What is the significance of eyes and seeing in The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy?
In The God of Small Things, Arundhati Roy uses the motif of eyes and seeing to symbolize perception, awareness, and the complex power dynamics within society and family. Eyes represent both the act of literal observation and the figurative act of understanding truth, memory, and emotional reality. Through characters such as Rahel, Estha, Ammu, and Velutha, Roy illustrates how seeing can signify love, judgment, guilt, and forbidden knowledge. The motif reveals how perception can be both liberating and oppressive—where “seeing” becomes a means of control, resistance, and self-recognition (Roy, 1997).
1. Introduction: The Symbolic Weight of Seeing
In The God of Small Things, vision functions as a critical literary device that links personal experience to societal surveillance. Arundhati Roy’s recurring imagery of eyes and sight explores how people perceive, misperceive, or choose to ignore reality. Through this motif, Roy reveals the emotional and political structures of seeing—how observation can nurture empathy or reinforce dominance.
The novel’s world is built upon the act of seeing and being seen. Eyes are not merely physical organs but instruments of power and emotion. They mirror characters’ internal states and reveal social injustices rooted in caste and gender hierarchies. As critic Julie Mullaney (2002) observes, Roy “transforms vision into a metaphor for moral consciousness, exposing how individuals perceive truth differently based on privilege and pain.” Thus, the motif of seeing becomes central to the novel’s moral and emotional architecture.
2. Eyes as Windows to Emotional Truth
Throughout the novel, eyes serve as emotional indicators, capturing moments of intimacy, fear, and empathy. Roy often describes emotions through the physicality of the eyes—wide, weary, or searching—allowing readers to access the hidden interior worlds of her characters.
For instance, Rahel’s “watchful eyes” reflect her curiosity and her emotional bond with her twin brother Estha. Their shared gazes create a silent language that transcends words. The act of looking becomes a form of love and communication, particularly in a world where open expression is forbidden. Literary scholar Supriya Chaudhuri (2001) argues that Roy uses eyes to “replace speech as a vehicle of tenderness and understanding in a repressive environment.”
However, eyes also reveal pain and fear. Ammu’s eyes, often “dark and deep,” communicate her loneliness and societal marginalization as a divorced woman. Velutha’s eyes—“clear as river water”—embody innocence and unspoken resistance against caste oppression. Roy’s detailed attention to how eyes express emotion transforms vision into a poetic language of human vulnerability.
3. The Politics of Seeing: Surveillance and Social Control
Roy contrasts personal, empathetic seeing with the invasive gaze of social and institutional power. The novel’s oppressive world—marked by caste, religion, and gender restrictions—thrives on surveillance. To “be seen” by society often means to be judged, condemned, or erased.
The forbidden love between Ammu and Velutha becomes dangerous precisely because it is seen. Their private intimacy is destroyed when others witness it, exposing them to violence. This act of seeing transforms into a tool of punishment. As critic Brinda Bose (2005) notes, “Roy turns the gaze into a weapon of control that enforces moral conformity and suppresses desire.”
The police, Baby Kochamma, and other authority figures represent this oppressive gaze. Their power depends on observing and condemning what defies social norms. Thus, the motif of seeing evolves into a metaphor for social power—the capacity to define what is visible and what must remain hidden.
4. Childhood Vision and Innocent Perception
Through Estha and Rahel, Roy explores the innocent yet profound way children see the world. Their vision is free from the prejudices and hierarchies that dominate adult society. They perceive beauty in what others consider shameful or forbidden, suggesting that innocence allows for genuine moral clarity.
Children in the novel notice “small things”—gestures, colors, and sensations—that adults overlook. Their way of seeing represents an alternative ethics based on empathy rather than social order. As Elleke Boehmer (2005) argues, “Roy constructs childhood vision as an act of resistance, opposing the adult world’s rigid categorizations.”
However, this innocence is gradually corrupted. When Estha and Rahel witness the aftermath of Sophie Mol’s death and Velutha’s arrest, their sight becomes traumatic. They see truths they are too young to process, turning vision into a burden. This transition from innocent seeing to painful witnessing underscores the loss of innocence and the psychological scars of trauma.
5. Seeing as Forbidden Knowledge
The motif of seeing in The God of Small Things also reflects the danger of knowing forbidden truths. Certain acts of perception—like witnessing Ammu and Velutha’s love—are punished because they threaten social norms. Vision becomes taboo, and those who “see too much” suffer the consequences.
Velutha’s death, for example, occurs because the truth of his relationship is seen by the wrong eyes. Roy suggests that the moral panic surrounding “what is seen” reinforces social hierarchies. Knowledge, in this world, is not liberating—it is deadly. According to Padmini Mongia (1997), Roy’s portrayal of vision “reveals how patriarchal and caste systems construct visibility as a form of violence.”
This theme echoes throughout the narrative: the things that must remain unseen—love across caste lines, women’s desire, children’s trauma—expose the hypocrisy of a society built on secrecy. Seeing becomes both revelation and destruction, truth and punishment.
6. The Eye as a Mirror of Memory
In Roy’s narrative structure, seeing is linked to memory and the act of remembering. The fragmented storytelling mirrors the process of visual recollection—memories come back as images rather than linear events. The eyes, in this sense, become the archive of trauma.
Rahel’s return to Ayemenem years later is guided by her visual memories—the way light filtered through trees, the river’s reflection, and Velutha’s eyes. Her act of seeing reconnects her to the past, allowing her to process pain and rediscover identity. Scholar John Thieme (2004) notes that “Roy transforms memory into a visual landscape, where seeing the past becomes a form of reconciliation.”
Thus, seeing transcends the physical act—it becomes a psychological and spiritual process. To see is to remember, and to remember is to heal. In this context, vision functions as an instrument of emotional restoration, bridging the present with the fragments of the past.
7. The Metaphorical and Religious Dimensions of Vision
The title The God of Small Things and the motif of seeing are interwoven through religious symbolism. Eyes, in many spiritual traditions, represent divine awareness—the all-seeing presence of God. Roy, however, redefines this concept by linking it to human empathy rather than divine surveillance.
The “God of Small Things” is not a deity of punishment but of perception. He sees the invisible, the ignored, and the broken. Velutha, as a symbolic embodiment of this “God,” perceives beauty and humanity in the smallest details. His vision represents compassion, not judgment. As Mullaney (2002) explains, “Roy relocates divine sight from the heavens to the human heart, turning vision into an ethical act of recognition.”
This redefinition of seeing challenges religious hypocrisy. The institutional “eyes” of the church and the state fail to recognize love and humanity, while the humble vision of Velutha and Ammu perceives truth. Thus, vision becomes a moral compass, revealing where compassion truly resides.
8. The Dual Nature of Vision: Seeing and Being Seen
A central tension in the novel lies between the desire to see and the fear of being seen. Characters oscillate between curiosity and concealment, longing for understanding while hiding their pain.
Ammu and Velutha’s love is expressed through glances—moments of silent seeing that substitute for forbidden words. Their eyes connect across barriers of caste and gender, embodying both defiance and tenderness. Yet this intimacy collapses under the weight of exposure when others see them. Seeing, therefore, becomes both connection and destruction.
Roy portrays vision as inherently dual: it unites and divides, reveals and endangers. The characters’ struggle to control what they see—and what others see of them—reflects the novel’s larger critique of visibility and power. In Roy’s world, true vision demands courage: the courage to see truth despite the cost.
9. The Aesthetic and Narrative Role of Seeing
Roy’s prose itself mimics the act of seeing. Her narrative style—rich in imagery, detail, and fragmentation—creates a visual reading experience. The novel’s nonlinear structure mirrors the human mind’s visual memory, where images rather than words capture the essence of experience.
Her descriptions of Kerala’s landscape—the river, rain, light, and color—turn vision into a sensual form of storytelling. As Thieme (2004) observes, Roy’s “visual aesthetics transform the political into the poetic.” The recurring focus on eyes invites readers to become seers themselves—to look beyond the surface and perceive the unspoken emotions shaping the story.
Conclusion
The motif of eyes and seeing in The God of Small Things encapsulates Arundhati Roy’s exploration of perception, memory, and power. Vision in the novel operates on multiple levels—emotional, political, spiritual, and aesthetic—revealing how seeing defines both individual identity and social relations.
Roy transforms eyes into instruments of empathy and resistance, contrasting the oppressive gaze of society with the compassionate seeing of love and memory. To “see” in Roy’s world is to recognize the humanity that social systems deny. Ultimately, The God of Small Things teaches that true vision lies not in surveillance or judgment, but in the capacity to perceive and honor the fragile beauty of human experience.
References
-
Bose, Brinda. The Politics of Postcolonial Feminisms: Arundhati Roy and The God of Small Things. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005.
-
Boehmer, Elleke. Colonial and Postcolonial Literature: Migrant Metaphors. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
-
Chaudhuri, Supriya. “The Small Voice of History: The God of Small Things and the Problem of the Subaltern.” Modern Fiction Studies, 47(1), 2001.
-
Mongia, Padmini. “Postcolonial Identity and Gender in Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things.” Literary Review, 41(2), 1997.
-
Mullaney, Julie. Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things: A Reader’s Guide. London: Continuum, 2002.
-
Roy, Arundhati. The God of Small Things. London: Flamingo, 1997.
-
Thieme, John. Postcolonial Con-texts: Writing Back to the Canon. London: Continuum, 2004.