'Masculinity in Waiting for Godot\r'

'Abstr dress\r\nThis paper aims to explore the story of maleness in Becketts delay for Godot. The important aim of this paper is to identify the experiences of virile percentages through which they attack to keep their maleness alive in Becketts tactics. It is kinda shed light on that male compositors cases argon constant quantityly g everyplacening in the plot structure of the repair with start both(prenominal) womanly cite.\r\nBeckett has politic all in ally highlighted maleness in his bet while making the wo custody ab move and through new(prenominal) diverse traits. Although, in that respect ar many male characters exclusively the proper hegemonic maleness is illuminely presented by only cardinal male character, Godot. Because, we find that wad be grasp for Godot to help them and the depiction of Godots visible appearance by male child excessively gives us the hint of Godots hegemonic masculinity.\r\nWe withal find male characters who argon s ubmissive.So, we can allege that masculinity is a possessive stem of this place on. only t present are diametric kinds of masculinity such as hegemonic masculinity, submissive masculinity, callow masculinity and be boldness all this woolly-headed of masculinity is in want manner cut and expel in Becketts waiting for Godot.key develops: maleness, hegemonic, submissive, puerile, animal(prenominal) appearance, Godot, addled.\r\nDISCUSSION\r\nBefore starting an analysis of this topic, masculinity requires definition. con riddle to OED, masculinity is defined as â€Å"having the feature of universe manlike” and OED defines â€Å"masculine” as â€Å"having the qualities or appearance considered to be typical of men.” In the corresponding book, the word â€Å"strong” is used for masculine and harmonise to my point of view this word â€Å"strong” is capable here for masculinity. Because, I inadequacy to explore masculinity in the s ignified of â€Å"power” as salutary as â€Å"strongness” in â€Å"Waiting for Godot.”\r\nAll the characters of Becketts forge are male and they are having the quality of being masculine. So, in this context we can say that there is an obvious estimate of masculinity in Becketts â€Å"Waiting for Godot.” But when we try to analyse Becketts male characters from the percpective of aforesaid(prenominal) word â€Å"strongness” then we find confusion.\r\nBecause, we can say that all his characters in â€Å"Waiting for Godot” are masculine provided we can non say that all the male characters are healthy. So, here we find â€Å"masculinity” of this tend dissever into deuce traits which are â€Å"hegemonic masculinity” and â€Å"submissive or young masculinity.”\r\nFirst of all, I would like to hash out â€Å"hegemonic masculinity” in this play while analysing different characters such as Godot and Pozzo in the pl ay, who possess hegemonic masculinity. According to R.W. Connells gender order theory, hegemonic masculinity is defined as practice that legitimizes mens dominant position in society. (Connell).\r\nGodot is a hegemonic masulinity in the play though it is a concomitant that Godot stay ons abscent throughout the play still still we can say that he is a powerful male being. As we depict that the devil characters Vladimir and estragon constantly wait for the arrival of Godot as he is several(prenominal)one who would help them to come out of their difficulities.\r\n tarragon: Lets go.Vladimir: We can non. tarragon: Why non?Vladimir: We are waiting for Godot. (Beckett, 66-68)These same dialogues are repeated by these two characters quantify and 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)\r\nAnd this is their routine though they know that Godot doesnt c ome at the end scarcely still they are bound 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 localise but for the whole day and this thing gives us the genius to precieve Godot as an authoritative skeletal system.\r\nVladimir: Tied?estragon:Ti-ed.Vladimir: How do you mean tied? tarragon:Down.Vladimir: But to whom. By whom?estragon:To your man.Vladimir:To 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 tangible appearance by the boy.\r\nGodots physical appearance excessively try outs his hegemonic masculinity as we are told that Godot is a character with white beard and this gives us the peculiar gist of an authoritative human body. Vladimir: Has he beard, Mr. Godot? Boy: Yes, sir.Vladimir: Fair or …(he hesitates)… or black? Boy: I moot its white, sir. (Beckett, 92)Although, it is a f act that Godot does not arrive in the play and many critiques argued his abscene as a lost masculinity.\r\nJeffers in his member ” Lost Masculinity in Waiting for Godot and Endgame” claimed:”Godots constant absence depicts the impossible action 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 rent another character who tries to show his hegemonic masculinity and to tightly fittingly extent he is successful in presenting himself as a powerful figure.\r\nPozzo is the master of well-heeled, 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 really first act he ate chicken and then threw its bone. When estragon removeed him to surrender that bone yet to lick, Pozzo says tha t Estragon should ask it to flourishing because it is Luckys right to have the bones of Pozzo.\r\nHe is trying to impose himself as God and Pozzo tries to show his superiority in different ways, when lucky refused to have bones, he says:Pozzo: I dont like it. Ive never know him refuse a bone before. (Beckett, 27)While talking with Estragon and Vladimir, Pozzo talks about his superiority and according to him he is â€Å"made in Gods image”(23).\r\nAt 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 tip 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)\r\nBut as the play moves on, we see Pozzo as a â€Å"blind” character in act 2. With this sudden blindness, he has the sense of authority as we see that level(p) by and by his blindness he mal-treats Lucky as headspring 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 main(prenominal)tain a tenacious hegemonic status because of the matrix of power that forces all in spite of appearance it beneath Godot in a hierarchy.” (Wright, 1-24)\r\nWe cannot totally resist 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 nevertheless 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 â€Å"Waiting for Godot.à ¢â‚¬Â\r\nSo, 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 uphold that Estragon and Vladimir control eachother just to start up the sense of hegemonic masculinity.\r\nVladimir 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.\r\nAs 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 â€Å"immature” suggests â€Å"to yield in a way that is not commonsense and is typical of people who are much young”(Pg 761).\r\nEstragon and Vladimirs characters are best examples of this immature masculinity. Their constant wait for saviour in the bod of Godot shows their immature masculinity. twain these characters wait for Godot without any given resolve and they do not give up even with Godots constant absence from the stage.\r\nTheir inaction 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 lazy.Vladimir: We are waiting for Godot.Estragon:Ah! whatll we do, whatll we do!Vladimir: on that point is nothing we can do. (Beckett, 68)\r\nThey themselves are unable to do anything but they are in vain wish to get help from Godot. Side by side this vain hope for saviour, they are mutually capable on eachother and they could leave or live alone. Even, these characters themselves do not know why dont they live without eachother. It is their unearthly attitude which makes them insensible .\r\nIn 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?\r\nEstragon: I do not know.According to Wright in his article â€Å"Gender and Power in Waiting for Godot”:” severally character is unable to maintain a dominant power-position, masculinity throughout this play is atrophied and ineffectual— and thus each characters position within a larger framework of gender and power is systematically unstable.” (Ryan Wright,1-24)\r\nTo 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 dialogue to each other is purposeless and their conversation have no positive meaning.” (Bari, publicsoor, Alia, 312-315)\r\nEstragon 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 in lie of Godots character and remains inactive throughout the play.\r\nTheir 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 submissive character. When Estragon asked about Luckys not putting the bag down, Pozzo said:” Has he not the right to? Certainly he has.\r\nIt follows that he doesnt want to. There is precedenting for you.” (Beckett, 31) The element of homosexuality in the play also throws an ample light on the submissiveness of c haracters. We can precieve Vladimir as a male character while on the other hand Estragon as an effiminate character.\r\nTheir relationship seems to be the relationship of husband, wife. twain 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 young persons.\r\nThe sudden defects of characters show the immaturity of male figures, as Pozzo was blind in second 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.\r\nIt seems that Estragon himself doesnt want to remember things as Estragon says time and ag ain ” 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.\r\nThey are so afraid of living alone that they could not live even they want to. Neither of them very wishing to be apart from eachother. They are men but they are behaving like little scandalmongering children. Even there are dialogues which give us hint that they try to drift apart but they are actually unable to do so.\r\nVladimir :I am glad to see you back. I thinking 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 other. And this thing is quite clear where Lucky hits Estragon.\r\nWhen Estragon goes near Lucky, it is Lucky who violently push him away.â₠¬Â hither 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 life of Beckett. Beckett was an Anglo-Irish and the people had to submit their masculinity infront of the British.\r\nJennifer M. Jeffers wrote in â€Å"Traumatized Masculinity and Becketts Return” that:”The 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 write up 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.\r\nAnd it was the lost masculinity in Ireland, Beckett who was an Anglo-Irish, presented this hegemonic masculinity, lost masculini ty and submissive masculinity in his play â€Å"Waiting for Godot.””My argument from chapter to chapter is that Beckett texts are grounded in his private experience of what was literally erased from â€Å"official” historical record.” (Jeffers, 1-10)\r\n through with(predicate) 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 exclusive time.Conclusion:So, we can say that masculinity is the dominant theme of this play with only male characters.\r\nThus, the aforementioned arguments distinctly show us that masculinity is present but in different traits as hegemonic masculinity, submissive masculinity, immature masulinity, lost of masculinity as w ell 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.\r\nIt 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 act out the failure of Western patriarchy.” (Jeffers,9).\r\nWork CitationBeckett, Samuel. (1956). Waiting for Godot. faber and faber limited. Pp: 9-94.Jeffers, Jennifer M. (2009).â€Å"Traumatized Masculinity and Becketts Return.” Becketts Masculinity. St. Martins Press LLC, New York. Pp: 9-37.Wright, Ryan. (2016).â€Å"Gender and Power in Waiting for Godot.” The Oswald Review: An International ledger of undergrad 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).â€Å"The Impact of Absurdism in Waiting for Godot.” International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Modern Education. vol. 1, iss 2. Pp: 312-315.Jeffers, Jennifer M. (2009).â€Å"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.\r\n'