The Nature of Masculinity, Research Paper Example

Hoda Barakat’s novel “The Stone of Laughter,” the plot centers around a main character, Khalil. The story takes place during the Israeli-Lebanese conflict and focuses on such themes as masculinity, femininity, and identity. During times of war identity can be called into question both as it forms and as situations present themselves that call to question moral and ethical obligations. Through the course of Barakat’s novel, Khalil is faced with an ever-present question of his identity. Through the course of actions in the novel Khalil is faced with having to decide what certain predilections of character mean and how to define those characteristics within the scope of his identity and with the backdrop of a war. This paper will discuss masculinity, femininity and identity as developed by Khalil. The paper will argue that Khalil’s self-reflective nature is exacerbated by the conflict around him and this exacerbation forces him to question his masculinity.

As the novel progresses the readers witness Khalil’s formation of identity and then that identity’s change through the course of the plot. Barakat presents Khalil as feminine when compared to other men in the novel, or other boys yearning to be men,

“Khalil’s companions could really be divided into two groups. The first group, which looks like him, is made up of youths a lot younger than he, who have broken down the door of conventional masculinity and entered manhood by the wide door of history…The second group, which does not look like him, is made up of men of his own age who have got a grip on the important things in life, and who, holding the tools of understanding, awareness, and close attention to theory have laid down plans to fasten their hold on the upper echelons…in politics, in leadership, in the press…” (12). Here, Khalil is identified as belonging with the group of boys who are younger than him. This suggests, quite early on as a matter of fact, that Khalil’s appearance (or the way that he sees himself) is boyish despite his age. The second group of men that Barakat highlights, the group that “hold[s] the tools of understanding” are leaders and defined through their actions and positions. As Khalil does not belong to this second group, the reader may surmise that he does not possess the qualities of this group: meaning he isn’t a leader, or has as yet acquired the tools of understanding. These tools of understanding are rather ambiguous. These could mean self-awareness, as in when a man comes to fruition about his identity and about his place in the world, this begets his career path. As Khalil is not among these “top echelons” he is also not in possession of any self-reflection. Self-reflection is mentioned in this passage by way of the language Barakat uses: words such as “understanding,” and “awareness,” are paired with words such as “got a grip”. Meaning that Khalil’s view of his life is as yet unformed, just as the boys’ bodies he’s compared to have yet to reach their maturity, so too does Khalil’s view, vision, and identity has not manifested into its own. Meaning, in essence, that Khalil, in all ways (physically, emotionally, and psychologically) has yet to meet maturity or manhood. This suggests that Khalil’s masculinity is tied to his development in these areas (physical, emotional, and psychological). Thus, throughout Barakat’s novel, whenever one of this triad are mentioned it propels symbolism to the other. Khalil’s maturity level is at pace with his physical development and emotional responses to the actions around him (i.e. his desire to be alone when Naji and Youssef are killed).

Barakat goes on to suggest in the same scene that Khalil is closed off from manhood. This is an interesting turn of phrase. Perhaps Barakat is referencing that because of the Israeli-Lebanese conflict there is no room for growth because the entire city is being destroyed and in that destruction an absence grows. This absence could be an absence of faith but termed religiously but rather termed through loss of faith in self. Khalil is at a point (perhaps self-reflective) wherein he is ambiguous. This means that it’s not that he’s without manhood, or still stuck in boyhood (indeed its own ambiguous state) but rather is devoid an identity within this archaic terms. Barakat states, “But the doors of both kinds of manhood were closed to Khalil and so he remained, alone in his narrow passing place, in a stagnant, feminine state of submission to a purely vegetable life, just within reach of two very attractive versions of masculinity, the force that makes the volcano of life explode” (12). Not only does Barakat take away a hope of masculinity for Khalil, but Barakat also terms this state of being as “feminine” and “submissive”.

Barakat’s use of these two words in relation to Khalil suggests that Khalil is feminine because he’s submissive. This also suggests that Barakat associates submission with femininity. This state of being is also termed as “stagnant”. Thus, Barakat has created a lexicon in which the words “feminine,” “submissive,” and “stagnant” are almost interchangeable, and their suggestive quality in relation to Khalil stands out as him identifying with all three. Perhaps Khalil doesn’t so much as identify with these characteristics as the author imbibes with him these traits. This means that Barakat is defining Khalil as submissive and feminine and stagnant. Through the course of the story the reader witnesses parts of Khalil that speak to each of these traits. This triad suggests an arcane view of such things, but it’s interesting to examine within the scope of the Israeli-Lebanese conflict.

During a conflict it is important to not remain still because this would make one an easy target. Thus, stagnation has negative connotations, furthermore, when a person stands still or is stagnant it suggestions a reversal of growth. This could be taken on a metaphysical level in the book in relation to Khalil as his growth as a man (and his identity) has reached an impasse. This means that Khalil’s stagnation might be his demise. If Barakat creates a world in which stagnation means death (as well as feminine) then any time Khalil chooses to be alone, he is choosing to allow a part of himself to die. This is dangerous because Khalil’s identity is as yet unformed. Khalil progresses through the course of the novel as a type of subhuman as his power of self-reflection is stunted because of the events happening around him (the conflict). Khalil’s isolation then suggests that his development is being stunted, but stunted by choice. Khalil allows his stagnation to rule large parts of his life. Khalil doesn’t mourn the loss of his friends and loves so much as he is forced to be alone. In being alone, Khalil is forced to recognize parts of himself that are deviant from the norm and that in times of conflict deviance makes one more of a target. Khalil’s stagnation, his lack of growth, serves as a way for him to further distance himself away from his internal conflicts as well as his external conflicts which is an interesting dynamic for Barakat to approach.

Part of Khalil’s internal conflict his is struggles with becoming a man and the ways in which this growth has been stunted. It is interesting to note that Barakat doesn’t explore what Khalil thinks a man ought to be, but rather what a man ought to look like,“Khalil, now, seems solid and attainable, even if he is not yet fully old enough to be reckoned a mature man. Looking at the body, one would think it the body of an adolescent that would be considered, once Mother Nature had finished her job, once the trunk has branched and raised its welling coronets, to have a symmetry evocative of the marble statues the ancients used to carve in celebration and worship of that which the beautyofradiant masculinity may attain when it is ripe” (11). The juxtaposition of Khalil’s body with ancient Greek sculptures reminds the reader that masculinity in the novel will pertain to a strictly physical scope, or even, a stereotypical scope.

Barakat stereotypes characters through the novel by making them adhere to rules of gender through a narrow definition. There is no ambiguity as to what masculine means, or what feminine means, but rather, that these things may be defined through a canon. That canon is Greek sculpture. The Greeks believed that the human body was an art form and should be perfected to represent a high caliber of art. Thus, their sculptures were perfect; the lines of the male body represented the ideal man and through this ideal the definition of masculinity were formed. Barakat goes on to state that mother nature fell short with Khalil because of his “narrow shoulders” (11) that fails at sending desires to their “appointed ends”. This could mean that Khalil doesn’t satisfy the obligations of the canon through his representation of masculinity as defined by his body. Later on in the novel Barakat mentions Khalil’s father’s regret for his violent ways, treating something so angelic and frail looking (Khalil as a child) so harshly (for even at a young age Khalil’s body was termed “frail”): a person’s first view of masculinity and its definitions are wrought by their father.

Khalil’s first glimpse of manhood/masculinity is one of violence; thus, Khalil associates violence with being a man. It could be safe to surmise that Khalil feels that peace them represents womanhood. Barakat suggestions this dividedness through the novel between masculinity/war and femininity/peace. Khalil, who seeks out peace through being alone after his friends are killed in the conflict, would then have trouble asserting his masculinity because he is continually seeking out spots of peace through the novel and trying very hard to avoid conflict (conflict meaning here, masculinity);“Yet this ambiguity is now only discernible in that which Khalil’s sleeping body, solid, still, unconscious, betrays…when he is awake he is aware of none of all this save his strong inclination to peace, to safety, his lack of desire to go out into…his inability to stand the sight of blood, of…save his sense of loneliness, which peace and quiet never manage to dispel from his confused and troubled soul…” (12). Khalil has a “lack of desire” to go out into the conflict, or to assert his manhood which facing such conflict symbolizes. Khalil’s body betrays him here, signifying his desire to remain at peace within himself, meaning to attain a level of femininity that is suggestive of this peace through Barakat’s symbolism and lexicon.

Barakat’s view of the human body is represented through the novel as something that is “other” than the person almost. Although a person may identify with their body—it is after all a part of them—Barakat presents a different view of the body, as separate from the whole (person) and in this case, this separation begets new definitions. The human body represents these ideals of masculinity, and in fact through the novel it is the only way that other people recognize whether or not a person is masculine or feminine. The internal thoughts and dialogue a person has with themselves however isn’t represented in their body but by their actions. Khalil is separate from himself on both counts; internally and externally. Khalil doesn’t identify himself as masculine by his bodies or by his thoughts (this point will be argued later one when Khalil rapes his neighbor, an act brought about by his view of masculinity is by defined through his father and his father’s abusive tendencies). Barakat defines the human body as this: “yet these bodies have started another life, completely independent of that which lingers in the graves, which settlesin preparation for the final surrender to rest and peace…another life begins for the body in the picture, which unsettles the body inthe grave, worries the soul which waits, disturbed, in limbo…” (43). Khalil’s lack of identity and lack of effort in the necessary self-reflection to form an identity could be considered a type of limbo.

Limbo Dante’s first circle of hell, or purgatory. The poets reside in this circle. Limbo is also for the souls of unbaptized babies. Khalil is in a type of purgatory, as he doesn’t know who he is making the novel about an internal hell. The conflict that’s surrounding him on a daily basis could be Khalil’s external hell. Barakat also deems this limbo as a type of sleep and the connotations previously set up about sleep, peace and femininity apply here as well. To die, to accept death and then to reside in that limbo means that a person has found a type of peace. As Khalil is in a type of limbo but hasn’t found peace yet his limbo seems to be separate than what Barakat is speaking about. Khalil’s limbo has to do, not with the physical grave, as Barakat suggests, but with the internal hell. Khalil’s internal hell is quite paradoxically represented physically with his body –that frail thing that is not a man, nor represents a man’s body as defined by the Greek canon (because of his frail looking and slim shoulders) but more like a boy or even, taking a step beyond Barakat’s text about Khalil, feminine in look and nature. It is necessary then to define Barakat’s idea of femininity in the context of the novel.

Although Barakat hints at an idea of femininity, Barakat’s addresses a concrete definition of femininity late in the novel with the following scene: when the adults became tired, their fear left them and the wisdom of peace, which says that fear drives out sleep, seemed naïve. Sleepiness drives out everything: war and the shaking earth have there own, certain wisdom. Even the bride, a newcomer to the building, felt drowsy and abandoned the larded, power-puff femininity that she had brought with her from home: the loose hair, the dark rouge, the long, long nails and the transparent, rose-pink nightdress which she let peep out from under the velvet dressing gown…she even left her pink satin slippers with the lace and fur and shiny ribbons leaning on their high heels by the wall, since people were too sleepy to notice them. Her slippers had provoked stifled indignation among the women; one of her neighbors had remarked in a whisper that the slippers had come straight out of the box to celebrate …and that they would be a fat lot of use for running and leaping up the stairs…their indignation was not innocent, for that night the mothers had found nothing in the their pot of sorrows to equal the spices that the newcomer sprinkled over the men. And then, they did not believe her when she writhed and moaned and simpered pretending to be scared, but although it did not convince them it might convince their men (76)

It is interesting to note Barakat’s opinions about sleep and war. In this context sleep represents femininity and war represents masculinity. Barakat states that wisdom in peach is naïve. Formulaically this means that femininity isn’t wise, that war trumps any wisdom gained from peace/sleep/femininity. Barakat goes on to define what feminine is why describing the physicality of the character. How she has rouge on her cheeks, long nails, a transparent nightdress. Interesting here that the nightdress is see threw and considered something feminine while Khalil feels like his identity is being questioned and therefore is see through. Everything about this woman is a stereotype of femininity; in fact it’s difficult to term it as female because of its stereotypical nature, but it is female because Barakat makes it so in the context of the novel. This woman is a woman: lacy undergarments and a weak sense of identity (so like Khalil). The other women in the scene however are disgusted by this flagrant show of femininity. This suggests that Barakat is making a commentary on the people during the Israeli-Lebanese conflict saying that they aren’t pleased (even with stereotypes) unless a person conforms to their standard. Khalil’s issues of identity then are not just internal issues he has, but external issues society has on how they want or expect him to look and act. If the masculinity of femininity is too overdone (as in the except above) then the person is still ridiculed, chastised, and eventually ostracized. The balance here is certain, don’t be too much or too little of your designated gender. The entire novel is presented as a look through the veil of societal expectations and how when those expectations are shattered external forces cause internal drama.

Death is a symbol is sleep, which is a symbol of femininity in the novel. This excerpt “Whenever Mr. Mufid got a little enthusiastic in class, and he usually got a little enthusiastic, the hair on our heads used to stand up and Khalil used to wait for bedtime to come so that he could cry in his bed, out of grief for the raw, fragile peace that weighs heavy on the heart of the nation. Mr. Mufid used to go into elaborate detail about the heroism of the Tyreans and our Phoenician forefathers from the coast, he would often recount the tales about the people of Carthage who defied death and their heroic, martyred leader, as he looked contemptuously at the excited little heads which forgot his hollow cheeks, drowning in the…of the OK which rose form the blazing temples filled with the people from the cities the length of the proud, blue coast” (110) shows that the great warriors of Carthage defied death, they didn’t lay down and die and therefore they’re real men. These men are said to be Khalil’s forefathers. Thus, anything that he learned from his father (aka abuse) was an inheritance from these men. In light of this, Khalil may feel as though he is living in someone else’s shadow made doubly insalubrious because it almost seems to strangle him metaphorically.

Khalil’s forefathers seem to strangle him in their shadow because Khalil can’t quite measure up. They didn’t lie down and die but pursued their victories in death. The turning point for Khalil is when he decides that the path of violence is his path because that was the way that was paved for him by his forefathers. Khalil adapts their stance on violence by raping a girl and participating in gun smuggling in the novel. These paths for Khalil represent what real men do during a conflict; they participate. Previous to gun smuggling and rape, Khalil had simply locked himself in his room and was a nonparticipant. His nonparticipation doesn’t exclude him from being termed as feminine but simply exacerbates the views that others already have about him.

Khalil’s personality eventually changes however to incorporate a brutish or masculine side (like his father and his forefathers). The war encourages this change by forcing Khalil to come to terms with death or to rebel against it. In rebelling against death Khalil is rebelling against his femininity, against this idea of sleep and death. The war can go one of two ways: either accepting death or fighting against it. Previous to this Khalil hadn’t done either, he had secluded himself in his room after the deaths of his friends, not facing anything externally and certainly not facing himself and his identity issues. He simply stopped trying to exist in any capacity; this non-action Barakat terms as reinforcing the idea that Khalil was feminine. Feminine doesn’t take action, masculine does. So, the shift in the novel occurs when Khalil finally makes a stand (a rather rash and foolish stand) of helping gunrunners then rapping his neighbor. In this action Khalil is hoping to achieve a level of masculinity that has previous been absent from his personality: “Khalil remained deep in thought, a serious expression on his face. How can I say it, how can I tell my nation how much I love it, how I would die—in any savage war, against any brute enemy—a martyr, like the people of Tyre who closed their city to the great invading conqueror” (110). Khalil’s willingness to think beyond himself allows him to acquire a somewhat masculine identity.

This identity is quickly covered up with an extreme masculine reaction to previous ostracizing events in Khalil’s life from his father, his friends (that he thinks of as more than friends but potential lovers) and society as a whole. Khalil tries to overcompensate for previous behavior by overstepping the boundaries of ethical decisions in the belief that he’s protecting his society. This is a delusional belief. It isn’t surprising that it’s a delusion since Khalil has lived all of his life ducking from responsibility and self-reflection. Khalil doesn’t have any idea who he is in relation to how he feels, what he’s been through (abuse, deaths, war) and now he makes a choice to be a gunrunner and then to assert his masculinity through rapping a woman. He’s seeking dominance through violence as his father has taught him.

There are other male role models in Barakat’s novel such as Abou Ahmad. Ahmad perhaps represents a more pure version of masculinity, “I felt as heavy as a bull for twenty-four hours when we lost the war and Nasser gave his speech. My voice was hoarse and my eyes were bulging for a month…I believed, if you don’t mind my saying, that I’d never get my manhood back…this demonstration against Israel…none of these boys has ever set foot on its soil…” (43). Ahmad suggests to Khalil that manhood can be lost in war. This is foreshadowing, as Khalil will eventually lose a manhood he never fully understood or embraced. War, as much as it defines manhood, Ahmad suggests, destroys it. War is a double-edged sword, especially for Khalil.

Khalil has refused to participate in the stereotype of masculinity that the society has forced upon him, but he has also refused to accept himself for who he is. War presents this tenfold as it allows Lebanon to participate in this version of what manhood means during times of conflict. Fighting and war are supposed to appropriately define a man, to make a man through fighting and sacrifice. Khalil sacrifices himself through the course of the novel and never truly allows his masculinity to come to fruition (a masculinity at least as its defined by Lebanon). In Khalil’s apartment in Beirut he in fact grows less masculine as he separates himself from those masculine traits by isolating himself. Interiority represents the feminine just as exterior space represents masculine traits. In a way, Khalil adapts to a more feminine scope of self as a way to protect himself from the external conflicts of war. Femininity represents safety and security, albeit it comes at a sacrifice.

This sacrifice is being ostracized. When a major battle happens, Khalil doesn’t go outside to view all of the ruins; he stays in his room and cleans; termed as a feminine occupation. In fact, during one conflict Khalil’s window is broken and this is truly upsetting to him. The broken window is a symbol of how Khalil’s exterior was broken (society not accepting him, his father not accepting him) and how now his interior is broken. Since Khalil used his apartment as a place of safety and keeping it clean was a ritual in which he was able to express who he was it is no wonder Khalil finds such significance in the broken window; “Whenever a battle draws to an end, Khalil feels the need for order and cleanliness and the feeling grows, spreads until it becomes almost an obsession. After every battle, his room is clean and fresh like new, as if the builders had just left. The tiles shine and the room gives out a smell of soap, of polish, of disinfectant” (9). Unable to fight the chaos in the streets, he tries to create order indoors in order to preserve this sanctuary that protects him from the violence of the streets.

“The sitting room was swarming with men and women…although people kept bursting out laughing, the women seemed less happy, less enthusiastic perhaps because the conversation was drifting away from the effect of their femininity which they had been cultivating all afternoon so as to stand out, to shine, to make an effect” (120). This idea of femininity is infused in Khalil’s idea about his apartment. As his apartment is a representation of his interior space, and his interior space is filled with feminine rituals, in the above passage Khalil would have sympathy for the women because he knows how hard it is to keep something pristine during war (Khalil is trying to keep his apartment pristine which is a symbol for his interior femininity).

Barakat goes on to talk about the editor-in-chief’s wife as “cheerful, running around,serving everyone and smiling widely as if she wanted to make a place for herself by force…Every gesture was overstated, as if she wanted to seem younger than the other women, or as if she were accusing them of not giving their husbands enough support” (120). This is how Khalil feels about his apartment, about himself and his relationship with other people: that he gives and gives, but because he doesn’t represent a Greek ideal (physically) he is continually a disappointment to them (and his father). Whenever he embraces his femininity (when he cleans his apartment) it is destroyed (broken window). This represents the struggles Khalil goes through with his identity, how society reacts to him, and how he cannot seem to find any space for himself that hasn’t been marred by war (masculinity). Khalil cannot escape war (ideas of masculinity) however much he tries.

Khalil’s fear of blood drew him to faintness “Khalil knew that a fear of blood to the point of faintness, having short legs, a slight build, straight chestnut hair and large eyes, all these do not make a man a hermaphrodite, or effeminate, or make him any less masculine, or…queer…he knew that the temporary breakdown that he was suffering was only a psychological crisis that the mad world outside had imposed upon him…he knew that there were certainly more female hormones in him than there should naturally be, for they protected him from committing the crime of the act, so it was only a passing crisis, it would come to an end…he definitely desired women but, at this moment in time, he did not feel particularly susceptible to any particular woman.” (75).

Khalil tries to navigate between being masculine and having feminine tendencies. Although Khalil is homosexual he doesn’t let his sexual orientation play a part in his overall perceptions of masculinity. In fact, Khalil sees himself as feminine more than masculine despite his efforts to be masculine throughout the story. Virility as a masculine trait for example eludes Khalil. He longs to be submissive to someone (a lover) but never fully realizes this emotion and so allows this non-submissive nature to dictate his reaction to the world and war. Within the scope of Khalil realizes that his dreams of men he loves aren’t spoken about or realized and thus they remain dreams, elusive, abstract. Khalil in fact functions as an abstract gender; being neither masculine nor feminine but both at the same time. This ambiguous gender typing is Barakat’s way of defining how war is both about peace and conflict. There are lulls in war that may be seen as peace and there are brutal beatings and bombings that are over the top masculinity. Whenever there is action there is masculinity and whenever there is non-action or passivity (peace) there is femininity. Khalil is continually finding himself in either situation throughout the novel. Thus, the author is suggesting that it takes both of these things in equal measurement (peace and war) in order to have a fully developed character. Despite the social construct of war and peace as masculine and feminine Khalil eventually dehumanizes himself by being overtly masculine by rapping someone. This transformation at the end of the novel allows Khalil to break from his aforementioned stereotypes. At the end of the novel the reader witnesses Khalil wearing sunglasses and a leather jacket. He’s smuggling guns to an upstairs apartment and he’s raped someone. He believes these affectations allow him to be more masculine when in effect they go a step beyond that and speak toward his inhumanity. Khalil remains a gay man in a war torn country and when presented with a situation at the end of the novel, he doesn’t seclude himself in his room but takes action and this lack of hesitation speaks to his inhumanity because the action he takes, takes away others identities.

Works Cited

Barakat, Huda. (2006). The Stone of Laughter. Northampton; Interlink Publishing. Print.