Masculinity in Waiting for Godot

AbstractThis paper aims to explore the theme of male person personness in Becketts hold for Godot. The main objective of this paper is to identify the experiences of male characters through with(predicate) which they try to keep their masculinity existent in Becketts play. It is rather relieve aceself that male characters atomic number 18 immutablely prevalent in the plot organise of the play without each effeminate character.Beckett has politic each(prenominal)y highlighted masculinity in his play dapple making the women off and through former(a) several(predicate) traits. Although, there ar many male characters but the proper hegemonic masculinity is finish uply presented by only one male character, Godot. Because, we mold that people are waiting for Godot to uphold them and the depiction of Godots physical appearance by boy also gives us the hint of Godots hegemonic masculinity.We also find male characters who are implemental.So, we tramp say that mascul inity is a dominant theme of this play. solely there are different kinds of masculinity such as hegemonic masculinity, yielding masculinity, untested masculinity and beside all this confuse of masculinity is also cut and clear in Becketts hold for Godot.keywords Masculinity, hegemonic, henpecked, immature, physical appearance, Godot, lost.DISCUSSIONBefore rootagele an analysis of this topic, masculinity requires definition. According to OED, masculinity is defined as having the quality of being mannish and OED defines masculine as having the qualities or appearance considered to be typical of men. In the same book, the word strong is used for masculine and according to my point of view this word strong is suitable here for masculinity. Because, I expect to explore masculinity in the finger of king as tumefy as strongness in wait for Godot.All the characters of Becketts play are male and they are having the quality of being masculine. So, in this context we can say that there is an obvious theme of masculinity in Becketts calculateing for Godot. But when we try to examine Becketts male characters from the percpective of aforementioned word strongness then we find confusion.Because, we can say that all his characters in time lag for Godot are masculine but we can non say that all the male characters are almighty. So, here we find masculinity of this play divided into two traits which are hegemonic masculinity and bowing or immature masculinity.First of all, I would uniform to discuss hegemonic masculinity in this play while analysing different characters such as Godot and Pozzo in the play, who possess hegemonic masculinity. According to R.W. Connells gender order theory, hegemonic masculinity is defined as practice that legitimizes mens dominant perplex in society. (Connell).Godot is a hegemonic masulinity in the play though it is a fact that Godot remains abscent end-to-end the play but still we can say that he is a powerful male being. As we descry that the two characters Vladimir and estragon constantly wait for the arrival of Godot as he is someone who would help them to come out of their difficulities.estragon Lets go.Vladimir We can non.Estragon Why not?Vladimir We are waiting for Godot. (Beckett, 66-68)These same dialogues are ingeminate by these two characters time and again. Their wait for Godot and the qualities of Godot gives us the hint of Godots hegemonic masculinity.Estragon What do we do now?Vladimir Wait for Godot. (Beckett, 63)And this is their routine though they know that Godot doesnt come at the end but still they are bound(p) to wait for him. It seems that they are unable to leave without meeting Godot. Estragon and Vladimir wait for Godot daily at a specific place but for the whole day and this thing gives us the intellect to precieve Godot as an classical figure.Vladimir level(p)?EstragonTi-ed.Vladimir How do you mean tied?EstragonDown.Vladimir But to whom. By whom?EstragonTo your man.Vladi mirTo Godot? Tied to Godot? What an idea No question of it. For the moment. (Beckett, 20-22)In Act 2, Beckett has given the description of Godots physical appearance by the boy.Godots physical appearance also channelizes his hegemonic masculinity as we are told that Godot is a character with white beard and this gives us the peculiar essence of an authoritative figure. Vladimir Has he beard, Mr. Godot? male child Yes, sir.Vladimir Fair or (he hesitates) or black? Boy I think its white, sir. (Beckett, 92)Although, it is a fact that Godot does not arrive in the play and many critiques argued his abscene as a lost masculinity.Jeffers in his article Lost Masculinity in hold for Godot and Endgame claimedGodots constant absence shows the impossibility of a return of the masculine authoritative tradition. (Jeffers, 95-96)Although with this fact of Godots constant absence, we cannot compeletly claim that Godot is not an authoritative figure and still this is a fact that Godot is a hegem onic masculinity.We gather in another character who tries to show his hegemonic masculinity and to some extent he is successful in presenting himself as a powerful figure.Pozzo is the headwaiter of halcyon, he is a landowner and the mien he treats his slave shows his power. In this play, it is Pozzo who has things to eat and in the very first act he ate chicken and then threw its bone. When Estragon asked him to have that bone equitable to cypher, Pozzo says that Estragon should ask it to Lucky because it is Luckys right to have the bones of Pozzo.He is trying to impose himself as God and Pozzo tries to show his high quality in different ways, when lucky refused to have bones, he saysPozzo I dont wish it. Ive never known him refuse a bone before. (Beckett, 27)While talking with Estragon and Vladimir, Pozzo talks about his superiority and according to him he is made in Gods image(23).At one place, Pozzo asked them if they want money from him. So, all these traits present him as a hegemonic masculinity or an authoritative figure, he shows a natural sense of authority and he considers everybody his subordinates. As he comes on stage for the very first time, Pozzo exudes the natural sense of authority that puts all other characters on stage in a subordinate position to him. (Wright, 18)But as the play moves on, we see Pozzo as a blind character in act 2. With this sharp blindness, he has the sense of authority as we see that even after his blindness he mal-treats Lucky as well as his language with Lucky. Pozzos sudden blindness also gives us the hint of his immature masculinity. Though emulating a Godot-like authority, Pozzos masculinity ultimately fails to notice a consistent hegemonic status because of the matrix of power that forces all within it beneath Godot in a hierarchy. (Wright, 1-24)We cannot totally disagree with this statement because what Wright has said is truth. Although, Godot and Pozzo are shown as powerful figure but the unstable power of Godot appears with his constant absence and Pozzos sudden blindness. I am not completely agreed with the aforementioned statement because even with their defects still they have the aviation of authoritative figures which remain throughout the play.As in this part I am discussing hegemonic masculinity in Becketts Waiting for Godot.So, I would also like to analyse Vladimir and Estragons character in this context. It is clear that the other characters do not share the sense of proper hegemonic masculinity but still at some places we observe that Estragon and Vladimir keep eachother just to get the sense of hegemonic masculinity.Vladimir is a male figure who tries to consolidate his hegemonic masculinity while controling Estragon whereas Estragon can only show his power over the boy. This mutual dependency and to control eachother is just to get the sense of hegemony which gives us to the sense of immature masculinity of the characters.As there is hegemonic masculinity in the pla y so we also find dominant theme of immature masculinity through different characters in this play. According to Oxford Dictionary dictionary, the word immature suggests to behave in a way that is not sensible and is typical of people who are much younger(Pg 761).Estragon and Vladimirs characters are better ex greats of this immature masculinity. Their constant wait for saviour in the shape of Godot shows their immature masculinity. Both these characters wait for Godot without any given reason and they do not give up even with Godots constant absence from the stage.Their inactivity and inability to do anything put a stuff to the immature masculinity that they are male or masculine and he is considered the symbol of power but these two characters are powerless and inactive.Vladimir We are waiting for Godot.EstragonAh whatll we do, whatll we doVladimir There is nothing we can do. (Beckett, 68)They themselves are unable to do anything but they are in vain hope to get help from Godot. Side by side this vain hope for saviour, they are mutually dependent on eachother and they could leave or stand firm alone. Even, these characters themselves do not know why dont they live without eachother. It is their weird attitude which makes them insensible.In the first act, Vladimir says Estragon that he could not defend himself thats why he does not live away from him.Estragon You see, you feel worse when im with you. I feel better alone, too.Vladimir whence why do you always come crawling back?Estragon I do not know.According to Wright in his article Gender and Power in Waiting for GodotEach character is unable to maintain a dominant power-position, masculinity throughout this play is atrophied and impotent and thus each characters position within a larger framework of gender and power is consistently unstable. (Ryan Wright,1-24)To some extent, he is quite right in his statement because the unstable and immature masculinity of some characters is quite clear. Estragon and Vladimir have submissive masculinity with insensibility. One of the critic argued As two main characters like Vladimir and Estragon usable purpose in their lives and their conversation to each other is purposeless and their conversation have no imperious meaning. (Bari, Mansoor, Alia, 312-315)Estragon is a male figure who is more submissive than that of Vladimir because it is Estragon who picks up the chicken ones to lick which are thrown by Pozzo and he is even ready to take money from pozzo. Whereas, Vladimir is also submissive as we see that he patch ups his masculinity infront of Godots character and remains inactive throughout the play.Their weird attitudes and imbecile discussion show their immaturity in the play. Even the boy who was sent by Godot was also submissive in front of Estragon and Vladimir. Lucky is also a clear example of submissive character. When Estragon asked about Luckys not putting the bag down, Pozzo said Has he not the right to? Certainly he has.It fol lows that he doesnt want to. There is reasoning for you. (Beckett, 31) The element of homosexuality in the play also throws an ample light on the submissiveness of characters. We can precieve Vladimir as a male character while on the other hand Estragon as an effiminate character.Their relationship seems to be the relationship of husband, wife. Both these characters are almost submissive and dependent on eacother.Immature masculinity at once becomes very clear when both Estragon and Vladimir start playing like children. At one place, Vladimir suggests Estragon to mimic Pozzo and Lucky and all these habits are quite childish of younger persons.The sudden defects of characters show the immaturity of male figures, as Pozzo was blind in minute of arc act and Lucky was dumb without any provided reason. The absurd way both the characters talk to eachother as well as we observe throughout the play that Estragon and Vladimir are in the habbit of forgetting things. This habit is more clear in Estragons character, the uncertainity and delibrate forgetfullness.It seems that Estragon himself doesnt want to remember things as Estragon says time and again I dont cope(66).There is some sort of paradox in this play as well. Man who is considered to be a powerful and strong figure, here we see him as a fearful, afraid and coward being. Both Estragon and Vladimir could not live alone without eachother.They are so afraid of living alone that they could not live even they want to. Neither of them actually wishing to be apart from eachother. They are men but they are behaving like little chickenhearted children. Even there are dialogues which give us hint that they try to motility apart but they are actually unable to do so.Vladimir I am glad to see you back. I thought you were gone forever.Estragon Me too. (Beckett)Masculinity is also present in the shape of violence and this is the isolation that whenever one tries to go near somebody else, he is violently treated by the oth er. And this thing is quite clear where Lucky hits Estragon.When Estragon goes near Lucky, it is Lucky who violently push him away. Here Estragon approaches Lucky and makes to purify his eyes. Lucky kicks him violently in the shins. Estragon drops the handkerchief, recoils, staggers about the stage howling with pain. (Beckett) We can have-to doe with this submissive masculinity with the life of Beckett. Beckett was an Anglo-Irish and the people had to submit their masculinity infront of the British.Jennifer M. Jeffers wrote in Traumatized Masculinity and Becketts Return thatThe Ireland that Beckett knew as a boy had vanished and the only return possible was through his writing. (Jeffers, 10)In this play, Becketts main male characters are submissive and inactive and the reason behind this is the history which Beckett has tried to present in his play. As the masculine figures of Ireland had to submit their masculinity in the hands of the British.And it was the lost masculinity in Ir eland, Beckett who was an Anglo-Irish, presented this hegemonic masculinity, lost masculinity and submissive masculinity in his play Waiting for Godot.My argument from chapter to chapter is that Beckett texts are grounded in his personal experience of what was literally erased from ordained historical record. (Jeffers, 1-10)Through these arguments it is clear that Beckett has presented different types of masculinity in this play while presenting six male characters without any female character.Many feminist critiques argued that there is politics of beckett behind not presenting female characters. Masculinity is so strong in his play that he even didnt use the word of woman or female for a single time.ConclusionSo, we can say that masculinity is the dominant theme of this play with only male characters.Thus, the aforementioned arguments clearly show us that masculinity is present but in different traits as hegemonic masculinity, submissive masculinity, immature masulinity, lost of masculinity as well as homosexuality in masculinity and all these types of masculinities are shown by six male characters who are in relationship with eachother in different ways.It can be also said that Beckett had tried to present history of Anglo-Irish males who were dominated by the British during colonization. Becketts waiting for Godot stage Western masculinity in order to enact the failure of Western patriarchy. (Jeffers,9). formulate CitationBeckett, Samuel. (1956). Waiting for Godot. faber and faber limited. Pp 9-94.Jeffers, Jennifer M. (2009).Traumatized Masculinity and Becketts Return. Becketts Masculinity. St. Martins Press LLC, peeled York. Pp 9-37.Wright, Ryan. (2016).Gender and Power in Waiting for Godot. The Oswald Review An planetary Journal of Undergraduate Research and Criticism in the Discipline of English. vol. 18 iss. 1, Article. 3. Pp 5-28.Khan, Abdul Bari, Hafiza Sana Mansoor, Huma Alia. (2015).The Impact of Absurdism in Waiting for Godot. International Jou rnal of Multidisciplinary Research and Modern Education. vol. 1, iss 2. Pp 312-315.Jeffers, Jennifer M. (2009).Embodying Lost Masculinity in Waiting for Godot. Becketts Masculinity. St. Martins Press LLC, New York. Pp 95-118.Hancock, Mark, Michael Ashby. (2015).Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary. Oxford University Press. ed. 9. Pp 1-930.Beckett, Samuel. (1982). Waiting for Godot. Grove Press, New York. print.