Full transcript
0:18Hello everyone. I welcome you once again
0:20to the course on introduction to medical
0:22humanities. This is lecture 22 and I
0:25will be talking about the interplay of
0:28disability and masculinity in the two
0:31films that I have selected. One is
0:33Garish that came out in 2010 and the
0:36other one is Burfy which came out in
0:382012. Before I begin with what I am
0:42going to actually discuss a quick
0:46overview, I will discuss briefly the
0:49short introduction to both the films. I
0:52will talk about social model of
0:54hegemonic masculinity. This is the term
0:56perhaps I'm using for the first time in
0:59the entire course of the lecture. But I
1:01will try to uh briefly introduce you
1:04that to that particular term and then
1:07follow it up with how disability and
1:09masculinity pans out in both these films
1:12that I have chosen for analysis, Garish
1:15and Burfy and compare both the
1:18protagonist to see how the discourse of
1:22disability visav masculinity has played
1:25out in both the films. And finally
1:29before we end up try to locate its
1:32implication in medical humanities in the
1:34sense that why is the construct so
1:37important? Why are we discussing it even
1:40in the first place in the medical
1:41humanities discourse. Uh let us quickly
1:45come to the two films that I have
1:47chosen. The first film is Guzarish and
1:50it is directed by Sanjalila Bhanali and
1:53it deals with a character who is
1:56suffering from quadriplegia and demands
2:00euthanasia. Now what is a quadriplegia?
2:04It is a kind of a condition of paralysis
2:07in which limbs and torso do not work and
2:10euthanasia is mercy death. You might
2:12have heard of it uh in in some other
2:16contexts as well. Now the themes around
2:19which the film is built is the theme of
2:23vulnerability, the idea of
2:25protectiveness,
2:26the dignity, the dignity of living even
2:29with disability and how the idea of
2:33hegemonic masculinity
2:35induces shame in people who cannot fall
2:40to the format of hegemonic masculinity.
2:43The other film that I have chosen is
2:45Burfy. It's a 2012 film directed by
2:48Anurag Basu and uh in this particular
2:51film the character Burfy is deaf and
2:55mute and how he
2:59chooses or he uses the that space of
3:05being deaf and mute to create a hyper
3:07masculinity is something that this film
3:09portrays and that is what I will take
3:11up. The themes include uh the
3:14exaggerated masculinity representation
3:17which is what I discuss as
3:18overcompensation
3:20uh looking for romantic validation and
3:23hyper masculinity. Let us first come to
3:26the uh first film in discussion which is
3:29Garish on your screen. It came out in
3:322010.
3:34Now if you look at the plot it is about
3:38Ethan Mascarenus and he's a former
3:43magician or illusionist is also what
3:46they call he has turned quadriplegic
3:49like I said a person with paralysis
3:52affecting all four limbs and torso if
3:54you take up how the film shows him in
3:58the beginning it's a very glorious past
4:00of a magician but the way film
4:04begins. He's now dependent on a
4:07caregiver, a caregiver named Sophia. And
4:12there is a lot of physical struggle that
4:14is shown in the film. And
4:19finally, Ethan uh asks for udenia.
4:25The whole film is about the debate or
4:30the dilemma between
4:32choosing death and natural death like in
4:36under what conditions a person chooses
4:39death. So the entire debate is around
4:43that because he he has filed for a
4:45petition in which he's seeking mercy
4:47death that he doesn't want to live in
4:48that condition instead would choose to
4:51die. So you find that he's struggling
4:54with the loss of identity. Yes. But more
4:59visible is the idea of masculinity where
5:02he's just not uh corresponding to any of
5:06the ideas that he has grown up with or
5:09to what he was even before he became uh
5:12quadriplegic. So uh you will find that
5:15it's a symbolic reversal of what he was
5:18earlier and what he's now. So before uh
5:22this happened to him, he was everything
5:24the hegemonic masculinity or the
5:26traditional masculinity endorses. But
5:28now he's just the opposite and unable to
5:32come to terms with this new uh avatar of
5:36his and that is why it's a symbolic
5:39reversal. I mean you see a sharp
5:41contrast between the two ethans that is
5:45uh projected in the film.
5:48Burfy on the other hand you will find
5:50that uh he's deaf and mute which means
5:53he can't speak he can't listen or hear
5:57so it's a non-invisible impairment
5:59nobody can see so he can do all his
6:02activities uh there is no visible sign
6:05of him being disabled and that's why he
6:08falls prey to the notions of masculinity
6:11which means that he tries to do
6:14everything uh just like how traditional
6:19masculinity or hegeim hegemonic
6:21masculinity endorses and in that process
6:25he outdoes himself. It's a very
6:28exaggerated kind of uh projection that
6:32Anurra Basus does. I will pick up some
6:34scenes in which I will show as well. So
6:36he he does lot of activities which in
6:39general one doesn't have to do to show
6:42that he's masculine enough. And
6:44therefore in the film there are two
6:47romantic interests that he gets into
6:48only to seek validation for the
6:52masculinity that he is showcasing and uh
6:56he doesn't withdraw at all from how we
7:00perceive people will in the social
7:03aspect of disability uh how it
7:06constructs a deaf and mute. He instead
7:09performs the excess. So you will find in
7:12different uh scenes of Burfy that uh
7:16he's performing the acts of hyper
7:18masculinity. That is how Anuragbasu
7:20tries to show Burfy in the film.
7:24Now both these films have to be
7:26understood through the lens of social
7:29model of disability. And to understand
7:32uh this particular
7:34model, it's important to read Mike
7:37Oliver's the social model of disability.
7:40He was the one to introduce this concept
7:42and if you try to comprehend the concept
7:46of social model of disability. It talks
7:49about social construct or social meaning
7:54or how society tries to assign certain
7:58kind of meaning to certain kind of
8:01disability
8:03or in general also.
8:06So this means that any kind of
8:09disability finds its meaning not just in
8:14the medical sense of the term but also
8:17in terms of how society has assigned a
8:20meaning. So therefore if you look at the
8:24vocabulary that is available to you, you
8:27will come across several words which do
8:30not have a a word for impairment but
8:35they are projected in such a way where
8:38you know that socially this is said you
8:41know so it what it does it shifts focus
8:46from body to society from impairment to
8:50how society is perceiving that
8:52particular disability is what uh Mike
8:56Oliver kind of spoke about. So let us
9:00take for example the education system.
9:02So if in the last lecture we were
9:04discussing dyslexia. So according to my
9:08liver the problem is not with the person
9:10who has dyslexia. The problem is perhaps
9:14in the social structure which is not
9:16supporting uh dyslexia. So that is the
9:20social response uh Mike Oliver
9:24sensitized to in his uh this essay
9:28called the social model of disability.
9:30It clearly it analyzes that uh
9:33disability is socially produced and
9:37impairments can happen. They are
9:40natural. they are bodily uh you know
9:42differences but it doesn't mean those
9:45differences should act as a way for any
9:48kind of marginalization or
9:50ostracization. So disability became in
9:54that sense according to Oliver a product
9:57of or a product in which endorses social
10:01restrictions or constructions imposed on
10:05impairment. And therefore he said that
10:09while impairment is individual,
10:12disability is social. In general that is
10:15what the social model of disability uh
10:18is like. You can follow it up with
10:20different other theorists but primarily
10:23the idea remains the same that any kind
10:26of medical condition finds more meaning
10:30in the construct of how society
10:33operates.
10:35Now uh the another idea which is uh to
10:38be read in the context of this
10:42particular lecture is RW Connell's idea
10:46of hegemonic masculinity. You must have
10:48heard of this word hegeimmony earlier as
10:50well which indicates some kind of power.
10:53So how masculinity is powerful
10:57if you try to understand it in very
11:00simple terms that is what it means. So
11:03in this particular book, gender and
11:06power, Connell tried to
11:10decode or establish the dominant idea of
11:13manhood. And what did it include? Four
11:15points on your screen. Strength,
11:19dominance, emotional restraint, and
11:22protectiveness. Each one is a
11:24problematic category because each one
11:28fixes what a man can be. So when you
11:32talk about strength, it's the physical
11:36mental strength that one is talking
11:38about that strength utilized to create a
11:43dominance and emotions apparently the
11:48whole conflict between mind and body
11:51where mind you know represents the
11:54masculine side and body represents the
11:56feminine side. emotions are supposedly
12:00feminine and uh intellect is supposedly
12:04masculine. All those binaries that have
12:07been traditionally created uh this
12:12was addressed by Connell in which he
12:14said emotional excess is not something
12:16men should reflect rather practice some
12:19kind of restraint when it comes to their
12:22emotions. The final attribute that he
12:25talks about is men are there to protect.
12:27So an ideal man would be protecting. If
12:30you see many of the Hindi films, you
12:32will always find this trope that a man
12:34the hero is always fighting with 10
12:37people to save the girl. So you know um
12:41uh this was kind of highlighted and
12:43these four features became important in
12:46hegemonic masculinity. Uh clearly
12:48indicating also the fact that this was
12:51socially constructed. There was nothing
12:53biological about it. While there must be
12:55something biological also about it but
12:58primarily it was the social construct
13:00like emotions are neutral. I mean there
13:03is nothing uh masculine or feminine
13:05about them but manhood says that there
13:08has to be an emotional restraint that
13:09has to be practiced. So clearly Connell
13:12pointed out to the idea that this has to
13:15be social and not biological. And uh the
13:19other aspect that he highlighted was
13:22that it's uh it's dynamic. So as society
13:27changes
13:29so will be the change in the idea of
13:33masculinity as well. It has changed
13:35across history and culture. The kind of
13:39men manhood rather we see 20 years back
13:43is not now. And maybe if you ask someone
13:4620 years back if there was a shift they
13:48had seen. Yes, there was. And these
13:52films and many films like this or many
13:54literary texts like this or the
13:56narratives we see around are examples
13:59and representations of how the shifting
14:03realities have also something to do with
14:08these narratives. I mean these
14:09narratives definitely have contributed
14:11to the shifting ideas. Therefore dynamic
14:15it's not static
14:17and it produces hierarchy among men. So
14:21even within the discourse of that
14:22manhood you create masculinity you
14:25create who is more masculine
14:27who is less masculine. So even that uh
14:31degree of change in masculinity or
14:34degree of how masculine one can be that
14:37is also assigned. And uh naturally when
14:40you fix a cannon for what is masculine
14:47every other thing that is not masculine
14:49enough becomes abnormal. So that is why
14:54they I mean that is why this concept is
14:56important especially because uh in
15:00patriarchal setup you will find that the
15:04notion of manhood or the idea of
15:06masculinity prevails all the more and
15:09therefore uh this idea is crucial to the
15:13understanding of the two films that we
15:14will read. Now
15:16let us come to uh Guzarish which is the
15:19first film in uh contention. We are
15:23going ahead with how this film
15:26challenged the traditional notions of
15:28masculinity. Now if you see the film
15:33the main character Ethan has lost all
15:36his physical uh ability to move. The
15:41first idea that I discussed in the
15:44context of hygemonic masculinity was
15:48strength.
15:50So strength and physical
15:53quite synonymously they are used. So in
15:56the absence of any physical autonomy or
16:00any physical strength he feels that
16:03there is absolutely no point living. The
16:08other aspect that we can address is the
16:12feeling of helplessness he feels because
16:15he's unable to move. So in a scene um if
16:19you watch the film you will find that
16:20there is a small uh I mean fly that that
16:25has come to his nose and he can't even
16:28move that fly. It looks that he's very
16:31helpless but that is a condition that
16:33he's into and constantly he depends on
16:36Sophia. So there are many scenes like
16:38that you will come across. I'm talking
16:40about one or two in the uh interest of
16:43time. But there are many scenes that you
16:46can analyze uh which will
16:50reflect how he's struggling with his
16:53traditional idea of manhood to his
16:55current state of vulnerability. A very
16:58pivotal scene is when uh you know his
17:01caregiver Sophia's husband visits her.
17:04Now when he visits her, he is beating
17:07Sophia. He's indulging in physical
17:10violence right in front of Ethan's eyes.
17:13Now Ethan is in deep distress, but he
17:16just cannot do anything. And uh that is
17:20a very difficult situation he's into and
17:24that ruptures the entire idea of
17:28protectiveness that is assigned to
17:30manhood. uh and he sees it collapsing
17:34right in front of uh uh his eyes. So uh
17:38because uh when you talk about not just
17:41Connell's idea but even otherwise many
17:44cultural narratives in India just like I
17:46spoke about films if you talk about film
17:49narratives they have also projected men
17:52as the protectors they are providers so
17:56if they are not protecting or not
17:58providing it's not something that they
18:01are ready to accept because this doesn't
18:04fall into their ideal idea of manhood.
18:08So euthanasia is then what he resorts
18:10to. He thinks that it is not good enough
18:12for him to live a life without his being
18:16man enough. Rather he will control his
18:20death. Now if he doesn't have control on
18:23his life, he will control his death. He
18:26will control his death through
18:27euthanasia is something that he kind of
18:30goes ahead with. And this became in the
18:34film his symbolic act of agency,
18:38symbolic act of his power on himself. In
18:42the film Burfy, uh you will find that
18:45there are words missing indeed because
18:48he's deaf and he's mute. But so much of
18:52bodily confidence, the excess of bodily
18:56confidence
18:58compensates for the masculinity that is
19:02there. Now throughout the film you will
19:05find that he makes expressive gestures
19:09that substitute for the spoken language
19:12as a mode of presence. What does what
19:15does this mean? that he has an action
19:19for every word that can be spoken. So he
19:24has this he has this all kinds one you
19:27know one if you look at this particular
19:29scene he's talking reflecting about
19:32something which is you know he wants to
19:34say something like that. So throughout
19:36the film you will find uh this kind of
19:39uh uh sign language used and other trope
19:43is that of comedy and through comedy
19:48he's trying to control how others form
19:52an opinion of him. So how they perceive
19:56him people perceive him as comic. So
20:01like very happy golucky kinds. This
20:04particular aspect of Burfy's personality
20:09repositions impairment as uniqueness
20:13rather than limitation.
20:15So something that in the social model of
20:19disability could have been
20:22a limitation in this film Basu shows
20:27that it's a unique thing. The impairment
20:30is actually unique. And
20:33other trope that he uses is that of
20:36romantic desiraability which becomes the
20:38proof of masculine worth like your worth
20:42only when there is a female attention or
20:46female validation. That also is a trope
20:50that u is reflected in the film. There
20:53are two female characters Julmill and
20:56Shrirui and both of them having romantic
21:01interest in him certify that his manhood
21:05is there.
21:07Two divergent responses to disability.
21:10If you see both the films we have
21:11discussed but there are two ways in
21:14which
21:16they both respond to their own
21:18disability. In the case of Gazarish, you
21:22find that
21:24Itan succumbs to shame.
21:27He's helpless.
21:29He is in he has internalize
21:32the inability to do anything, the
21:35inability to move, the inability to
21:38physically attribute anything to
21:39anything or protectiveness.
21:43The only perhaps
21:48other that you can think of in uh Ethan
21:51is that he's not practicing so much of
21:54emotional restraint but still he is. So
21:58in totality you connect his disability
22:01with emasculation in the sense that he
22:05is not masculine enough is something
22:07that is projected in Gazarish and that
22:10is why he asks for euthanasia.
22:13In bury on the other hand
22:17it is overcompensation for the lack of
22:20ability.
22:22He overd does and strategically performs
22:25so many masculine traits and at no point
22:29of time he wants to be the symbol of
22:32pity. In fact um he wants to do
22:35everything on his own. If you see many
22:38of the activities that are not even
22:41something he should try on he does. So
22:45uh very different views
22:48expressed in both the films regarding
22:51how two protagonists in two different
22:54film respond to their own disability. So
22:57one embodies absence the other performs
23:00excess and both these characters try to
23:03cope up with their being specially
23:05aabled.
23:07the ideological framework. I mean if you
23:10look at both these films you will find
23:13that both try to internalize hegemonic
23:16masculinity stereotypes whether it is in
23:19the case of absence
23:22or is it is in the case of excess either
23:25ways they are trying to internalize
23:29hegemonic masculinity in which they want
23:32to be man enough according to the social
23:35standards. So therefore, self-worth
23:38becomes tied to bodily capability and
23:40control. How much control you have on
23:43your body is equivalent to how masculine
23:47you can be.
23:49Therefore, disability is experienced in
23:51relation to normative masculine
23:53standards. Like I said, strength,
23:56protectiveness,
23:57emotional restraint, all these become
24:00the parameters through which they judge
24:03themselves or analyze themselves.
24:07Masculinity validated through female
24:09acceptance. Whether it is in in uh
24:12Gazarish with you know um Sophia or in
24:17Burfy there is this female attention
24:20both of them are validating through and
24:23in both the films you find that disabled
24:26bodies are used as narrative devices.
24:29Why do I say narrative devices? Because
24:32both these films discuss the lived
24:36experiences of both these characters.
24:40and not just highlight on
24:44the medical model of it. So they combine
24:48the medical with the social and
24:50prioritize
24:52how living with a disability looks like
24:55in the projection of their film. Uh
24:59finally when we think of its implication
25:02in medical humanities there are four
25:04aspects we can think of. One is the
25:07ethics of care. So whether it is
25:10Gazarish the ethan's case or in burfi
25:13burfi's case we find that
25:17they have uh I mean uh physical
25:20vulnerability but the moment they are to
25:23seek some kind of care from their female
25:26counterparts female characters it's
25:29problematic for them but in both the
25:32films the presence of female caregivers
25:36is prominent The autonomy versus
25:39dependency discourse is also uh very
25:43much reflected in both the films because
25:45you find that when autonomy is comp
25:48compromised existence also feels
25:52diminished and that is why in their own
25:55sense it is trying to struggle with
25:59maintaining his autonomy even his
26:02physical autonomy. So while you see that
26:05physically he's not capable of doing
26:08anything his mental strength wants body
26:11to move you know so there is that
26:14struggle between the what mind is
26:17indicating and body is wanting or body
26:21is capable of and mind is wishing very
26:24clear reflection you will see in the
26:26film there is also the discourse of
26:30representation and stigma in which
26:32disability is framed either as tragic or
26:35compensatory heroism. So in the case of
26:38Gazarish it is tragic and in the case of
26:42Burfy it is compensatory heroism and
26:46normaly is measured against able-bodied
26:49standards which I have constantly
26:51emphasized. If you decide what is normal
26:53then everything else is a deviance and
26:57uh both the films reimagine masculinity
26:59because the narratives question the
27:01strengthbased masculinity. In both the
27:04cases it is the strength uh based
27:07masculinity that comes into play and
27:08therefore they de redefine masculinity
27:11through the aspect of vulnerability. Two
27:14scenes quickly I will take up in terms
27:16of representation of stigma and in terms
27:19of reimagining masculinity and two
27:21scenes I will want you to see. If you
27:23look at this first scene on your screen,
27:26it's a scene from Gazarish and Ethan is
27:29in front of a big mirror uh in which
27:32he's imagining he's thinking of his past
27:37in which he was an illusionist magician
27:41in control of everything. So this
27:44reflection in the mirror is a reflection
27:48of his past
27:51and a very glorified past which is now
27:55making him feel all the more tragic
27:57about his presence. In the second though
28:01the image is slightly hazy because it is
28:03the night scene. You see this burfy is
28:06trying to change the time and it is an
28:10overheroic gesture that is being showed
28:13clearly indicating that he wants to show
28:17his physical strength as him being
28:21masculine. So he's re-imagining the
28:24masculinity. The narratives question the
28:26strength-based masculinity defining
28:29masculinity through uh vulnerability. So
28:32you find that both these scenes are
28:35actually uh taking up the issue of
28:40physical aspect of social construct of
28:43disability into their representation.
28:47As a conclusion, three things I will say
28:50that disability reshapes masculinity. So
28:54when you talk about impairment, it does
28:56challenge the ideals of strength and
28:59control. But Ethan and Burfy respond
29:04either through shame or through
29:06overcompensation where masculinity
29:09becomes not inherent but performative.
29:12So they perform their masculinity. They
29:15have not inherited it. It's not natural
29:17to them but they are trying to perform
29:19in certain way which can compensate and
29:23lead to the ideals of masculinity. they
29:27have grown up with the cinema that both
29:31the cinematic texts that I have chosen
29:33influence cultural perception. So you
29:35will find that uh whether it is a
29:37tragedy or a heroism or whether it is uh
29:41a wife or a partner or a caregiver both
29:45all these narratives actually uh
29:49reinforce abbleist norms. So if you go
29:53back to a lecture which I was dealing
29:55with in which I defined abbleism, you
29:57will find that able-bodied discourse
30:00becomes problematic and these cinematic
30:03narratives have uh identified that trope
30:07in their representation and tried to
30:10tackle with it by dismantling the idea
30:14of abbleism to only promote and
30:18sensitize to other aspects of being in
30:21the society. Medical humanities as a
30:24discipline bridges this body and
30:26identity discourse. And that is why when
30:29where we discuss these narratives not
30:32just as imaginary or creative but as
30:34something that is that is not just
30:37happening in society but also has the
30:40potential to change. It affects
30:43psychological and social identity and
30:45not just physiology. Medical humanities
30:48emphasizes there has to be a discourse
30:50which blends the physical with the
30:53social and instead of taking two
30:55independent categorization where medical
30:58is working differently and social
31:00aspects differently a combination will
31:02lead to an embodiment awareness that
31:06fosters empathetic care and once this
31:09happens other aspects of gender other
31:12aspects of intersections will
31:14automatically be taken care of thank you
31:17so much. I will see you in the next
31:19lecture. Thank you.