Qualitative analysis reveals gender construction and performativity in Sindu’s novel, highlighting societal implications.
The present research study analyzes gender construction and gender performativity in Sindu’s novel Marriage of a Thousand Lies (2017). The study employs a qualitative research method, utilizing close reading and purposive sampling to analyze the textual references. The text is interpreted carefully including words, utterances, and sentences of male and female characters to explore the issue under study. Moreover, the collected data were interpreted in the light of feminist writer Butler’s (1990) theory regarding gender performativity. After analyzing the text, the researcher found out that Sindu’s novel Marriage of a Thousand Lies (2017) portrays gender construction and gender performativity. In the novel, Lucky experiences this through her mother Amma when Amma refuses to buy Lucky shirts from the boys’ section and instead insists she wear traditionally feminine clothing like a silky beige shirt and a pink saree even. In the domestic sphere, Amma performs gender through repeated actions of serving teacups, dinner, and washing dishes in the kitchen. When Nisha performs the expected gender roles, she is called a good girl. Clothing functions as a site of gender construction because gender norms are intricately connected with it. In the novel, Amma insists that Lucky should wear pink color saree. Gender construction can be noticed in the discussion of Nisha’s mother in which she expresses that we as old can only teach you how to keep a man happy these days. Appa teaches Lucky the different feminine directives of society. Amma and grandmother teach Lucky and Shyama feminine gender roles. When Nisha, Kris, and Lucky deviate from their socially constructed gender roles, the conformist characters prohibit them. Based on the analysis, the researcher concluded that gender of women characters is socially constructed in the novel and gender performativity is displayed by the characters through repeated actions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ullah et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: