Masculinity in Waiting for Godot

Abstr moldThis paper aims to explore the asc destructionant of masculineness in Becketts delay for Godot. The of import objective of this paper is to break the experiences of young-begetting(prenominal) characters through which they try to keep their maleness alive in Becketts assume. It is quite clear that male characters be invariablely overabundant in the plot structure of the die hard without any female character.Beckett has politic wholey high geted masculinity in his hightail it piece making the women absent and through former(a) different traits. Although, t present ar many male characters provided the fit hegemonic masculinity is clearly arrangeed by only one male character, Godot. Because, we go out that people argon waiting for Godot to help them and the depiction of Godots physical carriage by son also gives us the hint of Godots hegemonic masculinity.We also chance on male characters who are instrumental.So, we brush off say that masculinity i s a overriding composing of this admit. But there are different kinds of masculinity much(prenominal) as hegemonic masculinity, submissive masculinity, puerile masculinity and beside either in in all this lost of masculinity is also cut and clear in Becketts Waiting for Godot.keywords Masculinity, hegemonic, submissive, girlish, physical fashion, Godot, lost. give-and-takeBefore starting an analysis of this topic, masculinity requires definition. According to OED, masculinity is be as having the quality of being masculine and OED defines masculine as having the qualities or appearance considered to be usual of men. In the same book, the word tough is used for masculine and according to my point of view this word unvoiced is suitable here for masculinity. Because, I want to explore masculinity in the perceive of actor as well as strongness in Waiting 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 alkali of masculinity in Becketts Waiting for Godot. But when we try to analyse Becketts male characters from the percpective of aforementioned word strongness then we find confusion.Because, we can say that all his characters in Waiting for Godot are masculine but we can non say that all the male characters are powerful. So, here we find masculinity of this play shared into two traits which are hegemonic masculinity and submissive or immature masculinity. starting of all, I would desire to discuss hegemonic masculinity in this play man analysing different characters such as Godot and Pozzo in the play, who possess hegemonic masculinity. According to R.W. Connells sexual practice parliamentary law theory, hegemonic masculinity is defined as practice that legitimizes mens dominant allele perplex in society. (Connell).Godot is a hegemonic masulinity in the play though it is a position that Godot re chief(prenominal)s abscent throug hout the play but still we can say that he is a powerful male being. As we take up 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. tarragon Lets go.Vladimir We cannot. tarragon Why not?Vladimir We are waiting for Godot. (Beckett, 66-68)These same dialogues are repeated by these two characters time and over again. Their wait for Godot and the qualities of Godot gives us the hint of Godots hegemonic masculinity. tarragon 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 to wait for him. It gullms that they are futile 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 disposition to precieve Godot as an authoritative figure.Vladimir Tied?estragonTi-ed.Vladimir How do you correspond tied? tarragonDown.Vladimir But to whom. By whom?EstragonTo your man.VladimirTo Godot? Tied to Godot? What an paper 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 shows his hegemonic masculinity as we are told that Godot is a character with white beard and this gives us the peculiar sum of money of an authoritative figure. Vladimir Has he beard, Mr. Godot? Boy Yes, sir.Vladimir Fair or (he hesitates) or caustic? Boy I think its white, sir. (Beckett, 92)Although, it is a fact that Godot does not land in the play and many critiques argued his abscene as a lost masculinity.Jeffers in his article Lost Masculinity in Waiting 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 hegemonic masculinity.We necessitate 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 master of prospered, he is a landowner and the way 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 bring up. When Estragon asked him to wealthy person that bone just to lick, Pozzo says that Estragon should ask it to prosperous because it is Luckys right to have the grind aside of Pozzo.He is trying to impose himself as God and Pozzo tries to show his transcendency in different ways, when lucky refused to have bones, he saysPozzo I dont exchangeable it. Ive never known him refuse a bone before. (Beckett, 27)While talking with Estragon and Vladimir, Pozzo talks most his superiority and according to him he is made i n 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 billet 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 dim character in act 2. With this fulminant blindness, he has the sense of authority as we see that point 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 in the end fails to maintain 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 didactics because what Wright has said is truth. Although, Godot and Pozzo are shown as powerful figure but the rickety power of Godot appears with his constant absence and Pozzos sudden blindness. I am not completely agreed with the aforementioned recital because even with their defects still they have the aura 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 control from separately oneother 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 interchangeable dependency and to control eachother is just to g et the sense of hegemony which gives us to the sense of immature masculinity of the characters.As there is hegemonic masculinity in the play 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 ruff examples 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 inaction and softness 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 in that respect 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 live merely. Even, these characters themselves do not know wherefore dont they live without eachother. It is their uncanny 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 Then 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 useful purpose in their lives and their conversation to each other is purposeless and their conversation have no positive 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 submits his masculinity infront of Godots character and remains inactive throughout the play.Their weird attitudes and absurd 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 sub missive character. When Estragon asked about Luckys not putting the bag down, Pozzo said Has he not the right to? Certainly he has.It follows that he doesnt want to. There is reason 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(prenominal) Estragon and Vladimir start playing like children. At one place, Vladimir suggests Estragon to pantomime 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 indorsement 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 Know(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 real indirect request 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 drift 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)Masculinit y is also present in the shape of military force and this is the isolation that whenever one tries to go near somebody else, he is violently treated by the other. 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 wipe his eyes. Lucky kicks him violently in the shins. Estragon drops the handkerchief, recoils, staggers about the stage howling with pain. (Beckett) We can associate this submissive masculinity with the flavour 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 cornerstone this is the narration which Beckett has t ried 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 Ireland, 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 official historical record. (Jeffers, 1-10) through these arguments it is clear that Beckett has presented different types of masculinity in this play while presenting half a dozen 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).Work 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 shake up LLC, New York. Pp 9-37.Wright, Ryan. (2016).Gender and Power in Waiting for Godot. The Oswald Review An foreign Journal of Undergraduate Research and Criticism in the Discipline of E nglish. 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 Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and unexampled 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 groundbreaking Learners Dictionary. Oxford University Press. ed. 9. Pp 1-930.Beckett, Samuel. (1982). Waiting for Godot. Grove Press, New York. print.