19 Gender, identity and cinema

Vaishali Diwakar

Introduction

Foucault supported the view that identities are constructed from the materials available to people and advanced the idea that one of the key ‘technologies of the self’ is discourse. He proposed that discourses shape the way we perceive the world and our own selves (Gauntlett, 2002, p. 133). According to Foucault (1977), discourses describe a certain way of speaking. However, discourses are not about objects; they do not identify objects, they constitute them and in the practice of doing so conceal their own invention. Discourse is not limited to spoken language but also indicates written language and visuals and thus, books, newspapers, magazines, movies and television form part of the discourse in modern societies. Thus discourse is, in fact, the narration of reality as it is presented to us through media or other cultural texts. (Newbold et al., 2002; Weatherall, 2002)

If identities are formed from the materials available to people in popular discourse’one need to trace the history of Hindi cinema as popular discourse to see how identities are constructed in the cinema through the various decades of cinema.As Jyotika Virdi states, the popular cinema inherits and circulates notion of national identity, producing new representations of the nation and constructing a collective consciousness of nationhood through special cultural referent. Similarly, this module sees how identities around gender are constructed and circulated through Hindi cinema.

Section I:

Identities

A social identity is the portion of an individual’s self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.As originally formulated by Henri Tajfel and John Turner (1986), social identity is a way in which one explains intergroup behavior.Social identity is a person’s sense of who they are based on their group memberships. They proposed that the groups which people belonged to were an important source of pride and self-esteem.A sociological approach to self and identity begins with the assumption that there is a reciprocal relationship between the self and society (Stryker, 1980). The self influences society through the actions of individuals thereby creating groups, organizations, networks, and institutions. Reciprocally, society influences the self through its shared language and meanings that enable a person to take the role of the other, engage in social interaction, and reflect upon oneself as an object. The latter process of reflexivity constitutes the core of selfhood (McCall & Simmons, 1978; Mead, 1934). Because the self emerges in and is reflective of society, the sociological approach to understanding the self and its parts (identities) means that we must also understand the society in which the self is acting, and keep in mind that the self is always acting in a social context in which other selves exist (Stryker, 1980).

There are various axes of identities. The dominant ones are gender, ethnicity, class, age disability and sexuality. There are other axes of identity too for eg. education, urban and rural residency, cultural background, criminal record, refugee status—physical attributes like overweight, tall, short. Though gender is only one part of an individual’s sense of self, gender is more or less central to self identity. Sex and gender are the two of the most important ways that humans classify themselves and other people. Your answer to who you are may well begin ‘I am a man… or ‘I am a woman…… (Shaughnessy, 2008). Gender identity refers to an individual’s personal sense of identity as masculine or feminine, or some combination thereof (Deana F. Morrow and Lori Messinger, 2006).According to Davies (1993) the division of people into male and female is central to our discussions and to our understanding of identity. Gender identities are popularly seen in terms of masculinity and femininity. However, we need to look at alternative sexualities and how they construct gender identities such as gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Recently we see a lot of acceptance of sexual diversities.

How gender identities are constructed?

Although the formation of gender identity is not completely understood, many factors have been suggested as influencing its development. In particular, the extent to which it is determined by socialization (environmental factors) versus innate (biological) factors is an ongoing debate in soial sciences, known as “nature versus nurture”. Both factors are thought to play a role. Biological factors that influence gender identity include pre- and post-natal hormone levels. While genetic makeup also influences gender identity, it does not inflexibly determine it.Social factors which may influence gender identity include ideas regarding gender roles conveyed by family, authority figures, mass media, and other influential people in a child’s life (Henslin, James M.,2001).

According to Macnamara (2006) from the beginning of the twentieth century, sex and sexuality have been identified as fundamental elements of identity. Over the years’ various theorists have contributed to our understanding of gender identity. However, the most influential and controversial theory of the development of gender identity is of Freud’s. Freud and the movement of psychoanalytic thinking that he spawned focused attention on sex and sexuality as key determinants in a wide range of human behaviour and perceptions (Connell, 1995a, pp. 8– 21).

According to Freud, the learning of gender differences in infants and young children is centered on possession or absence of the penis.However,Freud was careful to say that it is not just the anatomical distinction that matter here –possession or absence of the penis is symbolic of masculinity and femininity. After a five-year-old to puberty is alatency period as far as the erotic desires are concerned and during the latency period children have already internalized male or female identities and a sense of superiority or inferiority associated with it.

Freud had been criticized for identifying gender identity too closely with genital awareness and missing on subtler factors like cultural factors.

Nancy Chodorow (1978)emphasizes on children’s emotional attachment with mother since the mother is the most dominant influence in the early life of the infant. In order to achieve a separate sense of self, the child is required to become less dependent upon mother. According to Chodorow, boys gain a sense of self via a more radical rejection of their original closeness to the mother –by forging their understanding of masculinity from what is not feminine. She claims that as a result boys become less skilled in relating to others and take a more active view of their lives emphasizing achievement. According to Giddens (1991), Chododrow reverses Freudian emphasis. Masculinity rather than femininity is defined by a “loss”. Male identity is formed through separation. Thus men unconsciously later in life feel their identity is endangered if they become involved in too close an emotional relationshipwith others. Women on the other hand feel the opposite.The absence of a close relationship threatens their self esteem.

Chodorow’s work has been criticized for not explaining the struggle of womento become autonomous independent being.

The sociological approach to understanding the self emphasizes that the self emerges in and is reflective of society.Therefore, our understanding of the self and its parts (identities) means that we must also understand the society in which the self is acting, and keep in mind that the self is always acting in a social context in which other selves exist (Stryker, 1980). One would add that in today’s mediated world, one can not ignore media and its various forms if one wants to understand society and the world around us.

Foucault’s ideas about self, identity and sexuality and his interests in modes of living can help to develop our understanding of identities and the media in modern society. Foucault shows that particular ways of talking shape the way that we perceive the world and our own selves.

We often talk about people as if they have particular qualities — they have an ‘identity’, for example, and we believe that at the heart of a person there is a fixed and true identity or character. Foucault rejected this view. For Foucault, people do not have a ‘real’ identity within themselves. An ‘identity’ is communicated to others in your interactions with them, but this is not a fixed thing within a person. It is a shifting, temporary construction.

Popular types of identities

Below are some of the popular ways in gender identities can be categorized.

Femininity

CONTINGENT:

Framed and shaped by male beliefs, behaviours and demands.

1. Normalized – Women playing secondary role to men. Continually struggles with the problem of producing femininity that secures male approval.
2. Sexualized – fashioned through the male eye and fantasies. women as sexual objects for male gratification.

ASSERTIVE:

Reflect changing position of women in society.

1. Girl Power – Emphasis on sex as fun. importance of female friendships. represents way of ‘coping with masulinity’.
2. Modernized – slightly older age group. Desire for personal freedom and expression within context of traditional gender relationships.
3. Ageing – Right of elderly women to be fashionable, active and sexual beings.

AUTONOMOUS:

Competition with men on female terms. Frees women from traditional constraints. likely to be:

·  highly educated

·  successful

·  professional middle class

·  career focused

women who tend to form heterosexual non committal relationships and may include marriage but children are unlikely.

Masculinities

SUBORDINATE– generally lesser forms of masculinity, particularly for men unable or unwilling to perform hegemonic masculinity.

SUBVERSIVE– alternative masculinity that challeneges and undermines hegemonic masculinity.

COMPLICIT:

Newly feminized masculinities. Combine paid work with domestic work-who sees women as equals and occurs because women are getting more powerful, male identities have begun to change.

MARGINALISED:

Men who have been pushed to the margins and no longer feel able to perform traditional masculine roles due to reasons like long term unemployment…

RETRUBUTIVE:

Aim to reclaim traditional masculinity from ’emasculated’ peers. Typical behaviours include binge drinking, fighting, etc.

This identity is

·       Rigidly patriarchal

·       Aggressive

·       Oppositional

·       Reclaimational

HYPERMASCULINITY:

Authoritarian and autocratic, impersonal, contemptuous and violent… Very image of patriarchy. Particularly appeals to white middle class and middle aged men because of its ability to provide certainty of what it means to be masculine

These are the popular gender identity constructs in most of the society. Media in general and cinema in particular reproduces as well as construct these gender identities in a very vigorous manner.

Media and identity

Today popular media are obviously primary channels for dissemination of prevailing discourses. The discourses about sexuality and identity are strong ones, enthusiastically spread by the media and consumed by audiences. Sexuality is seen as the key to happiness and knowing your true self. According to Foucault, in modern life we have to establish an ethics and a mode of living. Foucault views the subject as constituted entirely within the discursive practices of disciplinary regimes and the repeated performances of “technologies of the self” (Redman 2000, pp10).

In discussing how identity is produced, Stuart Hall (1990, p. 222) says identity is ‘always constituted within, not outside representation’– in other words, we cannot escape the representations of our gender and form our gendered identity framed within representations of it. Barker Chris (2003) emphasizes that identity is culturally specific production. Identities are wholly social constructions and can not exist outside of cultural representations. The resources that form the material for an identity project, namely language and cultural practices are social in character.According to the feminist writer Judith Butler (1999) apart from the operative meaning within a political process, representation is also the normative function of a language which is said either to reveal or to distort what is assumed to be true.Representations uses different signs to generate meaning within a particular context that is discourse. These signs are part of a discourse.

Mass media have been identified as primary sites of discourse which influence, culture, individuals, social structure and political policy and also reflect social, political and intellectual views and attitudes. (Macnamara, 2006).

According to Gauntlett (2002), media and communications are a central element of modern life while gender and sexuality remain at the core of how we think about our identities. In modern societies people typically consume many hours of media through which lot of information goes into people’s head. We are affected by these experiences. In particular, cinema contains so many images of women and men and messages about men, women and sexuality today, it is highly unlikely that these ideas would have no impact on our own sense of identity. It is natural that people somehow copy or borrow their identities from the media—cinema. The media shows us situations and relationships from other people’s point of view.

Several scholars have opined that cinema is more than just an audio visual form of entertainment. It needs to be studied as an integral part of the particular culture in whose socio political and economic ethos it is deeply rooted. Marxists, feminists and social researchers argue and present considerable evidence that media content is never ‘just entertainment’, that it is never politically or ideologically ‘innocent’; rather mass media send ‘messages’ to viewers about the way things are, can be or should be (Nathanson and Young, 2001, p. 189).

Summary

*        Identities are constructed from available discourses.

*        Discourse is not limited to spoken language but also indicates written language and visuals

*        sex and sexuality have been identified as fundamental elements of identity

*        self identity becomes a reflexive project

*        An identity is communicated to others in your interactions with them.

*        Identity is not a fixed thing within a person. It is shifting, temporary construction.

*        Identity is ‘always constituted within, not outside representation’

*      Representations uses different signs within a discourse to generate meaning throughwhich identities are constructed.Mass media have been identified as primary sites of discourse

Section II:

Construction of gender identities in cinema

Cinema as a popular discourse has capacity to subvert the order as well as reaffirm the normative. This section mainly looks at the ways in which cinema constructs gender identities either by subverting or re affirming the normative order.

In this section, I will be mainly looking at the most popular films in last few decades as a part of discourse. One is aware that there are new genres which are looking at women in more rational and egalitarian ways-looking at their sexual desires as legitimate, their career choices as essential element of their identities, commenting on violence on women in realistic terms and advocating women’s right in feminist ways. However, one needs to admit that these films are in minority. They are made for and watched by a niche audience and thus don’t form the dominant discourse. On the other hand,popular cinema constructs dominant ideology (which is necessarily Hindu, patriarchal, upper caste, upper middle class). This dominant ideology has very long lasting impact on identity formations and especially gender identities. As mentioned in the earlier session, identities are not formed outside representations but within cultural representations and therefore necessary to see representations in popular discourse. Therefore this section looks at those cultural representations which are popular and has long-lasting impact on masses.

Femininity

Women’s identity in media in general and cinema in particular is derivative in the sense that it is derived from the man they are associated with. Women are seen as somebody’s wife, mother, daughter, daughter in law. Very rarely women are seen as independent. They are represented in binaries—in public and in private which are also on the screen translated into a binary of woman of the family against career oriented who is alienated from all her homely duties. Woman in private domain is predominantly seen as ‘mother’. If we look at the above mentioned categories feminine identities, one can see that most of the feminine identities in popular cinema are ‘normalized’ and ‘sexualized’ identities rather than ‘assertive’ and ‘autonomous’.

In my article published else where I argued that this new woman of post 1990s is educated, modern and at the same time chooses tradition over modernity in most of the situations. Traditions are not thrust on her but rather that’s her ‘choice’. Women in Hum AapkeHainKaun (HAHK), Hum SaathSaathHain (HSSH), KabhiKhushikabhi Gum (K3G), DilwaleDulhania Le Jayenge (DDLJ) are represented as mothers, wives, sisters, sister-in-laws, i.e. their identity is always derivative, and always defined in terms of kinship relation to a man.

These women are necessarily housewives, and although occasional reference is made to their educational qualifications and careers, but these identities are never fore grounded-they are never shown at their workplaces. For example, Madhuri Dixit in HAHK is a computer scientist, but in no frame is she shown even in a remote proximity of a computer. Similarly, SonaliBendre in HSSH is a doctor by profession, but the measure of her true worth is determined by whether she can make gajarkahalwa for Salman Khan. Happily, enclosed within the confined of the home, these women recognize that being a sidhi-sadhi (simple, undemanding) woman is the main qualification needed to achieve ‘status’ in the family.

The ultimate identity of all women of all ages, and all their decisions at different points of time, reveal that their primary identity to be maternal one.

Going back to history, in the initial decades of Hindi cinema, women were glorified as mothers. In the nationalist project of redefining Indian woman, woman was always re casted as a chaste, sacrificing, caring mother. V. Shantaram, a self proclaimed nationalist, modernist film maker, who was known for his ideas about women’s liberation, finally encapsulated women in the image of sacrificing, repenting mother. Therefore I argue that majority of his female characters are challenging the normative order and has potential to transgress the order but at the end they all submit to patriarchyand find fulfillment in their role as mother.

The ‘family’, ‘clean’ films of post 1990s are no exception to this. Rather one can say that they are more regressive than the earlier ones. Jaya Bachchan in K3G – a passive woman who cannot defy her husband’s will, and who can only watch the arrival of her son at a distance – meets the audience throughout the film only as a mother. In HAHK Bindu (Mamiji), the only quasi-villainous character becomes ‘good’ only when she is pregnant. In fact, she is able to conceive only when she realizes her mistakes and promises to behave ‘properly’. Similarly, the frolicky heroine of HAHK who sacrifices her love in order to mother her sister’s child fits into the construct of the sacrificing mother. The question as to who can become a mother which is central to Hindu discourse, is also central to these films. The answer is that only those who are pure, chaste and good hearted are worthy of attaining this status of ‘mother’ is perfectly in tune with that of the family genre of films and SanghParivar notions.

Most of the popular films see women as bearers and transmitters of tradition and culture.The women in these films are living symbols of Hindu tradition and culture. The ornaments they wear (sindoor,bangles) and the observance of rituals like karvachauth, all symbolize their conformity with tradition. In K3G, Kajol’s restlessness on the day of karvachauth because she does not receive a traditional gift from her mother-in-law, symbolizes this tradition bearing role. She is not only the bearer, but the transmitter of “Indian values”. Though she lives in London, it is these values that she will inculcate in her son.

The depiction of Indian culture and tradition is seen as based on ‘sacrifice’ and family values, with the belittling of the ‘individual’ signifying the triumph of tradition over modernity. Morning aartis become a major event in the family as do celebrations marking religious rituals. The large extended families are knit through rituals, that are also occasions for the elaborate and ostentatious display of expensive clothes and jewelry. The marriage of piety and consumerism could not have been more explicit. These films redefine the attributes of a ‘good wife’ and a ‘good bahu’ (daughter-in-law). Kajol in K3G is very restless, and longs for the unification of Shah Rukh Khan with his family and supports HritikRoshan in his attempts to ‘unite’ the ‘family’. She, at some level, blames herself for Shah Rukh Khan’s dismissal from the family. As a good ‘bahu’ she perceives her role as that of a home maker, and is convinced of the need for family ‘unity’ despite unfair treatment meted out to her by her in-laws because of her lower middle-class status. The linkages between the streeshakti ideology of the SanghParivar and these redefinitions are so clear that BJP MAhilaMorcha ex-President Mridula Sinha’s comment is – “Women’s realm of work and responsibility is the home. Most of the times the woman is responsible for the unrest in the family- seems straight out of a film of this genre.

In the ideal joint family, claims of individual members, the sexual relations of husband and wife, biological relationship of parent and child are subordinated to the larger interest as decided by the patriarch. In K3G, when Shah Rukh Khan marries Kajol against his father’s (Amitabh Bacchan) wishes, he is the only one who can decide whether the former can continue to be part of the family or not – he is an authority that even the ‘rebel’ does not, and cannot question. The collectivity of the family is confined to rituals, either the morning puja or aarti on different religious occasions, and these occasions are depicted as the epitome of happy united joint family.

I would also like to add that obedience has always remained at the center of the family ties inside the home and outside parivar. Woman before marriage is desired to be in the role of an obedient daughter within the family. For example, Kajol in DDLJ asking for one month of her own life from her father, and Tabu in CheeniKum asking for permission to marry the man she loves who doesn’t fit the norms of marriage, are only shades apart in this regard. Kajol in DDLJ is submissive, traditional, young, innocent daughter and fits perfectly into an obedient normative pattern whereas in contrast, Tabu meets her audience as an independent, confident, mature lady, has a mind of her own, and is ready to go against the normative. However, both of them are finally encapsulated into the same identity of caring and obedient daughters. Tabu’s character has a potential to transgress the norms and take her decision independently to marry the man of her choice and challenge all traditional expectations from a correct ‘match’. In the end, Tabu&Kajol get what they want -the permission to marry the man of their choice, but only by being ideal obedient daughters. Popular discourse also shows amply the cost of non obedience – in the form of repentant daughtersor honour killing. Thus popular cinema reemphasizes the obedient daughters as a primary identity for women before marriage. The same obedience because the critical trait for being a good wife post marriage.

In 1930s, while recasting ideal Indian woman, chastity and purity were identified as the hallmarks of Indian traditional woman and pitted against the Western woman. Women with political power were assumed to be contaminating this pure and chaste Indian woman and questioning their femininity. Apprehensions about women losing their feminine identity were widely expressed in legislative assemblies and different popular discourses. These anxieties and apprehensions were emphatically expressed on the site of cinema as popular discourse of 1930s. For example, in V. Shantaram’s Amar Jyoti and Maya Macchindra, women with political power were essentially shown with ‘masculine’, aggressive and cruel behaviour and in the end repent this unnatural behaviour. Queen Kilottala from Maya Macchindra is able to revive her dead son when she pits her ‘pativrata’ identity- what Machindranath and Gorakhnath with their enormous tapasya fail to achieve. Kilottala is then convinced that her ‘true essence’ is not in achieving political power as a queen, but as an obedient regulated wife. These women prefer to go back to their feminine motherly instincts as the true essence of their identity. Thus I argue that g2003iving up political power essentially makes women ideal mothers and wives which in turn gives them power as ‘mother’ and ‘pativrata’.

As Uma Chakravarty(2003)claims, “the success of any system may be seen in the subtle working of its ideology and in that sense the pativrata concept can be regarded as a masterstroke of a genius of the Hindu normative order as expressed in its cultural values for women. It was one of the most successful ideologies constructed by any patriarchal system, one in which women themselves controlled their own sexuality and believed that they gained power and respect through the codes they adopted”(emphasis mine). She further argues that the Stridharma or the pativratadharma is an ideological mechanism for controlling the biological aspect of women which represents wild or untamed nature. Through the stridharma the biological woman can be tamed and converted into woman as a social entity. The ultimate social control is achieved when the subordinated women not only accept their condition but actually regard it as a mark of distinction. (Chakravarty, 2003).

Be it Kajol and Jaya Bacchan in K3G, or Madhu in Rojaand many other films across genres, women’s primary identity has been emphasised as obedient, caring and companionate, supportive wife. In today’s context, popular discourse still sees women in binaries of public and private realms. Either women are shown as obedient wives in private or in the public sphere on the parameters set for men. Going to the other extreme, film like Ki and Ka naively addresses the issue of women’s essential role as obedient housewife and mother by simply subverting the order – woman as breadwinner and man as househusband – woman as rational and man as emotional. To some extent, it does challenge the sexual division of labour though superficially, it doesn’t address the fact that most women do not have a choice in accepting or rejecting to be a housewife. Most of the Indian girls are brought up with the expectation that they do not have to prove their identity as breadwinner, rather they do not have a potential to survive and earn in a competitive world. Thus they have to depend on their future husbands as providers and housewifery is a natural choice. When men choose housewifery, like Ki and Ka, let us analyse the issues about masculinity that emerge.

Masculinity

Seidler (1994, p. 116) says, ‘men were supposed to be impersonal, career-orientated breadwinners providing support for their wives and families, a shoulder that others could depend on’. Industrial age men were raised to a ‘utilitarian’ versus ‘ornamental existence’, Faludi comments, work provided ‘a truth on which a man’s life could be securely founded. Out of that security grew authority – an authority based, as in the root meaning of the word, on having authored something productive’ (2000, pp. 85–6). The historian John Morton Blum’s description of the inherent virtue of ‘husbandmen’ further explains this role and source of identity for men during two centuries of industrialization (Faludi, 2000, p. 21). The role of men in modern societies has changed markedly in the past few decades. The roles and identities available to men today are either no longer unique to them or have been substantially diminished (Macnamara, 2006).As prof. Srivastava puts it masculinity is socially produced ways of being male.Masculine cultures infuse all significant aspects of modern life and masculinity refers to the socially produced ways of being male. That is to say, men learn to be men and this “learning” is expressed both in terms of social structures as well as in the ways in which men present themselves in everyday life. So, for example, the idea of “men’s work” and “women’s work” relates to social structure whereas the ways in which men speak, behave, gesture, and interact with other men (as well as women) reflect the behavioural aspects of masculinity. Linked to this is the idea that some ways of being a man are better than others. These ideas about gender are produced at specific sites, and these might include educational systems, customary laws and regulations, the state and its mechanisms, the family, religious norms and sanctions, popular culture, and, the media (Srivastava, 2013).

In the Indian context, in the last decade, we see the markers of masculinity undergoing changes and a new understanding of masculinity is emerging. In the realm of advertisements, we see a new metrosexual man emerging – a caring father, a supportive husband sharing domestic work, taking up responsibility of the children, their health and playtime, shopping for the household. However, popular cinema is majorly engaged with man’s identity as aggressive, violent and authoritative patriarch. They are engaged in manly professions and primary breadwinners. The hero of the popular cinema meets the audience as a macho man, although in fits and starts the sensitive side is exposed. The macho Salman Khan in Naam, BajrangiBhaijaan, Sultan and other films cries and displays his emotions (encased in a shell of comedy) but his strong macho identity otherwise carries through this ‘weak, sentimental’ side.

Ki and Ka on the other hand, supposedly subverts the gender roles when Arjun Kapoor and Kareena Kapoor switch breadwinner and housework.Arjun Kapoor (Ka) being a handsome, muscular man, who was topper of IIM and a son of a wealthy businessman opting out of rat race voluntarily and choosing to be a househusband definitely needs to be read more carefully and politically. In the competitive world he has already proved himself as a very successful person by scoring highest in the première institution like IIM and thus can ‘afford’ to opt out of the race-without attaching stigma of ‘failure’ to it. This forces one to think what if the hero was not so manly-without a beard-without a hairy chest-not enough macho to protect his ‘wife’ from hooligans at night in Delhi-a college drop out-not so creative when it comes to home décor-a failure in worldly terms. Would the audience have accepted that identity as an even acceptable masculine identity?

Alternative Sexuality

However, the popular cinema tackles this discourse within an enclosure of comedy. Many people have expressed it positively and welcomed the change saying at least the issue of alternative sexuality is out of the closet. For example, in Dostana, all through the film, gay relations are treated with humour without challenging the heteronormative marital norms. However while establishing gay relations as a sociallyexisting form of sexuality it clearly sends the message thatthey are not acceptable or desirable forms. John Abraham and Abhishek Bacchan pretend to be gay and follow the heterosexual marital norms of grihapravesh, family kangan gifts, and observing karvachauth.The treatment given to the issue of gay sexuality (easy acceptance by Abhishek’s mother, neighbours and friends) in a sense mask and deflect the real issue faced by homosexuals. The comical treatment makes it easy to get over the homophobia and reinforces stereotypes about their mannerisms which are already well established in the society. Films like Aligarh, Bombay Talkies and Fire which depict homosexuality realistically do not become part of the popular cinema. Alternative sexual identities are portrayed on two ends of a spectrum-either as comical characters which are easily accepted and laughed at as quirky (Dostana) or stigmatised, criminalised and beaten up by the system (Aligarh, Bombay Talkies, Fire).

Summary

• Women’s identity in cinema is derivative and defined in terms of kinship relation to a man.
• Women’s primary identity is to be maternal one.
• Women are seen as bearers and transmitters of tradition and culture.
• popular cinema reemphasizes the obedient daughters as a primary identity for women before marriage.
• Anxieties and apprehensions about women in power are emphatically expressed on the site of cinema as popular discourse
• Cinematic representation reaffirms the fact that Stridharma or the pativratadharma is an ideological mechanism for controlling the biological aspect of women which represents wild or untamed nature
• In the realm of advertisements, we see a new metrosexual man emerging
• popular cinema is majorly engaged with man’s identity as aggressive, violent and authoritative patriarch
• the popular cinema tackles the discourse around alternative sexualities within an enclosure of comedy and masks and deflects real issues.
• Alternative sexual identities are portrayed on two ends of a spectrum- either as comical or stigmatised and criminalised.

Conclusions

Though in a limited manner, contemporary popular cinema has to be seen as a medium with a potential for change. We see changes in the traditional depiction of woman as a housewife/mother/daughter/daughter in law and has been replaced by successful, to use Gauntlett’s concept, ‘girl power’ icons. Similarly, masculine ideals of absolute toughness, stubborn, rational being has been replaced by metrosexual, emotional new man. AsGauntlett comments, these changes, though have not shattered the dominant identities, surely have created space for a greater diversity of identities.

References:

• Barker Chris (2003). Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. London: Sage Publishers.
• Butler, J. (1999). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge
• Chakravarty Uma (2003): Gendering Caste Through a Feminist Lens, Stree, Calcutta.
• Connell, R. (1995). Masculinities. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
• Davies, B. (1993). Shards of Glass. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
• Deana F. Morrow and Lori Messinger, 2006
• Faludi, S. (1991). Backlash: The Undeclared War against Women. London, Vintage.
• Faludi, S. (2000). Stiffed: The Betrayal of Modern Man. London, Vintage.
• Foucault (1977). Discipline and Punish. New York: Pantheon.
• Gauntlett D. (2002). Media, Gender and identity: An Introduction. London: Routledge.
• Giddens A. (1991). Introduction to Sociology. New York: Norton.
• Hall, S. (1990). Cultural identity and diaspora. In J. Rutherford (Ed.), Identity: Community, Culture, Difference (pp. 222–37). London: Lawrence and Wishart.
• Henslin, James M. (2001). Down to earth sociology. London: The Free Press
• Macnamara (2006). Media and male identity: Making and remaking of Men. New York: Palgrave.
• Nathanson, P. and Young, K. (2001). Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture. Quebec: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
• Seidler, V. (1994). Unreasonable Men: Masculinity and Social Theory. London: Routledge.
• Shaughnessy (2008). Media and society. London: Oxford University press.
• Srivastava (2013). Taking the Aggression out of Masculinity, Hindu, March 3, 2013.
• Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park: Benjamin Cummings.
• Tajfel C. and Turner J. C. (1986). The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup behaviour.In S. Worchel And w. G. Austin. Psychology of Intergroup relations. Chicago IL, Nelson hall. Pp 7-24.