Defeat of Masculinity in The Telegram on the Table

1. Background

            Now-a-days, the analysis of a literary text with the feminist point of view is a common approach. It may be helpful in demolishing traditional concepts and in renovating thoughts and ideas. For this purpose, The Telegram on the Table by Parashu Pradhan is a suitable text. This story has been included in the compulsory English textbook for the students of bachelor level of Tribhuvan University.

            Pradhan often writes his stories placing female characters in centre, thus giving prominent voice to women. His The Telegram on the Table is, unlike most of his stories, traditional for giving the central position to a male protagonist. However, the voice against male superiority is prominent in the story. Being based upon this idea, the present article tries to analyse The Telegram on the Table. The general assumptions and concepts shared by various feminists, not any particular critic’s, have been taken as a model for the study.

            The article has the following four parts:

1.      Background

2.      Feminist Literary Criticism

3.      Feminist Study of The Telegram on the Table

4.   Conclusion

2. Feminist Literary Criticism 

After the French Revolution in 1789 against feudalism, the Enlightenment philosophers regarded rights of women as a basic part of natural rights of human beings. After the Enlightenment philosopher Condorcet published a treatise on the rights of women in 1987 (Gaarder 1996:318), and French women actively led the demonstration against the king who was forced away from his palace at Versailles, feminism started as a successful political movement. Since then, feminism has produced “enough variety of theoretical positions to fill a number of anthologies of its own” (Adams 1992:7). According to Adams, feminism has raised voice against the traditional literature which excluded females in writings. Feminism has protested the so-called female values which are set with male perspectives.

Feminist criticism formally started only after late 1960s, but it doesn’t mean that it was completely absent before the time. It is the outcome of “two centuries of struggle for the recognition of women’s cultural roles and achievements, and for women’s social and political rights” (Abrams 2004:88).

Virginia Woolf, an important “precursor in feminist criticism”, dared criticize “‘patriarchal’ society” (Abrams 2004:88). She wrote about the cultural, economic, and educational disabilities within the society. She found that these disabilities had hindered or prevented women from “realizing their productive and creative possibilities” (Abrams 2004:88). Following her footmarks many feminist critics have developed the theory further with many new experimental judgments establishing variety of tenets on feminism. 

2. 1. General Assumptions of Feminist Criticism

            According to M.H. Abrams, there has been “an explosion of feminist writings without parallel in previous critical innovations” since 1969 (2004:89). The current feminist criticism in countries all over the world is not uniform in theory or procedure. The feminist criticism has also adapted psychoanalytic, Marxist and various other poststructuralist theories. Therefore, its practitioners show “a great variety of critical vantage points and procedures” (Adams 2004:89). However, according to Abrams, they share certain assumptions and concepts which can be summarized thus:

a) Feminist critics basically consider Western Civilization as pervasively patriarchal, i. e. ruled by the father. For them, it is male-centered and controlled. It is organized and conducted in such a way as to subordinate women to men in all cultural domains: familial, religious, political, economic, social, legal, and artistic.

b) Gender is culturally constructed by the society, whereas one’s sex is determined by anatomy. The concept of masculine and feminine in one’s identity is generated by the pervasive patriarchal biases of our civilization. Therefore, the masculine in our culture has come to be widely identified as active, dominating, adventurous, rational and creative, whereas the feminine has come to be identified as passive, acquiescent, timid, emotional and conventional.

c) Traditionally considered great literature is written by men for men, so it is full of patriarchal ideology. Typically, the most highly regarded literary works are focused on male protagonists. (Abrams 2004: 89-90)

3. Feminist Study of The Telegram on the Table

3.1. Summary of the Plot

            Krishna, the protagonist and single character of the story, has been living in a city, perhaps in Kathmandu, for many years. He is originally from a village in the distant hill where he hasn’t gone back since he left the place. Krishna came to the city in search of a promising future, but is suffering from various crises and problems. Still he doesn’t like to go home because he is hopeful to get a chance to go abroad. He dreams high despite the constraints he is fighting with. For him, the main constraint in achieving his ambition is his wife whom he has left at home in his village because he was forcefully married to her in his childhood. Now he tries to avoid her as far as possible. Meanwhile, one day he suddenly gets a message about her death. He becomes very happy to hear it. Despite his hard effort, he can’t keep his happiness for long. At last, he realizes his mistake and tears the telegram with the message and cries for long.

3.2. Krishna as a Masculine Protagonist

            Like in most traditional literary writings The Telegram on the Table has also presented a typical masculine protagonist. The whole plot of the story revolves around Krishna, a typical male chauvinist. His happiness knows no bound when he gets the information about his wife’s death. He doesn’t become sorry to hear that. He doesn’t cry because crying is against masculinity. We shouldn’t be surprised when he doesn’t cry even after hearing about his wife’s death because traditional gender roles “dictate that men are supposed to be strong (physically powerful and emotionally stoic), they are not supposed to cry because crying is considered a sign of weakness, a sign that one has been overpowered by one’s emotions” (Tyson 2006:87). Perhaps this was the cause behind his undue happiness. Instead of being sorry for his wife’s death, he smiles. In fact, he was to be hurt and weep. But he is not affected even a bit.

            Krishna doesn’t want to give his wife a respectable position. He doesn’t accept his wife’s separate existence. He doesn’t recognize her by her own name. Instead, he recognizes her only as an object or the Other. The telegram which his family members send reminds him of his wife, but he doesn’t regard her much. He doesn’t feel the need to pay much attention to her. That’s why, he doesn’t feel regret and doesn’t fast after his wife’s death. Thus, Krishna’s disposition proves Tyson saying

In every domain where patriarchy reigns, woman is Other: she is objectified and marginalized, defined only by her deference from male norms and values, defined by what she lacks and that men have. (2006:92)

            In the story, there is no obvious female character to represent the lack but Krishna is enough to represent all the traits of masculinity. As he remembers his wife, he remembers her as “that woman” (Nissani and Lohani 1996:262), not by her identity or name. His wife, for him, is the woman he does not want to define. He does not want to accept her separate existence or identify her. Also, the telegram, sent by his family members or relatives, reads: “Your wife died yesterday” (Nissani and Lohani 1996:262). It shows that his family members or relatives, like himself, also live with patriarchal ideology. Their choice of the term for Krishna’s wife speaks their ideology. They haven’t mentioned her name in the telegram. Instead, they have used ‘your wife’ for her. ‘Your’ is a possessive pronoun which expresses that something belongs to somebody. Here, the use of ‘your wife’ for Krishna’s wife has an intention of placing her in the rank of an object or simply his possession. It is the reflection of patriarchal ideology that Krishna’s family members are living with.  

            Krishna often dreams of New York skyscrapers and awakes from his dreams amazed by the Goddess of Liberty there. He seems to have a very strong inclination towards the Western culture. The Western (Anglo-European) civilisation is, according to Tyson, “deeply rooted in patriarchal ideology” (2006:92). English itself is a patriarchal language because many English-speaking feminists have got “demonstrable and specific evidences that a male bias is encoded” (Abrams 2004:92) in its linguistic conventions. Our protagonist Krishna is very much interested in speaking English. He has dreamt in English and has considered English his all since his childhood. He feels happy when he speaks English. Symbolically, he enjoys practising patriarchal values. Besides, as a tourist guide he explains the culture and customs in his own way. Masculinists enforce their own ideas for the explanation of the society and the phenomena around while ignoring the Other or the opposite sex. Krishna is not different from other masculinists in this regard. This further proves that he is a die-hard practitioner of the patriarchal values.

            Krishna’s ignorance for his wife doesn’t mean that he is reluctant to the relationship with women. Instead, he is crazy for beautiful girls. So he has been caught by a pair of blue eyes, i.e. a girl’s eyes from a foreign country. He always dreams about beautiful girls, so he is quite certain that one day he would follow a tourist girl far across the skies. Besides foreign girls, Nepali beauties are also his favourite. He imagines about inviting “that Miss Pande” (Nissani and Lohani 1996:261) to his home for dinner. It does not mean that he respects her, but he wants to enjoy the girl’s companionship. His choice of the term ‘that Miss Pande’ for her shows his attitude towards her.  Therefore, Krishna is also not different from other males who “aggrandize their aggressive phallic selves and degrade women as submissive sexual objects” (Abrams 2004:88).

3.3. Failure in Krishna’s Manhood

            Despite his great effort, Krishna can’t pretend his masculinity for long. Finally, he starts crumbling down. When he starts pondering upon his pathetic economic and social condition, Krishna no longer can keep pretending his masculinity. Because of the bad condition of his rented room and his poverty, he fails to fulfill his wish to invite Miss Pande for dinner. It hurts him. He feels as if his manhood has failed. Then, he becomes impatient. According to Tyson, the traditional gender roles do not permit men “to fail at anything they try because failure in any domain implies failure in one’s manhood” (2006:87). The same thing happens with Krishna.

            Krishna’s condition further deteriorates when he, despite his greatest effort to hide it, is overwhelmed by his emotions. He suddenly remembers his unwanted wife. He has not wanted to connect his identity with his wife. Instead, he has wanted to have his dream fulfilled. The dream of marrying another beautiful young girl and settling in a western country can’t be fulfilled easily because his past haunts him. The past relates him to his wife whom he wants to avoid at present as far as possible. In a situation of confusion, he becomes angry with himself. Then, his hypocrisy of masculine stoicism gets its bad end. He realises that his hypocrisy has forced him to become “like a stone” and “incapable of thought” (Nissani and Lohani 1996:262). He has turned into an inanimate thing without the feeling of sympathy and love. When he realizes his present condition, he writhes with great pain. This pain produces a strong emotion in him. Overwhelmed by the strong emotion, he tears the telegram paper, which hasn’t accepted his dead wife’s proper identity, into many shreds and bursts into tears. After that he cries for long.

4. Conclusion

            Krishna doesn’t succeed playing the role of a traditional masculinist to the end of the story. So finally his masculinity is badly defeated. Though at first an adamant masculinist, he seems to realize that males are not superior to females. Tyson says

….. women are not born feminine, and men are not born masculine. Rather, these gender categories are constructed by society, which is why this view of gender is an example of what has come to be called social constructionism. (2006:86)

            The story has shown at the end that men are also vulnerable to defeat, that they also show emotion, and that they also cry when they are hurt. The belief that men do not cry and are bold is only a socially constructed myth which is deconstructed in this story.

                                                           

References

Abrams, M.H. 2004. A Glossary of Literary Terms. 7^th edition. Singapore: Thomson Asia

            Pvt. Ltd.

Adams, Hazard (Ed.). 1992. Critical Theory Since Plato. Rev. ed. USA: Harcourt Brace

            Jovanovich College Publishers.

Gaarder, Jostein. 1996. Sophie’s World: A Novel about the History of Philosophy. New

            York: Berkley Books.

Nissani, Moti, and Shreedhar Lohani(Eds). 1996. Adventures in English. Kathmandu:

            Ekta Books.

Tyson, Lois. 2006. Critical Theory Today: A User Friendly Guide. 2^nd ed. Special Nepal

            Reprint 2008, Noida: Routledge.

This article was published as:

  “Defeat of Masculinity in “The Telegram on the Table”. 2009. CET Journal. Issue no. 1. Itahari: Itahari Research Centre, Circle of English Teachers.