HUshhhED LUST!
Neoshi Shah
TYBA
 |
| Lust Stories, 2018. Netflix. |
While movies as popular culture artifacts may be an
efficient way to propagate necessary information, what is being depicted
greatly affects a society’s ideologies. ‘Lust Stories’ was released in 2018
when the #MeToo movement was prevalent in order to stir up already ongoing
conversations about women’s issues. Hence, the movie attempts to explore
uncomfortable ideas in unconventional ways, some of which include gender,
sexuality, class, caste, and their intersections. Now that the purpose of
movies surpasses merely mainstream entertainment, it’s essential we ask, do
such movies challenge and undermine the existing quo or do they help to glorify
and legitimize prevailing values and institutions in society?
The second part in the anthology ‘Lust Stories’ is based in
a middle-class household where the tenant is in a sexual relationship with his
maid. With minimal dialogues, various instances successfully depict the
intersection between gender and class in the Indian context. We witness an
apparent distinction in roles and demeanour of both the characters while
they’re engaging in sexual intercourse in contrast to post that. For instance,
Sudha (the maid) instantly goes back to being ignored by Ajit, her partner (now
merely her employer); She continues to serve him food, hand him his towel,
clean his bedroom and carry out the roles she’s expected to as his house help.
We furthermore notice a change in her behavior the next day
when Ajit’s parents arrive to visit him. She transforms into the ‘feet
touching’, distance maintaining, quiet, serving maid who obeys their commands
sincerely. Additionally, Ajit practically ignores her existence altogether in
the presence of his parents and she is consequently reduced to someone whose
purpose is simply to serve her employers. We can attribute their use of
impression management to the years of internalization of culture, society and
their norms where Sudha believes she must appear ‘appropriate’ by sticking to
prescribed gender roles while Ajit believes the obvious masculine behavior
would include looking through his house help. The dramaturgical approach, to
put it simply, highlights the similarities between theatrical performances and
the "acts" that people put on in their daily interactions. It asserts
that social relationships between people are fragile and need to be sustained
through various performances. Their need to constantly switch between their
front stage and back stage performance (as mentioned in Goffman’s Dramaturgical
Model), also showcases various ways in which society views certain dynamics
with respect to class and gender.
Furthermore, when a couple and their daughter, who might be
a potential match for Ajit visit his house, Sudha is expected to serve them
with a smile on her face by suppressing her emotions towards the man she might
have feelings for. The way in which Ajit ignores her without having even one
last conversation to end their relationship shows how he thinks she doesn’t
really deserve one since it’s her duty to serve him, in every way. Her mute
character moreover shows how she isn’t allowed to have any desires or opinions,
nor does she make an attempt to speak up since her class and caste position
dictates her role in the household which has also been internalized by her.
Sudha must also consider the shame and taboo associated with her relationship
with her boss since he can easily get away because ‘men will be men’, but it is
her employment and reputation that would be at stake. Hence, while she is
someone Ajit might have a sexual relation with, considering her to be any more
than a sex object is simply out of question. We notice this evident shift in
his behavior towards Sudha since a lower-class woman can be used to satisfy his
physical needs in private, however, her value in a public setting is largely
dependent on her class and caste position.
We often notice how one uncritically accepts social and
governmental behaviors, laws, and other measures that may limit freedom in
every sense. Hence, one has access to freedom and agency merely within the
limits of what the government can offer. Herbert Marcuse’s idea of ‘Repressive
Tolerance’ (1965) can be used to further understand Sudha’s silence since it is
a result of the internalization and normalization of her societal position and
what people in power have got her to believe about it. Sudha has no reaction
because she lacks agency. She is forced to watch in silence while Ajit and his
family subject her to complete humiliation. She sees him with his potential
wife on the same bed that they were on just a few hours before, but she is
unable to say anything to her. She has been hushed for years by social
conditioning and has been told that she must not speak. She is oppressed in
every relationship she has ever been in.
According to Marxist Socialist Feminism, as the value of a
woman’s work is reduced, her status in society is reduced too. Hence, even
though Ajit’s parents don’t treat her in an obviously oppressive manner, they
still ensure they don’t speak to her but instead speak at her. They expect her
to take care of their son, but also expect her to refer to him as ‘bhaiya’
which eliminates the slightest possibility of them having more than a
professional relationship, hence magnifying the power relations between an
upper-class man and a lower-class woman. Sudha can hence do all the ‘ideal wife
duties’, satisfy his sexual needs, but never officially be someone of
importance. He instead chooses to marry an upper-class woman with the “same
lifestyle, same values, same profession” (Lust Stories, 2018) who is also a
representation/symbol of his societal position. So, can we really limit Sudha’s
oppression to the fact that she is a woman? She is a woman from a different
caste and socioeconomic background than Ajit. What does that account for?
Hence, symbolic barriers such as these simply imply that Sudha is the outsider
who’ll never fit in, and Ajit isn't a love interest nor is he a representation
of ambition. He is the forbidden fruit.
I personally believe, while a movie like this looks at
women’s accessibility to sexuality as a result of their lower class or caste
position, it also acknowledges the repercussions this intersectionality has,
leading to double subjugation in this case. It not only captures how Sudha is
reduced to her work in this capitalist society, but also how she is reduced to
a faceless body in this patriarchal society. Hence, while we talk about
feminism, we must realize that it cannot have a common, universal definition as
it is such subjective experiences that become the basis of theorizing feminism
and understanding the intersectionality between class, caste, gender and
several other factors that put women at a disadvantage in modern society.
References
Akhtar, Z. (2018). Lust Stories. Netflix.
Entzian, A. (2012). 23. Erving Goffmann, the
presentation of self in everyday life. Schlüsselwerke Der Kulturwissenschaften,
84–86. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839413272-024
Marcuse, H. (1965). Repressive Tolerance.
https://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/330T/350kPEEMarcuseToleranceTable.pdf
Ramnath, N. (2018, June 15). 'lust stories' review:
Lots of talk and some show. Scroll.in. Retrieved September 22, 2022, from
https://scroll.in/reel/882502/lust-stories-review-lots-of-talk-and-some-show
Tong, R. (2018). Marxist and Socialist feminism. Feminist Thought, 93–125. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429493836-4
Comments
Post a Comment