The Standpoint

The ‘New’ Man

By

Bonisha Bhattacharya

The metrosexual man of today seems to have become the ‘other’ of the supposedly normal, stoic, self-denying, modest, and “straight” male. He is far more interested in his image and is comfortable being seen as less certain of his masculine identity. Within this context, it is also important to look at the concept of the metrosexual in relation to widely held conceptions or images of the ‘gay’ male.

Metrosexuality is a term which is generally applied to men with a strong concern for their appearance or whose lifestyles display the exploration of their own selves in a so-called ‘feminine’ manner. The term originated in an article by Mark Simpson published on November 15, 1994, in The Independent. Simpson wrote, “Metrosexual man. The single young man with a high disposable income, living or working in the city (because that’s where all the best shops are), is perhaps the most promising consumer market of the decade. In the Eighties he was only to be found inside fashion magazines …, in television advertisements for Levi’s jeans or in gay bars. In the Nineties, he’s everywhere and he’s going shopping.” Thus Simpson’s metrosexual man can be seen as a person who does not seem to flinch away from the thought of pampering himself and would not mind going a step further by flaunting this desire. It is within the framework of some of the visible markers of metrosexuality overlapping with those of the stereotype of the gay male that one should be able to distinguish male homosexuality or being gay as a different offshoot of masculine identity altogether. Homosexuality or being gay is not primarily image oriented. While metrosexuality deals with experimentation in terms of one’s outward physical appearance, homosexuality primarily deals with an alternative sexual preference. Even though at the outset both these terms evoked very similar images in the world of popular perception, in reality they assume a host of completely different implications. In order to understand these terms and trace their origin, understanding ‘masculinity’ as a term is very essential.

Susan Faludi in her book Stiffed -The Betrayal of Modern Man, talks of a certain gender identity in terms of being masculine. She argues that there seems to be a certain code of conduct laid down meticulously for men in general. The very paradigm of masculinity talks about being the master of your own universe. Men live under a great burden of masculinity. The fact that men are expected to be all withstanding, puts an unparalleled pressure on them to live out roles which they can fall short of in situations of crisis and may not want to be trapped by on a day-to-day basis, but since masculinity is shaped and reinforced by society, they most often refrain from thinking their way out of this dilemma and from taking active political steps to resolve their crisis.

It has been argued that this act of overlooking their own constraints for so long seems to have resulted in a range of distributary masculine gender and sexual identities such as metrosexuality, retrosexuality, hypermasculinity, homosexuality and bisexuality. Ask feminists to diagnose men’s problems and you will often get a very clear explanation: “men are in crisis because women are properly challenging male dominance…women are asking men to share the public reins and men can’t bear it”. Ask anti-feminists and you will get a diagnosis that is in one aspect similar- men are troubled, many conservatives say, because women have gone far beyond their demand for equal treatment and now are trying to take power and control away from men. Both feminist and anti-feminist views on this conflict are rooted in a perception that to be a man means to be at the controls and at all times to feel yourself in control. What’s more likely, says Faludi, is that they are clinging to a ‘phantom status’. However, to understand why men are so reluctant to break with the codes of manhood sanctioned in their childhood, perhaps we need to understand how strong the social constraints on them are. Surely patriarchal culture had for very long not offered an alternative vision of manhood and the level of mockery, suspicion and animosity directed at men who stepped out of line had been profound.

By the end of the twentieth century, the dictates of a consumer and media culture had trapped both men and women in a world in which ‘top billing mattered more than building’. This seemed not too good for either of the sexes, but at least ‘femininity’ fit more easily in the new ethic. But what would it mean to be a man in this new realm? What could masculinity possibly mean in a display culture? In 1965, Leslie Fiedler had mused in an essay -‘The New Mutants’, about what looked to be the start of a “radical metamorphosis of the western male...all around us, young males are beginning to retrieve for themselves the cavalier role once piously and class-consciously surrendered to women: “that of being beautiful and being loved”. There was a time when to take socially sanctified “woman’s wear” and flaunt it on a male body was to stand up and question society’s most sternly guarded definitions of masculinity and femininity.”

However, as time passed, the signs of a masculine metamorphosis in progress were hardly limited to the bohemian literary, artistic or the gay fraternity. Take the example of the uber metrosexual icon David Beckham showcasing his million dollar stud or perhaps giving the female fans drooling over him, a glance of his well-conditioned long hair. Even Brad Pitt, who was once considered a suitable contender to be called a masculine hero in Hollywood, could not retain the same designation for a long time because just as Bill Margold comments-“he has become just so pretty”. Actors such as Saif Ali Khan and Shah Rukh Khan no longer mind stepping over the line by sporting a pink “ganji” or showcasing their smooth bodies in full public view. Interestingly enough, the trend which might have possibly emerged out of a feeling of suffocation transcended to become a matter of personal choice. Wearing feminine colours as a part of one’s ensemble or frequenting the nearby beauty salon can now be associated with trying out an alternative lifestyle. As Akshay Khanna, the critic, puts it, wearing bangles and anklets would not necessarily make him gay. Only on being rebuked by a certain ACP once, did he decide to engage in this particular topic of what was style statement and of what constitutes being gay. Metrosexuality might not necessarily be looked at as a method of defiance towards society instead it could be simplistically viewed as an effort to look presentable.

However, for those people who would link or confuse the concepts of homosexuality and metrosexuality, my argument is that even in the 21^st century where though reluctantly, metrosexuality has managed to escape the wrath of traditionalists, homosexuality or being gay is still evaluated by many as ‘abnormal’. The worst a metrosexual male might have to face is to be looked at as a gay person, but as far as the status of a homosexual is concerned, even the Indian Penal Code deems homosexuality a punishable offence (except in the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court). While metrosexuality could be talked of as a phenomena which is comparatively newer, Pramod Nayar argues that homosexuality in India, be it lesbianism or being a gay, traces its lineage back to Hindu folk lore and legend. On a lighter note, if one were looking for similar lineage, perhaps, one could align the modern metrosexual man to the ardhanarishwara avatar of Shiva that simultaneously embodies both the feminine and masculine principle.

Even while the metrosexual identity is taken quite seriously in mainstream popular culture especially in India, the gay is seen as a figure of comic pathos, the misfit or the pansy. In other words, the metrosexual man is thrust onto the audience as an image associated with high profile male icons who are seen as trendsetters and are expected to be ‘aped’ at a certain level. However, the homosexual or the gay is often available only for purposes of comedy. For instance, in a Shah Rukh Khan’s Bollywood success, Kal Ho Na Ho, the Saif-Shah Rukh interludes, misread by the puritanical Kanta Ben, are meant to be funny and not an open positive affirmation of alternative masculinities in the way SRK’s Lux advertisements are. Thus, taking into account all the above mentioned arguments, it could thus be concluded that metrosexuality in a contemporary light has become more of a statement and beyond superficial similarities occupies a very different space within the realm of popular representation from that of the male homosexuality.