era of globalization, the fall of manufacturing economy, post industrialism, the rise of capitalism and along with it neo liberal form of economic symbolization became the global dominant. David Harvey, who convincingly chartered its rise, stated how human well-being was being maximized in a neo liberal set up as it meant freeing the individual entrepreneur within a context of free trade, free market, and strong private property rights. Neo liberalism in short could be defined as the expansion and creation of markets. “Neoliberalism has in short become hegemonic as a mode of discourse. It has progressive effects on the ways of thought to the point where it has become incorporated in the common-sense ways of many of us, to interpret, live in and understand the world” (Harvey,2009).

Neoliberalism truly became a global norm, not only in bringing about transformations in the economy of the world at large, but significant transformations could be observed in the representation of heterosexual masculinity. A change could be observed in the so-called ideal structures and different regimes of social normalization. “Neoliberalism is rhetorically gender-neutral.”(Connell, 2005). According to the neo liberal economy, the individual’s gender is of secondary importance to the market. This form of economy delivers advantage to the smartest entrepreneur, not men or women, in particular. In a neo liberal economic set up, the major concern is the market and making profits. It does not cater to any specific gender for achieving its goals of profit maximization it looks at individuals that will keep the market afloat and increase the chain of markets. Indirectly, neo liberalism may be said to be inconsistent with traditional patriarchy. Access to income generation irrespective of gender boundaries, led to the rise of a new group of managers and owners. Global power was gradually being altered to new patterns of business, masculinity detaching from local gender order. 

In a neoliberal economy, engagement with the labour market is positioned as being of paramount importance and it also seeks to find new ways of “doing” gender.

In India too, neoliberalism had a distinct role to play shaping the politics of gender, space, youth, class and media. Gooptu (2009,2013). The expansion of neoliberalism changed the landscape of the country as a whole, shifting towards urbanisation and an enterprise culture, emphasizing on the growth of individual identity, self-actualization. All this also led to a change towards ‘new’ India with ‘new’ citizens, also creating ‘new’ understandings of Indian men and women among its masses. Philip (2018), Gooptu(2013). 

Thus, this altered form of masculinity not only took over entrepreneurialism, but was soon understood by capitalistic enterprises as the new social norm and was tactically incorporated within its purview. The arrival of a new global capital brought about shifts in Indian media, promoting the emergence of self-identified ‘new’ men characterizing a changed, evolved ‘new’ way of thinking, identifying this new form of masculinity as being ‘post-patriarchal’. I will be studying Bollywood movies chronologically, how with each era there has been a change, an alteration in the portrayal of masculinity. I will be trying to trace how films have adapted the new conception of masculinity.

In Bollywood movies the ‘hero’ is often portrayed as to have it all- larger than life, to be too strong to have emotion, ultimate saviour of mankind, to be fearless, but there is some degree of change in this portrayal of masculinity, and I try to trace that development here.

The beginning of 1960’s -1990’s in Bollywood cinemas can be broadly described as the “angry man” era, it had practically laid the foundation of what a man should be. The flag bearer of this era was particularly, Amitabh Bachan or Big B, with movies like Sholay, Deewar, Zameer, Trishul, Don, Coolie, Shahenshah, and Agneepath. Where he portrayed the roles of fighting off villains, saving women, restoring law and order. Dharmendar was another significant actor showcasing his on-screen aggression, replicating the ideals of masculinity. Women in these movies were projected as the damsel in distress, vulnerable,and it is the responsibility of these macho men, the heroes of these movies, to protect them at all cost. Heroes played roles of fathers and sons, but their main focus laid on showcasing macho, rowdy, aggressive roles.

From 1990’s onwards, the portrayal of the angry young man evolved, actors such as Akshay Kumar, Salman Khan, Sharukh Khan and Govinda took up roles with a hint of comedy, slightly less serious, relaxed roles. But they had their own set of toxicity, from cheating on their partners, misogyny to treating women as objects, it was a period in hindi cinema that normalized and justified the practice of sexism. Even in family-based movies, like Hum Aapke Hain Kaun, Hum Saath Saath Hain reinforced, voiceless women, gender roles and sexist jokes for comic relief. 

The early 2000’s emphasised on men being saviours, a move towards saviour complex.In movies like Vivah, Gaddar, Veer Zara portrayed how the primary role of a man should be to protect women, at all cost, liberate them, perform all forms of heroic tasks form them.  But this period also marked a gradual break in the stoic, unemotional character of the male protagonist. Sharukh Khan playing the role of ‘Rahul’ in Kabhi Khushi Kabi Gham putting forth an emotional side of the hero, bawling his eyes out, bearing his heart out on the big screen, exhibited a different side of the ideal, traditional masculinity.

Present, or This Decade. It is not that the trend of the man as a liberator has gone. Toxicity has taken yet another form, that of an unstable man child, like the role played by Shahid Kapoor in Kabir Singh and Varun Dhawan’s role in Badrinath Ki Dulhania, where these characters portray men who are superficially woke and supportive, but a consistent stalker and carrying out acts of violence to save their women. These movies all portray how men should have a dominating, asserting and are always correct even if they do something that is certainly irrational.

But, somewhere, the notions of masculinity were also challenged during this ongoing era, balancing out irrational, toxic characters with some beautifully written men. They were portrayed as comfortable in their masculinity, the masculinity that defied myths that men cannot carryout household chores, cannot be understanding, accepting, nonviolent, be unthreatened by strong women around them. Movies like Mere Brother ki Dulhan, Jaane Tu Ya Janne Na, Hindi Medium, beautifully showed how men were not threatened by strong women around them, but were rather supportive.

Jai Singh played by Imran Khan in Jaane Tu Ya Jaane Na portrayed how he was a confidant to his single mother, carrying out all the household chores, showing no forms of aggression and displaying different emotions without any form of shame. In Tanu Weds Manu, Madhavan is a great example of how men can express without being toxic, he treats his rejection gracefully, which not only shows how women can make their own choices, but also how the ideal man is who accepts and respects the choices made by women. Vicky Kaushal in Raazi is yet another perfect example portraying the evolved masculinity on the big screen, humanizing male characters, who are often created as caricatures of only two emotions– anger and joy. And lastly, a special mention to Ayushmann Khuranna who can be called a flag bearer in playing the new ideal man, woke, evolved masculinity. From taking up roles as a man going through erectile dysfunction, a homosexual man to a man working as a woman at a call centre. He beautifully and comfortably displays a range of emotions through all his characters. One of the most significant and revolutionizing roles played by Khuranna was that of Kartik in Shubh  Mangal Zyada Saavdhan, where he played the role of a gay man alongside Jitendra Kumar who played Aman. Kartik and Aman were a gay couple fighting against stereotypical hegemonic heterosexual relationships, trying to establish that love, romantic love is not bound only between a man and a woman, love is not gender specific. Trying to showcase how the static traditional concept of masculinity is disintegrating, paving the way for a more encompassing idea of masculinity.

The Reformulation of Hegemonic Masculinity through the portrayal of new masculinity in Bollywood films. (Analysis):

Antonio Gramsci (1971), developed the concept of hegemony. He had come up with the concept of hegemony to make sense of how the ruling class maintains their position in society. It referred to the cultural dynamics by which the ruling class conserves and maintains its leading position.

R.W Connell, in his book ‘Masculinities’ was the first, and the most notable for having launched the new concept of Hegemonic Masculinity. Applying Gramsci’s concept of hegemony, he studied the concept of masculinity and its power dynamics.

Hegemonic masculinity is defined 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.” Connell (20050.Hegemonic masculinity thus, refers to the ascendant position of men over women, as well as men who are subordinate to the ideal heterosexual man, men who consider themselves to be homosexual or gay and so on. This man on the top of the hierarchy is culturally privileged or believed to be exalted in both thinking and conducting oneself. He is seen to possess a combination of qualities including toughness, courage, ambition, and competitiveness he occupies the pinnacle, the highest position in the hierarchy of masculinity, standing out in contradiction to femininity.  

But hegemonic masculinity is not something fixed, with discursive changes, changes in the culture, hegemonic masculinity too gets altered, it is nebulous in nature. Hegemonic masculinity is not a fixed character type when conditions defining patriarchy change the basis of domination are invariably sought to change.  Patterns (of the traditional man) or traits that were considered to occupy a hegemonic position have eroded, new groups or new threads challenge the old, constructing a new hegemony, a new group of men with a new set of traits, now trying to occupy the hegemonic position. “Hegemony is a historically mobile relation”(Connell, 2005).

This change, reformulation, shift of the hegemonic masculinity, though gradual but observable, have started taking place from the 1970s with the second wave feminism and post industrialism and the coming of the new liberal economy. The traditional toxic traits defining and characterizing an ideal man have been shaken with the rise of a new man, a new face, a new form of masculinity.  The reconstruction of the image of man in cinemas with the coming of neo-liberalism has had some significant impact on the minds of the people. The 1970s most certainly, was the beginning, the stepping stone for the upheaval, redefining masculinity, challenging traditional masculinity, but the mass uproar that has been and still is, stimulating a change in the hegemonic masculinity is the projection of this new face of masculinity through capitalistic enterprises, amongst which the most notable and significant is the changing characteristic traits defining the male hero, the male protagonists. Many Bollywood cinemas have beautifully curated what is understood by the new face of masculinity, what is understood of the ‘new’ man. This not only gave those who were considered subordinate in the power hierarchy or hegemony of masculinity, a security, a recognition, but also, created a sense of validity, legitimacy for this new face of masculinity.

Lyotard mentions how this period of postmodernity marked the process of the delegitimation. The period was described by Lyotard as a moment of crisis, a crisis of the legitimation of grand narratives. This crisis of legitimation can also be linked to the crisis of the legitimate authority of patriarchal masculinity where the traditional cultural touchstone of masculinity came under threat questioning its validity, delegitimizing what the term in the traditional sense meant. The demand for legitimation of the previously accepted narratives created conditions for its own delegitimation, and it is during this process of delegitimation, new understandings developed, one of such was the new face of masculinity.

Media such as cinemas understood what the masses, its viewers were considering the more legitimate form of masculinity. Taking this new, reformed understanding of masculinity within its horizon, the entertainment industry portrays it, popularizing it, and representing themselves to be in line with this change. The capitalistic enterprises may have accepted this new man, to maximize their profits, but this surely had a notable impact upon its audiences. The new portrait thus, created of this man, was characterized to have emotions, one who respected women, who shared household chores, who confessed, who accepted their failure, and so much more, created not only a new understanding of what it meant to be a man but a sense of validity of this new man. This new representation of men through famous, notable actors, actors who were idolised created a greater sense of legitimacy and acceptance. Indian men involved and engaged themselves more into a ‘new’ thinking, creating a stronger base for the ‘new masculinity.’ The above mentioned, movies like Jaane Tu Ya Jaane Naa, Tannu Weds Mannu, Vicky Donor, Raazi, Shubh Mangal Zyada Saavdhan all were hits, blockbusters Jane Tu Ya Jaane Naa making a box office of 53.2 million, Vicky Donar making a box office of 66.32 million, Raazi making a box office of 91.63 million and lastly, Shubh Mangal Zyada Saavdhan making a box office of 326 million, proving that the new face of masculinity portrayed by the male protagonists in these films were well accepted by its viewers. The very acceptance of these changes is a precondition to the shaking or a reformulation of the hegemonic masculinity. As Connell had stated in his book, Masculinities, a particular hegemonic masculinity, may be eroded when new groups, new conceptions, new definitions come about challenging the older narratives. This idea of Connell, showcases how the traditional idea of my masculinity, occupying a hegemonic position, is now being challenged by the new face of masculinity, the man who is effeminate, emotional, empathetic treating those not falling within the boundaries of gender binary as his equal and not his subordinate.

We can thereby say the capitalisation of masculinity is a cyclic process; the activists or reformers initiating the need to bring out about a change, the capitalist capitalizing, marketizing on this new drift among the masses, this not only kept the market afloat but also created a new sense of legitimation among the masses. Cinemas in bringing about the new face of masculinity played a pivotal role in carrying out this cyclic movement, reflecting the new changes, directions, which were being accepted by the audiences as revolutionizing, transforming, modern, but the acceptance of this change led not only to the delegitimation of traditional hegemonic masculinity but also helped in keeping the market buoyant, making huge successful box office hits, on cinemas portraying this new, changed, evolved man.

Conclusion:

The term masculinity, has undergone certain significant alterations, masculinity is no longer a limiting, restraining, irrational category, post the 1970’s masculinity does not include only a singular form of man, the traditional man, but, masculinities, it is now a more inclusive, dynamic, dialogic, an evolving term. 

With the coming of neoliberalism in India, and a shift to enterprise culture, emphasizing on self-actualization sought to the growth of a ‘new’ citizen, which in turn led to a ‘new’ form of masculinity. This change, transpose of the idea of masculinity was efficiently capitalised, taking Bollywood films in particular I had looked at how the new, reformed face of masculinity was adopted, how the evolved man had a cinematic presence in Hindi movies post 2010. The projection of this new man through cinema, the big screens, which maybe for the larger context for the entertainment industry keeping their market afloat, by being in line with the mass demand, also played a legitimate role in delegitimizing the traditional, hegemonic masculinity. And by widely projecting it, creating a sense of legitimation, normalization of the new face of masculinity. 

Needless to say, it is not that the projection of the toxic, traditional form of masculinity has completely stopped, movies like Kabir Sing, Dangal, Sonu Ki Tittu Ki Sweety, glorify toxic masculinity, reinstating its hegemonic position. But, the difference now is that within such toxicity there is also the marketization of a more desirable man, more effeminate man, the new face of masculinity. The change in understanding and accepting this ‘new’ masculinity is still quite new and gradual, but there definitely has been some degree of reshaping and redefining of the concept of the hegemonic man.

References:

  1. Bly, R, (2004). Iron John: A Book about Men.Addison-Wesley.
  2. Bourdieu, P. (2001). Masculine Domination. Cambridge.
  3. Brown, A.M, Ismail, K.J. (2019). Feminist Theory of Men and Masculinity: Applying Feminist Perspective to Advance College Men and Masculinities Praxis. Thresholds, Volume 2, Issue 1, 17-35.
  4. Buchinder, D. (2012). Studying Men and Masculinities. Routledge.
  5. Carrigan, T., Connell, B., and Lee, J. (1985). Toward a new sociology of masculinity, Theory and Society, 14(5), 551-604.
  6. Carson, A. (1990). 5. Putting Her in Her Place: Woman, Dirt, and Desire. In F. Zeitlin, J. Winkler & D. Halperin (Ed.), Before Sexuality: The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World (pp. 135-170). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  7. Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities (2nd edition). Cambridge.
  8. David, D. and Brannon, R. (Eds.). (1976). The Forty-Nine Percent Majority: The Male Se Role. Addison Wesley.
  9. Donovan, J. (2012). The Way of Men. Dissonant Hum
  10. Easthrope, A. (1992). What a Man’s Gotta Do: The Masculine Myth in Popular Culture. Routledge.
  11. Edley, N. (2017). Men and Masculinity: The Basics. Routledge
  12. Ehrenreich, B. (1984). The Hearts of Men: American Dreams and the Flight from Commitment. Anchor Press.
  13. Gaman, L. (2014). Gun Rites: Hegemonic Masculinity and Neoliberal Ideology in Rural Kansas, Gender Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 22(9):1203-1219. 
  14. Gardiner, J. K. (2005). Men, masculinities, and feminist theory. In M. S. Kimmel, J.Hearn, & R. W. Connell (Eds.), Handbook of studies on men and masculinities (pp.35-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  15. Gilmore, D.D. (1991). Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity.Yale University Press.
  16. Goodchild, P. (2002). Capitalism and Religion: The Price of Piety. Routledge. 
  17. Gooptu, N. (2009) Neoliberal Subjectivity. Enterprise Culture and New Workplaces: Organised Retail and shopping malls in India, Economic and Political Weekly, 44(22),45–54.
  18. Gooptu, N. (ed.) (2013) Enterprise Culture in Neoliberal India: Studies in Youth,Class, Work and Media. (1st ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
  19. Harman, T. (2013). Critical and Cultural Theory (unpublished dissertation). Cardiff University, Whales, United Kingdom.
  20. Harvey, D. (2009). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.
  21. Jablonka, I. (2022). A History of Masculinity: From Patriarchy to Gender Justice.Penguin Books Limited.
  22. Kimmel, M.S. (1987). Changing Men: New Directions. Routledge.
  23. Lyotard, J.F. (192). The Postmodern Explained to Children: Correspondence 1982-1985. Turnaround.
  24. Mc Donnell, M. (2006). Roman Manliness: Virtus and the Roman Republic. Oxford University Press.
  25. Philip, S. (2018) Youth and ICTs in a ‘New’ India: Exploring Changing Gendered Online Relationships Among Young Urban Men and Women, Gender, and Development, 26(2), 313–24. 
  26. Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11–32). Basic Books/Hachette BookGroup.
  27. Sexton, J.Y. (2019). The Man They Wanted Me to Be. Counterpoint.
  28. Shapiro, A. (1994). History and feminist theory; or, talking back to the beadle. In A.
  29. Shapiro (Ed.), Feminists revision history (pp. 1-23). Rutgers University Press.
  30. Weigman, R. (2002). Unmaking Men and Masculinity in Feminist Theory. In Editor J.K Gardiner (Ed), Masculinities Studies and Feminist Theory. (Pg 31). Columbia
  31. University Press.
  32. Work and Media. (1st ed.). London and New York: Routledge.

[1]Robinson, M. (2023). What is the new masculinity. Retrieved from The Future of Men. website: https://thebookofman.com/mind/masculinity/the-new-masculinity/.

[2] Marsden. P. (8th December,2018). Man Down: The Future of Masculinity. Retrieved from Brand Genetics. Website: https://brandgenetics.com/human-thinking/man-down-the-future-of-masculinity-with-dr-paulmarsden/.  

[3] Suro, A. (29th June2022). Wat does New Masculinity Mean? Retrieved from MYHIXEL MAG website: https://blog.myhixel.com/what-does-new-masculinity-mean/.

Rohini Bose, a scholar from St. Xavier’s College’s Sociology Department, has submitted her insightful essay to a social sciences writing competition. Her work reflects a keen interest in dissecting societal complexities, showcasing her potential in the field of sociology.

Share on:

We believe in sharing knowledge with everyone and making a positive change in society through our work and contributions. If you are interested in joining us, please check our 'About' page for more information

...