How Does Arundhati Roy Use the Concept of “Big Things” Versus “Small Things” in The God of Small Things?
Arundhati Roy employs the concept of “Big Things” versus “Small Things” in The God of Small Things as the central thematic framework that structures the entire novel and critiques social hierarchies, historical narratives, and power structures. “Big Things” represent the grand narratives of history, politics, social conventions, caste systems, and institutionalized power that society deems important and worthy of attention. “Small Things” encompass the intimate, personal, everyday moments—individual emotions, gestures, forbidden loves, and overlooked details—that society dismisses as insignificant but which ultimately shape human experience more profoundly. Roy deliberately inverts this hierarchy throughout the novel, demonstrating that the supposedly insignificant “Small Things” carry greater truth, meaning, and emotional weight than the imposing “Big Things” that dominate public discourse. This dichotomy allows Roy to critique how societies value political events and social structures over human relationships and individual suffering, while simultaneously showing how personal choices and small moments can have catastrophic consequences in rigidly structured societies.
What Do “Big Things” Represent in Roy’s Novel?
“Big Things” in The God of Small Things represent the macro-level forces that govern society—colonialism, communism, capitalism, the caste system, organized religion, and official history. These are the structures and ideologies that claim authority over people’s lives and demand reverence and obedience. Roy presents “Big Things” as abstract, impersonal forces that nonetheless exert tremendous power over individuals. The novel references India’s independence movement, communist politics in Kerala, the influence of the Syrian Christian community, and the lingering effects of British colonialism as examples of “Big Things” that shape the characters’ world (Roy, 1997). These grand narratives are what Baby Kochamma watches on television, what politicians campaign about, and what historians record in textbooks.
However, Roy’s treatment of “Big Things” is consistently ironic and critical. She suggests that these supposedly important matters often serve to obscure, justify, or perpetuate human suffering rather than alleviate it. The communist party in Kerala, despite its rhetoric of equality, does nothing to prevent Velutha’s murder or challenge caste oppression when it truly matters. The “Big Things” of political ideology collapse in the face of personal prejudice and violence. Baby Kochamma’s obsession with “Big Things” like watching American television programs or maintaining social respectability reveals how people use grand narratives to avoid confronting uncomfortable truths about themselves and their complicity in injustice (Roy, 1997). Literary scholars have noted that Roy’s critique of “Big Things” reflects postcolonial skepticism toward master narratives and official histories that erase marginalized voices and experiences (Needham, 2005). Through this representation, Roy argues that “Big Things” are often elaborate facades that mask the true mechanisms of power and oppression operating at more intimate levels.
How Are “Small Things” Defined and Valued in the Novel?
“Small Things” encompass the minute details of everyday life, personal relationships, sensory experiences, and emotional truths that official narratives overlook or dismiss as trivial. Roy fills her novel with meticulously observed “Small Things”: the way light falls through a window, the texture of a pickle, the smell of mothballs, a child’s misunderstood word, a moment of tenderness between lovers, or the particular quality of fear in a child’s eyes. These details are not mere embellishment but constitute the novel’s central concern. Roy suggests that these “Small Things” contain more authentic truth about human experience than any grand political or historical narrative (Roy, 1997). The novel’s title itself announces this priority, identifying a deity of the overlooked and undervalued rather than the officially sanctioned and celebrated.
Roy elevates “Small Things” by demonstrating their profound consequences. The twins’ seemingly small decision to visit the History House, a minor childhood rebellion, sets in motion the tragedy that destroys their family. Ammu’s small gestures of affection toward Velutha—touches, glances, meetings—transgress the “Love Laws” that regulate society and lead to his death. These “Small Things” prove far more powerful and consequential than the “Big Things” occurring in the political sphere. Critics have observed that Roy’s focus on “Small Things” represents a feminist and postcolonial literary strategy that validates domestic, emotional, and private spheres traditionally devalued in patriarchal and colonial narratives (Dhawan, 1999). By attending closely to “Small Things,” Roy rescues from obscurity the experiences of those whom “Big Things” ignore: women, children, lower-caste individuals, and anyone outside the structures of official power. The “Small Things” become a counter-narrative to dominant histories, revealing what conventional accounts leave out.
What is the Relationship Between Personal and Political in Roy’s Framework?
Roy uses the “Big Things” versus “Small Things” dichotomy to explore the complex relationship between the personal and the political, ultimately arguing that the personal is not merely political but often more politically significant than officially political matters. The novel demonstrates how intimate relationships and private choices become sites of political resistance and control in societies structured by rigid hierarchies. Ammu and Velutha’s love affair is intensely personal—motivated by genuine affection, desire, and emotional connection—yet it simultaneously constitutes a radical political act that challenges centuries of caste-based social organization. Their private relationship threatens the entire social order more effectively than any organized political movement in the novel (Roy, 1997).
Conversely, Roy shows how “Big Things” like political movements fail because they ignore the personal dimensions of oppression and liberation. The communist party in Kerala advocates for class equality but cannot overcome its members’ deep-seated caste prejudices. When Velutha needs protection from false accusations, the party leadership abandons him because protecting an untouchable who allegedly assaulted a touchable woman would be politically inconvenient. The party’s “Big Thing” ideology crumbles in the face of “Small Thing” prejudices. This failure illustrates Roy’s argument that genuine political change must address the intimate, personal levels where oppression operates most insidiously. Scholars examining Roy’s political critique note that she challenges both traditional conservatism and ostensibly progressive movements for their shared failure to recognize how power operates through personal relationships and everyday interactions (Mullaney, 2002). The “Big Things” versus “Small Things” framework thus becomes a lens for understanding how macro-level political structures depend upon and perpetuate micro-level violence and control.
How Does Roy Use “Small Things” to Critique Historical Narrative?
Roy employs “Small Things” to challenge official historical narratives and the ways societies construct collective memory. The novel presents history not as the linear progression of significant political events—the “Big Things” found in textbooks—but as a layered accumulation of personal experiences, traumas, and forgotten stories. Roy’s non-linear narrative structure mirrors this conception of history, jumping back and forth through time rather than progressing chronologically. The novel suggests that the official version of history, focused on “Big Things” like independence, political movements, and public events, fundamentally misrepresents human experience by omitting the “Small Things” that actually constitute most people’s lives (Roy, 1997).
The “History House” in the novel serves as a literal representation of this critique. Once the home of English colonizers, it stands as a monument to official history and the “Big Things” of colonial power. However, the house becomes the site where the most crucial “Small Things” of the novel unfold—the twins’ transgressive visit, Sophie Mol’s drowning, and the false accusation against Velutha. The History House thus transforms from a symbol of official narrative into a location of suppressed personal histories. Roy suggests that true history consists of these overlooked personal stories rather than the grand narratives that dominate historical consciousness. Postcolonial scholars have identified this narrative strategy as characteristic of postcolonial literature’s attempt to recover subaltern histories erased by colonial and nationalist historiography (Tickell, 2007). By privileging “Small Things” in her storytelling, Roy performs an act of historical recovery, insisting that the lives and experiences of marginalized individuals matter more than official narratives acknowledge. The novel itself becomes a counter-history that challenges readers to reconsider what deserves to be remembered and recorded.
What Role Do “Small Things” Play in Character Development?
Roy uses “Small Things” to construct psychologically complex characters whose inner lives are revealed through minute observations and gestures rather than grand actions or explicit declarations. The novel’s most important characters are defined by their relationship to “Small Things”—whether they notice them, value them, or dismiss them in favor of “Big Things.” The twins, Estha and Rahel, experience the world primarily through “Small Things”: sensory details, wordplay, small gestures, and minor events that adults overlook. Their sensitivity to “Small Things” makes them both vulnerable and perceptive, able to detect emotional truths that adults miss while simultaneously being crushed by the weight of “Big Things” they cannot understand or control (Roy, 1997).
Ammu’s character is similarly revealed through “Small Things”—her small acts of rebellion against her family, her attention to her children’s needs, her willingness to love Velutha despite knowing the consequences. These “Small Things” demonstrate her courage and humanity far more effectively than any grand gesture could. In contrast, Baby Kochamma’s obsession with “Big Things”—social status, religious propriety, political respectability—reveals her spiritual emptiness and moral bankruptcy. Her inability or unwillingness to attend to “Small Things” like the emotional needs of the twins or the humanity of Velutha marks her as the novel’s most villainous character. Critics have noted that Roy’s character development through “Small Things” reflects a feminist literary tradition that values emotional intelligence and domestic observation as forms of knowledge equal or superior to abstract intellectual pursuits (Dhawan, 1999). The “Small Things” become markers of moral worth, distinguishing characters who maintain their humanity in oppressive circumstances from those who sacrifice human connection for social advancement or ideological purity. Through this characterization strategy, Roy argues that how people treat “Small Things”—the overlooked, the vulnerable, the everyday—reveals their true nature more reliably than their relationship to “Big Things” like politics, religion, or social status.
How Does the “Love Laws” Concept Relate to “Big Things” and “Small Things”?
The “Love Laws” that Roy describes—the rules that dictate “who should be loved, and how. And how much”—represent the intersection where “Big Things” attempt to control “Small Things” (Roy, 1997, p. 33). These laws are manifestations of “Big Things” like the caste system, patriarchy, and social convention, yet they regulate the most intimate “Small Things” of human existence: affection, desire, and emotional connection. The “Love Laws” demonstrate how “Big Things” extend their power into the smallest corners of human life, attempting to govern even private feelings and personal relationships. Roy presents these laws as the most insidious form of oppression because they colonize the interior lives of individuals, making people police their own emotions and desires according to external social dictates.
However, Roy also shows that “Small Things” like genuine love can resist and transgress these laws despite the catastrophic consequences. Ammu and Velutha’s relationship violates multiple “Love Laws”—crossing caste boundaries, challenging gender norms (as Ammu initiates the relationship), and defying family authority. Their love, a “Small Thing” in the sense that it concerns only two individuals and their private feelings, becomes revolutionary precisely because it refuses to obey the “Love Laws” that maintain social hierarchy. The tragedy that results from this transgression illustrates both the power of “Small Things” to challenge “Big Things” and the violent force with which “Big Things” defend themselves against such challenges. Scholars examining Roy’s critique of social structures note that the “Love Laws” represent how hegemonic power operates not through obvious coercion but through the normalization of oppressive values that people internalize and enforce upon themselves and others (Choudhury, 2009). The concept thus reveals that the struggle between “Big Things” and “Small Things” is not external but occurs within individuals who must choose between authentic feeling and social acceptance, between the truth of “Small Things” and the demands of “Big Things.”
What is the Significance of “Small Things” in Roy’s Narrative Structure?
Roy’s narrative structure itself embodies the principle of valuing “Small Things” over “Big Things” through its attention to minute detail, non-linear chronology, and focus on seemingly peripheral events. The novel’s famous opening lines—”May in Ayemenem is a hot, brooding month”—immediately establish Roy’s commitment to the specificity of “Small Things” rather than broad generalizations (Roy, 1997, p. 1). Throughout the novel, Roy interrupts dramatic moments with detailed descriptions of insignificant objects, pauses major plot developments to explore characters’ sensory experiences, and devotes pages to apparently trivial childhood memories. This narrative strategy forces readers to slow down and attend to “Small Things” they might otherwise overlook in their search for “Big Things” like plot resolution or thematic clarity.
The non-linear structure further emphasizes the importance of “Small Things” by suggesting that the meaning of events emerges not from their chronological sequence but from their emotional and symbolic connections. Roy presents the same scenes from multiple perspectives and at different points in the narrative, adding new details each time that transform readers’ understanding. A gesture or phrase that seemed insignificant on first mention becomes weighted with meaning when encountered again with additional context. This narrative technique mirrors how memory actually works—not as a linear recording of events but as a complex web of associations where “Small Things” like smells, sounds, or images can suddenly evoke entire emotional landscapes. Literary critics have argued that Roy’s experimental narrative structure represents a postmodern challenge to traditional realist fiction’s emphasis on linear causality and comprehensive explanation, suggesting instead that truth emerges from the accumulation of fragmentary, partial, subjective experiences—the “Small Things” that conventional narratives smooth over or eliminate (Needham, 2005). By structuring her novel around “Small Things,” Roy demonstrates formally what she argues thematically: that attending closely to the overlooked and undervalued reveals more truth than focusing on what society designates as important.
Conclusion
Arundhati Roy’s deployment of the “Big Things” versus “Small Things” framework in The God of Small Things constitutes a profound critique of how societies determine value, construct narratives, and exercise power. By consistently privileging “Small Things”—personal relationships, emotional truths, sensory details, and overlooked experiences—over “Big Things” like political ideologies, social conventions, and official histories, Roy challenges readers to reconsider what truly matters in human life. The novel demonstrates that “Big Things” often serve to obscure rather than illuminate truth, to perpetuate rather than challenge oppression, and to dismiss rather than honor the experiences of marginalized individuals. Meanwhile, “Small Things” carry greater emotional authenticity, moral significance, and even political power than their designation as “small” suggests. Roy’s framework ultimately argues for a fundamental revaluation of priorities, insisting that the intimate, personal, and overlooked deserve recognition as the true substance of human existence. This thematic concern shapes every aspect of the novel, from its narrative structure to its character development to its political critique, making the “Big Things” versus “Small Things” dichotomy not merely a theme but the organizing principle of Roy’s entire artistic and political vision.
References
Choudhury, B. R. (2009). Postcolonial perspectives on The God of Small Things. Journal of Postcolonial Writing, 45(2), 217-228.
Dhawan, R. K. (1999). Arundhati Roy: The novelist extraordinary. Prestige Books.
Mullaney, J. (2002). Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things and the ethics of testimony. College Literature, 29(2), 19-39.
Needham, A. D. (2005). The God of Small Things: Arundhati Roy’s postcolonial cosmopolitanism. Journal of Commonwealth Literature, 40(1), 73-89.
Roy, A. (1997). The God of Small Things. Random House.
Tickell, A. (2007). Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things. Routledge.