Salaryman Masculinity Analysis

Masculinity is using Kimmel’s definition “historical…created in culture...[and] means different things at different times to different people” (Kimmel, 1994, p. 120), instead of being continuous over time. Dasgupta claims that “to many people, the term ‘salaryman’ is almost synonymous with masculinity in Japan” (Dasgupta, 2000, p. 192), however I wish to deconstruct this statement arguing that indeed the salaryman masculinity is itself an inaccessible notion and thus is not analogous to masculinity in Japan. This should resonate amongst other anthropologists because the supposedly hegemonic masculinity of Japan can be scrutinized through looking at broader economic and cultural changes to Japanese society. Salaryman masculinity becomes an unattainable

Yet these models do, express widespread ideals, fantasies and desires” (Connell, 2005, p. 838). Certainly, the final sentence highlights the problem of the ideal salaryman masculinity. Indeed, the entire notion of gender hegemony relies on its persistent campaign. For the salaryman masculinity, a worker must constantly create a masculine image that will be accepted by others. For instance, in nightwork the women confirm male identity. Their masculine identity becomes wedded to the company, with a reliance on corporate entertainment to sustain it. Here masculinity is manipulated by the company to serve the interests of capital. This labour of everyday female work is what ultimately makes possible the masculinity that drives the economy. It is ironic that the significance of power that lies with the female hostess is the same power that reinforces the patriarchy and the manifestation of the capitalist system. Hence gender is the recognition why the hostess is so potent in perpetuating the salaryman, corporate masculinity. In this framework, the salaryman’s daily life is a relentless conflict to authenticate himself as part of the societal construction of hegemonic masculinity. Nonetheless the fundamental issue of salaryman masculinity is that it is nothing other than an ideal. Consequently, it cannot be regarded as attainable model as such

Dasupta identifies the performance of masculinity “recognising that identity is… a performance, provides the potential for rewriting the scripts of individual identity” (Dasgupta, 2000, p. 200). He makes a connection between performing like a successful salaryman, and performing successfully heterosexuality. These prescriptive values are epitomised as the ideals for being the superlative salaryman, however it is arguably these unnatural performances that create instability in the discourse. This instability is evident through the fact that there is the possibility of subverting the hegemonic discourse as there is a “potential for rewriting scripts” of individuality. What identities are desired are very circumstantial and the self-commodification and performance aspect of masculinity, indicate that the experience of gender is