The representation of the female labor force within patriarchal frameworks and the politics of sexual intimacy in Arundhati Roy’s the God of small things
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71085/sss.04.01.231Keywords:
Female labor force, Symbolic annihilation, Patriarchy and power dynamics, Gender stereotypes in literature, Sexual politics and agencyAbstract
This paper examines the representation of the female labor force in The God of Small Things, analyzing both women engaged in professional workplaces and those running small enterprises from home. The study investigates whether Indian women are depicted as diverse and multifaceted, reflecting real-life complexities, or whether they are portrayed through stereotypical lenses as victims, incompetent, and unskilled. Grounded in Gaye Tuchman’s concept of symbolic annihilation, the analysis focuses on revealing trivialization, omission and condemnation of working women; it also incorporates Kate Millett’s ideas from Sexual Politics to explore patriarchal power dynamics in intimate heterosexual relationships. The findings reveal that most women hold low-paying, subordinate positions with no authority, making them vulnerable to instability in their life. Women in the novel exhibit little interest in education, prioritizing marriage, romance, and courtship instead. Even Mammachi, the only financially independent female character, lacks control over her own life and remains subjected to her husband’s dominance and violence. Additionally, the study highlights how sexual intimacy in the novel is intricately linked to power, with women feeling more empowered when their male partners occupy a lower social or cultural status.
Downloads
References
Belsey, C. (1991). Making histories then and now: Shakespeare from Richard II to Henry V. Uses of history: Marxism, postmodernism and the Renaissance, 24-46.
Chakravarty, R. (2008). Feminism and contemporary women writers: Rethinking subjectivity. Routledge.
Clarke, L. H., & Griffin, M. (2008). Visible and invisible aging: Beauty work as a response to ageism. Ageing and Society, 28(5), 653-674. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X07007003
Daniels, E. A., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2016). The Price of Sexy: Viewers’ Perceptions of a Sexualized Versus Nonsexualized Facebook Profile Photograph. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(1), 2–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000048
Diaz Andrade, A., Tarafdar, M., Davison, R. M., Hardin, A., Techatassanasoontorn, A. A., Lowry, P. B., ... & Schwabe, G. (2023). The importance of theory at the Information Systems Journal.
Doyle, S. P., Polin, B., Kim, S., Lewicki, R. J., & Chawla, N. (2023). Sorry to ask but … how is apology effectiveness dependent on apology content and gender? Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001128.
Emerson, R. A. (2002). “Where My Girls at?”: Negotiating Black Womanhood in Music Videos. Gender & Society, 16(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243202016001007
England, P., Budig, M., & Folbre, N. (2002). Wages of virtue: The relative pay of care work. Social Problems, 49(4), 455–473. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2002.49.4.455
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). Objectification theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly.
Gill, R., & Orgad, S. (2018). The shifting terrain of sex and power: From the ‘sexualization of culture’ to #MeToo. Sexualities, 21(8), 1313–1324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460718794647
Hurd Clarke, L., & Korotchenko, A. (2011). Aging and the body: A review. Canadian Journal on Aging, 30(3), 495-510. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0714980811000280
Jejeebhoy, S. J. (1998). Women's education, autonomy, and reproductive behaviour: Experience from developing countries. Clarendon Press.
Karlsson, N., Lila, M., Gracia, E., & Wemrell, M. (2021). Representation of intimate partner violence against women in Swedish news media: A discourse analysis. Violence Against Women, 27(10), 1499–1524. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220940403
Kilbourne, J. (1999). Can’t Buy My Love: How Advertising Changes the Way We Think and Feel. Simon & Schuster.
Lachance-Grzela, M., & Bouchard, G. (2010). Why do women do the lion’s share of housework? A decade of research. Sex Roles, 63(11–12), 767-780. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9797-z
McNay, L. (1992). Foucault and feminism: Power, gender and the self. Polity Press.
Millet, K. (2000). Sexual politics. Garden City, University of Illinois Press.
Najeeb, F., Morales, M., & Lopez-Acevedo, G. (2020). Analyzing female employment trends in South Asia (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 9157). World Bank. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/33384
Roy, A. (1998). The God of small things. Flamingo.
Stamarski, C. S., & Hing, L. S. (2015). Gender inequalities in the workplace: The effects of organizational structures, processes, practices, and decision makers' sexism. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1400. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01400
Tiggemann, M., & Slater, A. (2013). The Internet, Facebook, and body image concern in adolescent girls. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 46(6), 630–633. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22141
Wolf, N. (1991). The beauty myth: How images of beauty are used against women. William Morrow and Company.
Wolf, N. (2002). The beauty myth: How images of beauty are used against women. Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
Downloads
Published
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Munaza Akhter, Dr. Umar -ud- Din (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
