OBJECTIFYING MEN?

OBJECTIFYING MEN?

(The one assignment I really enjoyed writing last semester)

I have often wondered why there are hardly any paintings of nude men, (only Michelangelo’s David stands tall and sexualised) or any Kingfisher calendars with men in bathing suits on exotic beaches. I have contemplated on shooting one such calendar myself. This line of thought has led me to the question: what happens when men are objectified? Is there a homology between women’s objectification and men’s objectification? To look at this question I will take recourse to the work done by Susan Bordo, John Berger and Laura Mulvey and then analyse a film to see how it applies.
Susan Bordo in The Male Body (1999) has written about the representation of the male body in public and private. Analysing Hollywood movies during the sixties, she sees how men are represented on screen. Writing about the ‘beauty’ of the male body, she borrows from the gay theorist Ron Long in distinguishing between the Schwarzenegger type of body and the lean, athletic kind. The former bodies “seem to be surrogate penises- with nowhere to go and nothing to do but stand there and looking massive” while the leaner variety “seem designed for movement, for sex” (Bordo 171).
Writing about men and women on display, Bordo maintains that men are constructed in the manner that they “are not supposed to enjoy being surveyed... its feminine to be on display” (173). How then would we explain those umpteen ads with near nude men, or for that matter the very Gucci underwear ad which Bordo mentions which uncovers a man’s buttocks? Commenting on this ad Bordo states that “women aren’t used to seeing naked men frankly portrayed as ‘objects’ of a sexual gaze” (177). A study done on a series of men and women, who were shown nude pictures of men and women, concludes that women were less erotically aroused by the male nudes than men were seeing the female nudes. Bordo problematises this assumption saying that erotic arousal is subjective and that responses can be learned and are culturally specific.
John Berger in Ways of Seeing (1977) elucidates on how we see images, especially those of women. We never merely look at things, there is always a relation between what ourselves and what we look at and the way we see things. Talking about how we look at ourselves, Berger makes a distinction between how men look and women look. The male gaze has power, while the
woman must continually watch herself. She is almost continually almost accompanied by her own image of herself... from earliest childhood she has been taught and persuaded to survey herself continually. So she comes to consider the surveyor and the surveyed within her as the two constituent yet always distinct elements of her identity as a woman. (Berger 46).
What is crucial to a woman is how others see her. Her self-importance lies in the appreciation by another. This is what Berger maintains to be how women are constructed. He is not saying that this is how women should view themselves. Taking his data from paintings and popular visual culture such as advertisements, Berger draws these conclusions of his.
One might simplify this by saying: men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at... The surveyor of woman in herself is male: the surveyed is female. Thus she turns herself into an object- and most particularly an object of vision: a sight (Berger 47).
Looking at European oil paintings, Berger notes that paintings with nude women holding paintings in their hands condemn women for being vain and naked, while the spectator enjoys her nakedness. But the mirror plays another function. “It was to make the woman connive in treating herself as, first and foremost, a sight” (51). Talking about European paintings with supine naked women, Berger comments how women are seen as passive sexual beings, whose sexuality is not for themselves but for the spectator. The woman, painted without any hair (a site of passion and sexuality) is denied all sexuality of her own. Her sexuality is all for the male viewer. Berger compares this with Indian, Persian and other Eastern art forms where the woman is as active in making love as the man is. Commenting on the similarity between advertisements and oil paintings, Berger notes that the nude women look directly at the spectator. “It is the expression of a woman responding with calculated charm to the man whom she imagines looking at her- although she doesn’t know him. She is offering up her femininity as the surveyed” (Berger 55). Even when there is a male lover in the frame, her gaze is always directed towards the male spectator to whom she ‘belongs’.
By this Berger is elucidating on the male gaze and how the woman in the paintings, in advertisements or on screen is objectified as a person to enhance and cater to male sexuality. In this the woman’s gaze is also denied agency in that she can look only at herself through the man’s eyes, in that she can look at herself only as the male surveyor.
Laura Mulvey in her famous article Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema follows Berger’s notions of the woman as image and he man as bearer of the look. She analyses movies to see the concept of fetishism, and how the male viewer in the audience identifies with the hero to render the woman the object of desire: the pleasure of seeing the human form, the female form, scopophilia. Mulvey takes recourse to psychoanalysis to analyse the films.
Taking these categories of the way women and men are seen in visual spheres, what can we say about the objectification of men? Let me take a film as an instance.
Dostana (2008), a film in Hindi directed by Tarun Mansukhani starring Abhisheka Bachchan as Sameer, a male nurse, John Abraham as Kunal, a fashion photographer and Priyanka Chopra as Neha, a 27 year old woman working at a fashion magazine, is about Sameer and Kunal who to get residence status in the US, register as a gay couple. They take up residence with Neha, who lives with her aunt. Falling in love with her, they play the gay couple and yet try to woo Neha, who believes them to be her best friends. Neha meanwhile falls in love with her new boss Abhimanyu Singh. To win Neha, Sameer and Kunal try to impress her and put Singh down. What ensues is a series of comic situations. In the end they declare their love for her, but she only remains their best friend.
This film has a light hearted take on homosexuality[i]. But at the same time what is interesting for us is how the male body is objectified in this film. The toned, six pack, muscular body of John Abraham is seen in the beginning scenes in just an underwear which is about to slip off, revealing more than it should. The camera travels during another song sequence over his muscular chest, his narrow waist and his big biceps just like it would over a woman’s body. We often see him without his shirt, and even when he wears a t-shirt (which is often sleeveless to show the biceps), the bulge of the biceps and the enlarged chest is visible through the fabric. There are beach scenes where he is seen running in a swim suit. His eye candy figure has the proportions of the current normative male body with gym toned, hairless, muscular and tall with fair smooth skin. Gone is the hairy chest and limp arms figure of Anil Kapoor, or the round figure of Shammi Kapoor. It is not a coincidence either that John Abraham is also the endorser for male fairness cream advertisements. Yet, he is neither the Schwarzenegger type nor the lean, athletic kind. He is not the action man of James Bond, rather he fits into the metrosexual man category who preens and poses. At the same time Abraham is constructed as the normative and hegemonic male in opposition to the bulky (read not toned body), hairy yet feminine figure of Abhishek Bachchan which presents the subordinate masculinity.
The figure of John Abraham when it reaches objectification also tends to approximate the female figure. There are certain points of similarity: for instance the absence of clothes- the near nude status (as opposed to naked a la Berger), the absence of hair, the smoothness of the skin, the direct gaze at the audience (which is there in any of the posters of the movie). His pose in the posters are also inviting like those described by Berger for women in advertisements. This absence of hair, clothes, is there a certain note of castration which ensues when men reach objectification level? Does it mean that a male figure which is objectified loses its power and domination, its penis metaphorically, all the time being transformed into a sexual object for women to look at? Or is it because the men are gay that their subordinate masculinity is making them lose their power and domination?
How then do we see the figure of John Abraham? Is there a female gaze in Dostana? Can there be a female gaze at all, in the sense can there be an agency of the female gaze which is not informed by the norms of the male gaze? Can women stop seeing like men do, can there be a subversion of seeing like a man? When the male body is objectified, is it done by adopting the same principles that men adopt when objectifying women? Can there be a female way of seeing?
The techniques used to objectify the male figure- camera movements, near nudity- are the same in women as well as men. The figures of the men stare at the audience. They are portrayed as sexual objects. But there doesn’t seem to be a correspondence between the way men are viewed and the way men view themselves. There is no surveyor and surveyed duality inside the male sex object. Nor does the man ‘belong’ to the female viewer. The objectification of the male body seems to be more of a narcissist activity. But then how do we see this symbolic castration in terms of the lacks mentioned earlier? Is there really as loss of power when men are objectified?
Objectified women are seen to be desirable. Are powerless objectified men equally desirable? Does the objectified male still retain his status of hegemonic masculinity? Coming back to the movie, it is the hero and the desirable male who gets the woman as the reward. Neither Bachchan’s nor Abraham’s character get Chopra’s character in the end. It is the regular, normative, heterosexual male (though the other two are also heterosexual) who gets the woman. If we follow this logic, then the objectified John Abraham slips from his hegemonic position since he does not have any sexual access (nor potential to have access) to the woman.
Is it time then, as Bordo writes in her reading of a Calvin Klein advertisement (which depicts a bare-chested man leaning against a wall, looking at the audience, with the copy saying ‘take me’) for the man to escape from the burden of pursuing, of having the pleasure of “feeling one’s body caressed by another’s eyes” (190)? Is the figure of Abraham up for grabs and to be looked at, as an escape from the previous active man figure? Is there then a homology between women’s objectification and men’s objectification? We can say that there is a partial homology, especially in the case where the man is leaving behind his power status to want to escape and to occupy the position of looked-at-ness. But if one looks for a one to one correspondence between the way women are perceived (in the sense that Berger describes it) and men are seen, then the homology breaks down since such notions as surveyor surveyed are not applicable to male objectification. Thus to answer the question posed at the beginning, one can say that the homology between women’s and men’s objectification is partial.

References
Berger, John. 1977. Ways of Seeing. London, BBC and Penguin Books.
Bordo, Susan.1999. The Male Body. New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Mulvey, Laura. Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.
[i] I will not look at the homosexual aspect of the film. That would be another paper.

A screening and discussion with Anand Patwardhan

Anand Patwardhan, documentary filmaker and activist who started his career in the 1970s has been making documentary movies and wnning awards for them since long. His famous documentaries are In the Name of God, Father Son and the Holy War, on Mumbai slums, and the recent one on nuclear weapons titled War and Peace which was screened at EFLU today in the afternoon and was interspersed with discussions, interactions with Anand himself. Anand started making the movie in 1998 following the Pokhran nuclear test,. It took him four years to complete. He shot extensively in India, and later in Japan, Pakistan and the US. In 2002 when it was completed, the then BJP Govt banned it and Anand went to court. After a year or two, it gained legal rights to screen it. It also won the National Award and DD showed the movie, but duped the public by changing the timing at the last minute so that not many could actually watch it. It was better received at Karachi, where they had a series of discussion on TV which was telecast over many days.
The documentary is clearly anti-nuclear, though it shows also the arguments made by the pro-nuclear party. It shows how euphoric people are and also how the bomb is actually causing more damage than harm, since the radiation is causing cancer in many. Most term it ironically the 'blast for peace'. Patwardhan juxtaposes images of the people's lives with that of those in the higher ups who have no clue how the testing of the bomb is affecting them. The Bishnoi tribe who live near the test site, have sold their lands at a mere 20 Rs per bigha to the Govt! They owned each up to 300 bighas of land. The Dalits are against the Govt using Buddha as code word for the bomb. WHy don't they use their other Hindu gods they cry? Buddha smiled was the term used to demote that the test was successful. The Bishnoi tribe is peace and animal loving. They have no aid from the Govt. But even in the villages there are two factions. The elders are anti-nuke while the youths buy into the Govt developement arguement. The BJP is posing the nuclear test as something of pride, and equating it with Hindu nationalism. Anand is making us question this very notion of patriotism which is where one does not love the people who are suffering by the nuke tests. Anand argues that it is the elite who have solved the problem of food water job house etc who need a sense of pride and they seek it in the nuclear 'power' which they think is good at the cost of the land, fauna and most importantly the people. The money which is spent in the nuclear tests and the uranium factories which are contaminating water, making deformed babies and giving cancer to people is diverted from education, food and other primary needs. This nuclear test is not power, nor is it a matter of security. Rather, as argues Anand it is about status. The scientist who are on the project also are not aware of the implications of the bomb. They all speak the discourse of the Govt which happens to the be Hindu nationalist discourse. Anand then films in Japan where the Ibakushas, the survivors of the Hiroshima Nagasaki bombings tell about the horrors of the nuclear blast. He also films in a museum in which some Americans are critical of their Govt's spending on defence. He also goes to Pakistan and talks to people in the streets and see that they too want peace and talks to girls in a school who have varied opinions on why Pakistan should have or shouldn't have have the nuclear tests right after India did. He shows people's efforts to educate others on the harms of the nuke, while others' obvious pride in the test. While Anand is critical of the Govt and the elite's position, he also shows how the ones marching for peace and against the nuke are met with opposition and shouts of 'go back traitors' and 'go to pakistan'. The film ends with a quote from Gandhi which extols non-violence.
There were various questions after the screening of the film. When I asked if the film had been translated into other Indian languages since it was Anand's wish to reach to as many people and spread awarness, he said they had been but that he needed the response from people themselves before spending money to translate it into languages such as Tamil.
There was further discussion where Anand made himself clear and told what he was intending to do through the movie.

WORKSHOP IN EFL-UNIVERSITY: A BRIEF REPORT

Workshop at EFL-University.

Workshop Day 1- Dalit Writings

Kalyan Rao, Dalit writer, has written Untouchable Spring which was released in Telugu ten years back. He came to promote the English translation. He spoke eloquently on Dalit writing, on how they borrow from their grandmothers and how the arts, music and oral culture of the Dalits have been marginalised and kept out of history. The Dalit page is missing. His art of writing comes not from the Western masters, his art is inherited from his grandmother would could not read or write but who could tell wonderful tales. Kalyan Rao vehemently argued for space for Dalit writing and art.

Gogu Shyamala, a Dalit writer and activist, spoke about the necessity for land reforms and Dalit lands which needs to be given back to them. She spoke in Telugu. She has written books for children which are not regular tales but about the life of Dalit children.

Next came Susie Tharu, who spoke on the Dalit writing.

Workshop Day 2 Dalit and Women's writing

Maya Pandit spoke about women's writing.

Parthasarthi spoke about colonialism and caste and Venkat Rao spoke about Dalit conversion and Christianity. There was an interesting discussion following Partha's presentation when Javed Alam challenged Nicholas Dirk's and Bernard Cohn's assumptions that the census and enumeration solidified caste. He asked pertinently, what was colonial about enumeration. Was caste the same in pre-colonial times. He warned about blindly follwing Dirks and Cohn without adopting a critical lens.

Workshop Day 3 History and Hyderabad

Narendra Luther, spoke of the History and Culture of Hyderabad. His presentation was dumbed down by the fact that he gave the history of the kings and showed slides of palaces and all. What was he saying which was new which we couldn't find in normative history textbooks?

Rajagopal spoke about the history of nationalism in South India.

Hoshang Merchant, known gay writer and critic, gave a lively and provocative paper on homosexuality.

Worshop Day 4- Media

Padmaja Shaw spoke on TV and print Media, giving facts and figure without showing what it amounted to.

Aniket Alam, asssistant Editor of EPW, spoke about the history of print media in India. He raised an interesting point of how newspapers were read collectively and was a collective act rather than an individual one.

Madhav Prasad spoke on motherhood in Hindi cinema, showing a clip from Mother India and then from Wake Up Sid, to show how the role of the mother has changed.

The last paper was a respite from the other two, and there was a casual and aimless discussion which amounted to nothing, which was indeed frustrating.

Workshop Day 5- Economics and Politics in India

This was the most intersting session, with the father and son duo of Aniket and Javed Alam making presentations.

Aniket Alam spoke on the political economy of India. He made interesting points. One was that the capitalist class in India emerged along with the democratic movement in India. It gained political support form the anti-colonial movement. I asked him to elaborate on this and give a few examples. He replied that traders such as the Tatas and the Birlas allied with the nationalist elites, thay allied with Congress, became Gandhians and often followed a simple lifestyle. In the following discussion, Javed Alam commented that when calculating economy one needs to take care of non-monetary and monetary economy. At the same time, the purcahsing power parity is different for India. For instance, a person can have three meals in India on 1 $ a day. One needs to take into account this difference in prices.

Aniket, himself a Leftist, towards the end became vehemently critical about the Left. He said that when FDI comes into India, The Left makes a big hue and cry, but what happens to them when Indians buy agricultural land in Ethiopia and other African countries? Can't they see that Indians too are being exploitative and emperialist?

Javed Alam spoke next. Alam is the Chairman of the Indian Council of Social Sciences. He is a well-known Marxist and has written various books, including Who Wants Democracy published in 2004. Here is what he said.

Each society develops its own model of democracy. That is why democracy in India is more appropriate to Indian democracy.

India is not a multi-cultural society but a culturally diverse/plural society. Multi-cultural society, the term has come from the Canadian context which includes immigrant experience and the diaspora, where there is no meeting point. In a culturally plural society there are meeting points, there are common philosophical concepts.

The democratic universals of liberty, equality, dignity etc are actualised in two ways. One, these values are actualised through policies, and two they are actualised through institutions. The battle for equality in India is in terms of community: coomunity access to education, medical facilities etc.

Indian capitalist development has happened very fast, yet it is unable to solve India's social problems. There is hierarchical inequality in India. The Dalits and the Backward Castes have an unfreedom which is different from that of the European model. Their unfreedom is one of jati. It is a collective unfreedom, in ascending and descending order.

Democracy has not solved the problem but has instead provided sites of struggle, it has provided space which was not there earlier. The Dalits and an disadvantaged group have verbal inadequacies. When they argue, there is a din, but yet they are operating with a rationality which demands equality, freedom, dignity etc.

Democracy in India is resilient in the face of institutional decline. With the democratic upsurge, people enter as direct actors, this is marked by the entry of the Dalit in politics. This is the era of self-representation. TV is the most unrepresentative of mediums, there are no Dalits of OBCs there.

There are participatory demands and contraction of liberal values. The trajectory from community to individual autonomy is done complete.Communities still demand full allegiance. This absence of the autonomous individual stands in the way of liberal values but not in the way of participatory values. Have participatory values been producing results in the absence of liberal values? Yes.

The fight for freedom is done through communities. The privilidgentsia (elite) occupied earlier the middle classes. Now the Dalits are occupying it, there is the emergence of a new middle class. The Jati is internally egalitarian, but not externally so. The new middle class, is in a hurry to acquire the benefits which are making them break the queue, they are flouting the rules of the game. This legitimacy is acquired by simply being in the democratic process.

The caste system as it existed earlier has disappeared. The Dalits and other lower castes don't believe in the Varna ideology. They don't believe that they are lower. It is only a section of the upper caste which still believes in this ideology.

There is also no Sanskritisation is put forth by MN Srinivas. Instead, the the individual castes are fighting for secular demands: job, education, medical water etc. The castes are becoming akin to communities. Alam was also critical of Partha Chatterjee and Ashish Nandy's positions.

The discussions were lively, so were the presentations.