Emasculation to Remasculinisation: Hypermasculinity in The Kite Runner

Emasculation to Remasculinisation: Hypermasculinity in The Kite Runner

The Kite Runner is an insight into the shades of masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity, as an ideology, sanctifies violence and hatred and posits a danger of disappearance of humankind.  In this paper, my attempt is to analyze one of the characteristics of hegemonic masculinity--violence-- and to show how the principal character, Amir stands for an alternative benevolent masculinity that does not give space to violence and destruction.

The second part of the novel presents Afghanistan that is in massive unrest. The political, economic and social ethos of the region is in a state of violent crisis. There are factions along the lines of class, caste, religion and ethnicity within the boundaries of the nations and in each case, the dominant factions struggles to secure their political economic and social dominance and appropriate the resources of the marginalized. Amir recalls:

Rahim Khan told me how, when the Northern Alliance took over Kabul between 1992 and 1996, different factions claimed the different parts of Kabul. “If you went from Shar-e- Nau section to Kerteh-Parwan to buy carpet, you risked getting shot by a sniper or getting blown up by a rocket […] you practically needed a visa to go from one neighbor to the other. So, people just stayed put, prayed the next rocket would not hit their home.” (174)

Afghan masculinity especially during Taliban era is dependent on de-masculinizing other actors. After Talibans come to power, they exercise complete control over Afghanistan.  In Afghanistan, Talibans are the ethnic group comprising mostly the dominant Pasthuns and Sunni, and they see the soviet invasion and westernization of Afghanistan as humiliation. Kimmel writes: “central to their political ideology is the recovery of manhood from the emasculating politics of globalization” (Gender 156). Similarly, Sabrina Gilani writes: “men in Afghanistan are more likely to resort to violent means of renegotiating their masculinity because it is the only method of successfully attaining power that Afghan society has bore witness to for at least two decades” (55). Many critics also hold the view that globalization is responsible for gender issues and fanatic Islamic teachings by Al-Queda and Talibans. This fact is evident in the The Kite Runner. In the beginning of the novel, Amir talks about how prevalent American culture was in the country during the time, especially during monarchy. The movies Amir and Hassan love most are Westerns starring American actors, notably John Wayne and Charles Bronson. And the boys spend their money on Coca cola, one of America’s biggest exports. Baba drives a black Mustang, which Amir points out is the same car that the actor Steve McQueen drove in the American movie “Bullitt”. Though Aseef never speaks of these things specially, he does talk about Afghan purity:

Afghanistan is the land of Pashtuns. It always has been, always will be. We are the true Afghans, the pure Afghans, not this Flat-Nose here. His people pollute our homeland, our Watan. They dirty out blood […] Afghanistan for Pashtuns, I say. That’s my vision. (35)

 It’s not just an ethnic purity that Aseef and others like him are after, but also cultural purity (as seen in the later part of the novel when Shari’a law is promulgated which curbs almost all access to any kinds of outer cultures), and the prevalence of American culture in Afghanistan threatens his goal. As a result, the influence of American culture is wiped out almost entirely during the post-communist era, i.e. Taliban era.

Kimmel writes: “In Afghanistan, nationalist struggles during the past two decades often have involved control not only over geographical territory, but also over the gendered terrain of women’s and men’s bodies” (Handbook 404). Voices of women and minorities were silenced. The Kite Runner shows how the Talibans reified the privileged position of men in society, and more importantly over women. They resort to violence not only against women, but the minorities as they see it as an only method of successfully attaining power. Similarly, it can also be argued that Taliban resistance is a severe outcome of the globalization process. The ability to control women and ethnic minorities by forceful methods is the result of the feeling of being overpowered by foreign troops. Their endeavor is to affirm their manhood and attain superiority and power. After the communist invasion, women were given greater freedom and greater opportunities. Even the Hazara came in power. So, the traditional Sunni Talibans felt that they were being subject to double emasculation: by men as well as women. This feeling has seriously affected their ideals of manhood, and as a consequence of their cultural anxiety, terror is unleashed. Kimmel says:

The terror to emasculation experienced by the lower middle class men all over the world will no doubt continue, as they struggle to make a place for themselves in shrinking economies and inevitably shifting cultures. They may continue to feel seething resentments against women, whom they have perceived as stealing their rightful place at the head of the table and against the governments that displace them. Globalization feels to them like a game of musical chair, in which, when the music stops, all the seats are handed to others by nursemaid governments. (157)

The Taliban impositions are the expressions of the frustrations of the subordinated males. They cannot tolerate their symbolic emasculation that is, powerlessness that is forced upon them. Unable to bear this insult, The Talibans inflict injustice on women and ethnic minorities. The authority over women and the minorities is the only solution to their embittered ego. And in an attempt to reaffirm their power and manliness, they take recourse to weapons and violence. Henri Myrtinnen in “Disarming Masculinities” argues that display of weapon becomes a means of demonstrating manliness. According to him:

Weapons are part of one notion of masculinity, a militarized view that equates ‘manliness’ with the ‘sanctioned use of aggression, force and violence’. Weapons are used as status symbol but also as tools to achieve economic and social gains, wielding power over unarmed males and females. This often can be linked to the crisis of masculinity, when there is a ‘fear of loss of male power and privilege’ through social transformations, leading to a backlash in which ‘traditional’ gender roles are reinforced. The construct of the male warrior/protector relies on the suppression of others-. (qtd in Large 6)

 In The Kite Runner, when Amir reaches Kabul, he sees the Talibans “Kalashnikov slung on their shoulders” (217) patrolling the city.  An old beggar Amir meets there says, “They drive around looking. Looking and hoping that someone will provoke them. Sooner or later someone always obliges. Then the dog’s feast and the day’s boredom is broken at last and someone says ‘Allah-u- Akbar’” (217). And this form of violent masculinity is what is called as ‘hyper-masculinity’.

Hypermasculinity can be defined as exaggeration and distortion of traditional masculine traits. It is a value system that extols male physical strength, aggression, violence, competition and domination, and despises the dearth of these characteristics as weak and feminine. Sociologist M. Nayak defines it as “reactionary masculinity that arises when the agents of hegemonic masculinity feel threatened or undermined, thereby needing to inflate, exaggerate or otherwise distort their traditional masculinity” (42).  So, violent aggression becomes an acceptable expression of masculine power and dominance over other men. Anger becomes the only legitimate male emotion and an expression of other emotions like sympathy, empathy and sensitivity become the signs of weaknesses. And mastery of his emotions in the form of inhibiting the expression of fear, distress and shame becomes necessary.

In Hosseni’s novel The Kite Runner this hypermasculine behavior is embodied by the Talibans, Aseef being one of the leading Talibs. After the Soviet invasion in Afganistan and the advent of Republicanism, the Afgan hegemonic masculinity takes violent turn that results in a long chain of bloodshed and a protracted violence against both women and men of ethnic manorities. The hypermasculinity of the Taliban that contrasts Amir’s peaceful masculinity has been shown through the character Aseef in the novel. Aseef is the leader of the Taliban group responsible for kidnapping Sohrab. He is the same person who assaults and rapes Sohrab’s father Hassan as a child. He is shown as an amalgamation of destructive and hateful behavior in the novel; he is a pedophile, drug addict (24), fundamentalist, self-proclaimed admirer of Hitler (35) and the member of the Taliban.

By exerting physical violence, he tries to control, dominate and express authority and power. And through weapons (now a brass knuckles and later as a Taliban, gun) he wields power over unarmed. A self-proclaimed admirer of Hilter, he has become like his idol, and he holds beliefs of Afgan social purity. As a child, he refers to Hasan, who is of the shunned ethnic minority, Hazara group, as socially impure: “Afganistan is the land of Pashtuns. It always has been, and always will be. We are true Afgan, pure Afgan, not the Flat-Nose here. His people pollute our homeland. Our watan. They dirty our blood (35).

            It is important to note here that Hazara are the ethnic minorities and have long been branded outsiders in Afganistan. They are largely Shi’a Muslims in an overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim country. They have a reputation for industriousness yet work the least desirable works. Their Mongolian features—narrow eyes, flat nose and broad cheeks—have set them apart in a de facto lower caste. The Talibans—mostly fundamentalist Sunni, ethnic Pashtuns—saw Hazaras as infidels and animals.  In the novel, Aseef describes massacre of Hazara in Mazar-i-Sharif thus: “Door to door. We only rested for food and prayers […] we left the bodies in the streets, and if their families tried to sneak out to drag them back into their homes, we’d shoot them too. We left them in the street for days. We left them for dogs. Dog meat for dogs” (243). He presents the massacre of Hazara people in positive terms, explaining to Amir:

You don’t know the meaning of the world ‘liberating’ until you have done that, stood in a roomful of targets, let the bullets fly, free of guilt and remorse, knowing you are virtuous, good and decent. Knowing you are doing God’s work. It’s breathtaking. (242)

Aseef’s hatred towards Hassan is connected to the ideals and characteristics of ideal Afgan masculinity as it necessitates him to have “aggression towards the less powerful” (Connell, 18).  Hasan belongs to subordinate Afgan group and class but instead of Amir, it is Hasan who protects himself and Amir using his slingshot.  Here Aseef finds a challenge to his masculinity which he tries to prove by inflicting pain not only to Hassan, his son Sohrab but to thousands of Hazara in Mazar-i-Sharif.  Amir’s analysis is apt here:

Someone had challenged their god. Humiliated him. And worst of all, that someone was skinny Hazara. Aseef looked from the rock to Hassan. He searched Hassan’s face intently. What he found in it must have convinced

him of the seriousness of Hassan’s intentions because he lowered his fist. (37)

Messerschmidt, in line with Butler, suggests that masculinity is earned by men through performance, and this poses men with a challenge they must overcome in order to be considered ‘proper men”. And, he further argues, failure to conform to or attain the standards of masculinity with which boys are familiar can lead to boys attempting to reach these standards through other means, in some cases sexual violence. Messerschmidt (2000) further argues that an inability to perform masculinity--bodily, sexually, or otherwise—results in a “lack of masculine resources and [an] accompanying negative masculine self-esteem” (291). In The Kite Runner, What Aseef does to Hassan after the kite fighting tournament is due to the wounded sense of masculinity. Messerschmidt argues: “To question or criticize male behavior is to assert male social inferiority whereby he is denied respect, and without respect, there can be no masculine self-esteem” (298). The purpose of homosexual rape is not primarily sexual pleasure. The initial intent of the person who commits a homosexual rape is bringing his victim to the level of a woman, and since a woman holds the lowest status in the Afghan society, this is the most shameful things that can happen to a man. So, through this rape, Aseef he intends to ‘feminize’ Amir, i.e. humiliating through domination.

This domination and emasculation though sex and sexual discourse can also be seen in his sexual abuse of Sohrab. When Amir goes to Aseefs’ chamber, he sees how Aseef has been abusing Sohrab: “His head was shaved, his eyes darkened with mascara, and his cheeks glowed with an unnatural red. When he stopped in the middle of the room, the bells strapped around his anklets stopped jingling” (244). By performing sexual violence against Hassan and his son, Aseef also demonstrates his cultural domination. Amir recounts a comment which Aseef makes to him as a child: “‘Good morning kunis!’ Aseef exclaimed waving. ‘Fag’ that was another of his favorite insults’” (36). By using the accusation of homosexuality against Amir as an insult, he is emphasizing his masculinity and disempowering Amir. Similarly, one of the reasons Aseef becomes a Talib inflicting atrocities upon the Hazaras is the same wounded sense of masculinity which is clear from what he says to Amir:

One night…a group of Parchami soldiers marched into our house and ordered my father and me at gunpoint to follow them. The bastards did not give a reason and they would not answer my mother’s questions…They came from poor families with no name. The same dogs who were not fit to lick my shoes before the Shorawi came were now ordering me at gun point. (247)

            There is still a debate as to how inherent is the relation between masculinity and violence. Scholars like Messerschmidt propose a direct link between masculinity and violence. He argues, men engage in violent activities in order to gain power, thus proving their masculinity. However, it is also argued that violence and conflicts are in themselves constructive of many versions of masculinity. For example, Edley and Wetherell argue that men are both constructed by, and in turn construct masculinities. Similarly, the way in which men, who perform violent acts, are ascribed to belonging to the group of ‘real men’ constructs the ideal version of masculinity as including violent acts. In the novel The Kite Runner, under Taliban regime, violence is feted as a masculine ideal. Their version of masculinity which verges on hypermasculinity requires the complete removal of women from public sphere as well as severe restriction of women’s right in the private sphere, and the protracted violence against men of ethnic minority like shi’a and Hazara.

Following the end of monarchy through the bloodless coup by Doud Khan, Russian tanks and army start patrolling the streets of Afghanistan and this foreign occupation poses a real threat for the Taliban masculinities. After the Russian invasion and the later the Northern Alliance took over Kabul, violence became more endemic.  As Aseef later accounts, Russian invasion and the establishment of communist government brought the long marginalized and subdued classes in power. Russian soldiers destroyed those value systems that were the backbone of traditional Afgan Pathans. Now even the Hazara joined the security forces. One of the security men who thrashed Aseef in the jail was a half Hazara man. So, the traditional hegemonic masculinity that was dependent on de-masculinizing the subordinate was under threat. The fighting between different factions like Taliban, Mujahiddin, and others can be interpreted as a contest of power between various masculinities. Violence became a means to prove each other’s superiority and a means to dominate another faction.  Violence was elevated over diplomacy with no room for justice, human security, peaceful social change or the protection of the weakest (men, women and children). After the Talibans took over Kabul, Afganistan saw the deadliest fate. While the kite flying was banned, Hazaras were massacred in Mazer-i-sheriff. In a letter sent to Amir by Hasan, this situation is clearly seen:

Alas, the Afganistan of our youth is gone from the land, and you cannot escape the killing. Always the killings. In Kabul, fear is everywhere, in the streets, in the stadium, in the markets; it is a part of our lives here, Amir agha. The savages who rule out watan don’t care about human decency. The other day, I accompanied Farzana Jan to the bazar to buy some potatoes and naan. She asked the vendor how much the potatoes cost, but he did not hear her. I think he had a deaf ear. So she asked louder, and suddenly a young Talib ran over and hit her on her thigh with his wooden stick. He struck so hard she fell down. He was screaming at her and cursing and saying Ministry of Vice and Virtue does not does not allow women speak loudly. She had a large purple bruise on her leg for days but what could I do except stand and watch my wife get beaten. (189-90)

So, Talibans try to reassert their masculinity through the only means that they have observed to be effective—violence. They ban TV, and make burqua compulsory accessory for women and beard for men. Afghans are forced to adhere to strict Shari’a law erected by the fundamentalist and anyone failing to abide by this law could be subject to sever punishment, ranging from stoning men and women to death for adultery, cutting off their hands for thievery. Measures of masculinity become linked with practices of brutality and aggression. Amir recounts one of his experiences when he has gone to Ghazi stadium in search of theTalib who has taken away Sohrab, son of Hassans. As a child Amir had gone to this stadium with his father to see soccer but now he sees a different spectacle. In the stadium where earlier soccer used to be played now is used for “punishing the sinners’ (236). This is how the Talib man is justifying the punishment of the men and women by stoning to death:

Brothers and sisters […] we are here today to carry out Shari’a;We are here today to carry out justice. We are here today because the will of Allah and the worlds of the prophet Mohammad […] are alive and well here in Afganistan, our beloved homeland. We listen to what God says […] and God says that every sinner must be punished in a manner befitting his sin […] These are the words of God […] and what manner of punishment, brothers and sisters, befit the adulterer? How shall we deal with those who throw stones at the windows of God’s house? WE SHALL THROW THE STONES BACK. (236)

This spectacle portrays exclusively male violence with the power to deliver death; an elevation of violence over diplomacy.  The Talibans invoke masculine divinity to justify violent actions mobilizing around the perceived or proclaimed violation of sacred place and norms. This violent model of masculinity makes the justice, human security, peaceful social change or protection of the weakest a virtual impossibility.

Talibans not only ban kite fighting as un-Islamic but destroy the statue of Buddha in Bamiyan. In the name of Islam and Shari’a law, they perpetrate violence upon women, men and children. As Amir says the fighting and wars “had made fathers a rare commodity in Afganistan” (215). Later, though Rahim Khan we know that Hassan and his wife Farzana were killed. And Hassan’s murder is important for many reasons. It plays multiple roles in the novel. His death is presented as a combination of the political strife ravaging Kabul and the entrenched prejudice against Hazaras. Two members of the Taliban shoot Hassan. Rahim Khan’s telling of the story implies that these Taliban officials want Baba’s house and since Hasssan is a Hazara, he essentially has no rights:

Soon after I took my leave, a rumor spread that a Hazara family was living alone in the big house in Wazir Akbar Khan, or so the Taliban claim. A pair of Talib officials came to investigate and interrogated Hassan. They accused him of lying when Hassan told them he was living with me even though many of the neighbors, including the one who called me, supposed Hassan’s story. The Talibs said he was a liar and a thief like all Hazaras and ordered him to get his family out of the house by sundown. Hassan protested. But my neighbor said the Talibs were looking at the big house like ‘wolves looking at a flock of sheep.’ […] They took him to the street and shot him in the back of his head […] and shot her too. (192)

Amir on the other hand, performs a different model of masculinity in the novel. Just as he has never conformed to the traditional model of masculinity of his father and General Taheri, he does not conform to this hypermasculine model. There in Pakistan, he knows about Hassan’s death and Rahim Khan wants Amir to go to Kabul to save Sohrab who is there in orphanage. And going to Kabul becomes a test of Amir’s honor, loyalty and manhood.  He knows that city is extremely dangerous, and in returning there he would risk everything he has, including his life and the welfare of his family. Rahim khan recognizes that the decision is difficult for Amir. To convince him, he brings up the conversation he once had with Baba when Baba said he feared that Amir would not be able to stand up to anything as a man if he could not stand up for himself as a boy. When Amir continues to refuse, Rahim reveals a monumental secret: Amir and Hassan were half-brothers. Despite his initial resentment towards his father, Amir forgives him and decides to go to Kabul.

Reaching there in Kabul, Amir realizes to what extent Afghanistan has changed. The aroma of kawab and pakora has been replaced by the stench of “rot garbage and feces” (196). It is evident that the fighting destroyed everything from the building to the way of life. What used to be buildings are now dusty piles of rubbles and beggars are everywhere. The trees are all gone. One of the beggars turns out to be a literature professor. When he reaches the orphanage to meet Sohrab, he finds out that a Taliban official has taken him away. And Amir discovers that the Taliban official from whom he must rescue Sohrab from is the same person that raped Hassan all those years ago. From the way Aseef touches Sohrab and what he says to Amir, Amir has no doubt at this point that Aseef has been sexually abusing Sohrab. This is evident in what Sohrab’s conversation with Amir after being rescued from Aseef:

I miss Father and Mother too…but sometimes I’m glad they’re not …they’re not here anymore.

“Why?”  I touched his arm. He drew back.

“Because—“ he said, gasping and hitching between sobs, “because I don’t want them to see me…I’m so dirty.” He sucked in his breath and let it out in a long, wheezy cry. “I’m so dirty and full of sin.” (278)

As mentioned earlier in this dissertation, rape is a means of humiliating through dominance and demasculinizing the victim.  Because Sohrab represents a living piece of Hassan, Aseef continues to engage in the figurative rape of Hassan. But, now Amir is in a position to stop this.  He not only stands for justice and equality, he even questions what Aseef calls his “missions”: “What mission is that? Stoning adulterers? Raping children? Flogging women for wearing high heels? Massacring Hazaras? All in the name of Islam?” (248) Here Amir displays his inner strength that holds others up. He stands for a new man who questions the traditional practices of injustice and inequalities.

After the initial treatment in Peshawar, finally Amir and Sohrab come to Islamabad. He confesses his betrayal of Hassan to Soraya (284) and in her forgiveness, he begins to forgive himself. By taking advice from his wife, Soraya on one of the important decisions of his life—adoption, he shows his defiance of the traditional Afghan masculinity. He exhibits his liberal masculinity which does not shun women and their advice in the family matters. Soraya not only advices Amir, but plays an important role in getting visa to the newly adopted boy, Sohrab. Finally with great difficulty, they reach San Francisco in August 2001. And there in San Francisco, he tells his secrets to his biased and arrogant father-in-law, General Taheri, declaring that a humble Hazara is his nephew, the son of his half brother, the son of his father’s Hazara son. Unlike his father, he says without any shame of fear:

“You see General Sahib, my father slept with his servant’s wife. She bore him a son named Hassan. Hassan is dead now. That boy sleeping on the couch is Hassan’s son. He’s my nephew. That’s what you tell people when they talk.” “And one thing more, General Sahib,” I said. “You will never again refer to him as ‘Hazara boy’ in my presence. He has a name and it’s Sohrab”. (315)

Amir’s role reverses from being a protected son to a protector, from being the comforted to the comforting.  He performs his fatherly role quite differently from his father as he says “I wanted to be nothing like him” (160). Well aware of the delicate emotional state that Sohrab has been in, Amir is very careful in dealing with him. After he rescues Sohrab, he picks up fatherly instinct and emotions even though he does not have any experience of being a father.

 As a father, he tries to provide a warm, nurturing environment to Sohrab. It can be observed in his gentle behavior with the boy; when the boy is reluctant to talk, he does not push the boy too much. He refrains from physical contact with Sohrab as he see the latter’s fear of physical contact. He only hugs Sohrab when the boy is more comfortable with him. Together with Soraya, they prepare their home to welcome Sohrab when he arrives in the States. Unfortunately, Sohrab is caught up with his own feelings and does not react well to the kindness of Amir and Soraya. However, both Amir and Soraya are patient with him, even though his silence hurts them. They manage a very peaceful environment for Sohrab and wait him to reciprocate in his own accord.

Amir diverges from Baba’s model of fatherhood in significant ways. Unlike his father who always distanced himself from Amir, he endeavors to be as close to Sohrab as possible both emotionally and physically. He stands up to his responsibilities and puts in efforts to take care of the little boy. Although the boy is emotionally distant towards him, he does not give up on him. He brings the boy along to family outings to let him get some fresh air and have a little social contact. It is during one of these trips that Amir finally has a chance to use kite flying to perk Sohrab’s interest to his surroundings. And finally he succeeds in making Sohrab smile.

Following 9/11 event, the political landscape changes in Afghanistan, and Taliban regime is replaced by a more democratic one. And Soraya and Amir get involved in the construction of hospitals in the Afghan Pakistan borders: “I became the project manager, Soraya my co-manager. I spent most of my days in the study, emailing people around the world, applying for grants, organizing fund-raising events. And telling myself that bringing Sohrab here had been the right thing to do” (317).  Thus, it can be argued that Amir’s ‘feminine’ manhood proves to be life-yielding and also becomes suggestive of humanity flourished and bloomed in rather feminine situation.

Summing up, The Kite Runner presents the multiple and conflicting masculinities. Amir, the principal character stands for a different ideal of manhood. His model of manhood is neither like that of Baba nor of Aseef. His is emotional, non-aggressive and slightly more egalitarian. He loves reading and writing and hates the double standard regarding the treatment to women in the traditional society. So, he stands for a new masculinity that does not enable misogyny, that is not built on power over men/ men but power with them, and that gives men room to explore and express themselves without shame or fear.

 (Unedited draft. References available upon request)