You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
This article is an inquiry into the concept of androgyny as seen from the traditional Indian1 perspective, with an exclusive focus on androgyny in males. It is my impression that Indian men are accustomed to the idea of androgyny, think of it as a positive trait, and are not likely to feel anxiety or disgust. It is also my impression that Western and European reactions are typically quite different and negative. The idea of androgyny arouses squeamishness and revulsion, and brings to mind medical and sexual pathology or freakishness. Many Westerners offhandedly reject even thinking about these matters. I would like to investigate possible reasons for the profoundly different reactions in Indian culture. The scope of this article does not permit an in-depth investigation of Indian history, religion, and literature. My purpose is to explore how the dynamics of Indian family life, with its traditions, values, and mores, may shape Indian attitudes toward androgyny.
There seems to be considerable confusion about definitions of androgyny, which may reflect changing attitudes or understanding about this term. A more “traditional” definition, gleaned from Webster's Dictionary (1975) equated androgyny with “hermaphroditism, the state of being androgynous.” It described “androgynous” as “1. having the characteristics of both sexes; both male and female in one, hermaphroditic. 2. in botany, bearing staminate and pistillate flowers on the same parent stem” (p. 68).
The second definition denotes a biological form of reproduction resulting in a flower. There is no comparable human correlate possessing both viable male and female reproductive organs and capable of reproducing. “Hermaphroditism,” in common usage about human beings, in contrast to plants, has most frequently been associated with a pathological anatomical reference to sexual organs.