2022 IB Diploma Extended Essays

International Baccalaureate Diploma Program

EXTENDED ESSAYS - 2022 Please ... Feel free to browse and read through the full extended essays of our 202 2 Year 12 IB Diploma students.

1. Amaani Bhasin 2. Marc Hagan 3. Isabel Van Der Walt 4. Jasmin Titze 5. Jennifer Yeung 6. Kay Amores 7. Patrick Abdel-Malek 8. Shromm Gaind 9. Xiaoxiao Wang

Language A: Literature Language A: Literature Language A: Literature Ph ysics WorldStudies (Health) Chemistry World Studies (Health) Computer Science Language A: Literature

International Baccalaureate Diploma Program

THE EXTENDED ESSAY WHAT IS THE

IB DIPLOMA PROGRAM?

The International Baccalaureate® (IB) Diploma Programme (DP) is an assessed programme for students aged16 to 19. It is respectedby leading universitiesacross the globe.Somerset offers the IBDP as an alternative to the Queensland Certificate of Education in Years 11 and 12. Through the DP, we aim to develop students who: - have excellent breadth and depth of knowledge - flourish physically, intellectually, emotionally & ethically - study at least two languages - excel in traditional academic subjects - explore the nature of knowledge through the programme’s unique theory of knowledge course.

THE IB DIPLOMA PROGRAMME CURRICULUM The DP curriculum is made up of six subject groups and the DP core, comprising theory of knowledge (TOK), creativity, activity, service (CAS) and the extended essay. Through the DP core, students reflect on the nature of knowledge, complete independent research and undertake a project that often

WHAT IS THE EXTENDED ESSAY?

involves community service.

The extended essay is an independent, self- directed piece of research, finishing with a 4,000-word paper.

THE EXTENDED ESSAY PROVIDES:

One component of the International Baccalaureate® (IB) Diploma Programme (DP) core, the extended essay is mandatory for all students.

Practical preparation for undergraduate research an opportunity for students to investigate a topic of special interest to them, which is also related to one of the student's six DP subjects. Through the research process for the extended essay, students develop skills in: -formulating an appropriate research question -engaging in a personal exploration of the topic -communicating ideas -developing an argument.

Participation in this process develops the capacity to analyse, synthesize and evaluate knowledge.

IB Diploma Programme

Extended Essay

Topic: A study of the character Medea in Medea by Euripides and Medea by Mike Bartlett

Research Question: To what extent does the production of the plays Medea by Euripides and Medea by Mike Bartlett reflect society’s perception of the expectations of women in the different social contexts of the time periods?

Word Count: 3984 words (excluding bibliography and in-text referencing)

Session: November

Candidate Number: HYV631

IB Subject: English: Literature A Category 2

2

Table of Contents Extended Essay .........................................................................................................................1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Medea as a Character....................................................................................................................... 4 Societal Expectations of Medea ..................................................................................................... 10 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 15 References and Bibliography......................................................................................................... 16

3

Introduction Throughout history, playwrights have recognised that strong women regularly rebelled against their societal patriarchal constraints. Since it was first performed in 431BC, there has been conjecture whether Euripides intended his play, Medea , to advocate feminism or misogyny. Mambrol argues that in shocking the audience with a female lead, Euripides intended the play to be encourage feminism: “Euripides violates its audience’s most cherished gender and moral illusions” (Mambrol, 2020). Conversely, Messing reasons that Medea encouraged society to question prevailing beliefs “at the expense of women, not in their support” (Messing, 2009), as Euripides’ plays have encouraged greater scorn and suspicion of females by society. In 2012, playwright Mike Bartlett adapted Euripides’ Medea , into a play also titled Medea , and placed Medea’s character in the twenty-first century in order to better understand how society would react to Medea’s situation in this time period. In both plays, the protagonist Medea behaves in a stereotypically ‘masculine’ manner, steadfastly refusing to give into any cowardice, rather demonstrating anger and bravery towards Jason’s betrayal. Whilst the production of the plays, Medea by Euripides and Medea by Mike Bartlett reflect society’s perception of women in the different social contexts of the time periods, each version accomplishes this to varying degrees. For instance, in the original Medea, Euripides’ controversial stance of his protagonist behaving unexpectedly controversial stance of his protagonist behaving unexpectedly to what was expected of women of his time, may have been an effort to humanise Medea to appear to be not only a woman, but a human being with all the requisite emotions. Contrarily, the modern version of the play does not reach that level of controversy, because whilst women still struggle against patriarchal expectations, have greater legal freedom to react to their problems.

4

This essay will answer the question ‘To what extent does the production of the plays Medea by Euripides and Medea by Mike Bartlett reflect society’s perception of the expectations of women in the different social contexts of the time periods?’. This research question was chosen, as both Medeas are treated differently by their relative societies, despite both making the same choices in both plays. The choice of these two plays allows for a comparison of how literature reflects societal changes over time, whether those be for the better or worse. The production of each play, in regard to its characters, dialogue, relationships and stage directions, is a direct reflection of the biases of their playwrights, who are a product of their socio-cultural context. This is clearly seen through the management of the societal expectations placed on both Medea characters, as Euripides’ and Bartlett’s plays uncover the similarities and differences between the two time periods. The emancipation of women across history does not necessarily follow a linear timeline and the chorus’ reactions to Medea’s actions in both plays imitate the societal change since 431BC. The expectations that the chorus and other characters placed on Medea, in the areas of her relationship with Jason, her emotions and whether she was rational or insane, are accurate reflections of society’s perception of women in the different social contexts of the time periods, and these areas will be analysed in the following essay. Medea as a Character Contextually, the plays are set in times with very different political and social statuses of women. In Ancient Greece, women had virtually no legal and political rights compared to their male counterparts, and their social status varied depending on marriage. All women were expected to marry, and there was no role in society for single women, which made Medea’s lone escape at the end of Euripides’ play all the more shocking to its audience. Currently, women have roughly 75% of the legal rights of men (Trumbic, 2020). Socially,

5

there are many constraints placed on women in the expectations of their relationships and emotions. Euripides’ Medea is a noblewoman in a position of relative power, despite her gender, as she has religious connections and is generally feared as she is considered a witch. On the other hand, Bartlett’s Medea is ‘freer’ in the nominal sense of the word, yet she is constrained by her social class, financial status, and societal expectations. Both Euripides and Bartlett reveal Medea’s freedoms and constraints through her relationship with other characters in the plays, particularly the chorus. Ancient Greek literature often provide insight into the attitudes of particular authors towards women. In the process, the playwright reveals their own ideals regarding women, so they are often not a true representation of the life of an average woman in the time period (Pomeroy, 1975). In the case of Euripides, Medea’s character was his perception of how women should behave and be treated. In the modern version of the play, Medea is seen as loathsome, through the reactions of other characters to Medea’s actions, as Medea receives virtually no support or empathy while she is experiencing anger at her husband’s actions (Mambrol, 2020). In both plays, Medea steadfastly refuses to welcome cowardly emotions, instead displaying anger, a stereotypically masculine emotion (Allard & Montlahuc, 2018). Medea entirely embodies the anger that would be expected of a man. The only occasions where Medea displays sadness, jealousy or cowardice, typical ‘feminine’ emotions, she does so before other characters as part of her plan to convince society she is weak, in order to exact her revenge on Jason and his bride. Both Medeas also experience a fleeting sense of remorse whilst considering the vengeful murder of their children. This brief moment evokes feelings of sympathy in the audience for Medea, despite the horrid nature of her crime. Bartlett retells

6

this moment from the original play, as he also intended for Medea to be somewhat vindicated. Medea’s murder of her son in the modern adaptation is entirely without dialogue, and in the script, Bartlett gave the directions, “ She panics. Is nearly sick. ... Medea follows with the knife. ” (Act 5, Scene 1). This brief flash of Medea’s maternal nature emphasises a key aim of Euripides’ Medea : to propose the paradigm of role reversal. Cowardice was considered to be an intrinsically feminine emotion in Ancient Greece, and this is evidenced in many classic Greek plays. In his play Alcestis , Euripides had Admetus declare that cowardice is incompatible with the status of a socially respectable man (Euripides, 1884). Through Medea overcoming her cowardice by murdering her children, she contradicts the stereotypical gender roles of the time, and embodies emotions stereotypically masculine emotions. Euripides’ Medea monologizes and doubts her ability to murder her own children. Near the end of her monologue, she asks herself, “Did I actually let myself be influenced by such cowardly thoughts?” (lines 1052-3), further stressing the paradigm of gendered role reversal and evoking a sense of understanding of Medea’s actions in both plays. She is not some cold-hearted being incapable of feeling basic human emotions but is fundamentally human – regarding her emotions – and should be treated to the same judgement as any man. One difference between Euripides’ and Bartlett’s Medeas is their degree of separation from their societies. The original Medea expresses solidarity with the chorus members, whereas Bartlett’s Medea has a tense relationship with Sarah and Pam (her modern chorus). Bartlett’s Medea is fundamentally isolated, elucidating her character’s unpredictability. The audience does not feel the inevitability of events in the modern play, as Medea’s plans are unknown to all characters, including Medea, until the final scene. Additionally, due to her unpredictability, Medea is portrayed as more insane than rational in the modern adaptation. This is a productional aspect of both plays representing the importance of social status during

7

the socio-cultural contexts of the plays. In both time periods, a woman with no social standing, either through her marriage in Euripides’ time or as an outsider in Bartlett’s time, was neglected by society and left alone with their problems. Euripides’ choice to make Medea a member of upper class society allowed his audience to relate, to some degree, to her situation. He would have been unable to spread his message across as wide an audience, had Medea been less socially powerful. Due to this, Medea was able to divulge her plans with the chorus members as they were beneath her and would have been unable to action against her. Bartlett chose to make Medea a member of middle class society, as that was his audience, enabling a true perspective of the way society would react to Medea, even if she had not murdered her child. Euripides’ Medea is characterised as rational, despite the horrific, murderous nature of her actions. This rationality is disclosed throughout the play, as Medea pre-plans the murder, and reasons with Jason, establishing why she felt justified in exacting her vengeance through murder. Due to Medea’s rationality in the original play, her character appears contradictory to the audience as, near the beginning of the play, Medea reasons that, “any man of good sense should never have his children taught to be unusually clever... I myself have fallen victim to this misfortune” (294-302). The imagery of Medea ‘falling victim’ to rational reasoning characterises her intellect as her greatest flaw. Her inability to separate reason from emotion, due to her being raised to be clever, inevitably leads to her decision to murder her children. Euripides blatantly foreshadows and informs the audience of the ending of the play from the first scene; however there is still an aspect of suspense throughout as they are positioned to attempt to justify Medea’s actions. The subtle implication that her rational nature of thought – which she ‘fell victim’ to as a result of her parents who were not of ‘good sense’ – was the reason she was unable to listen to her emotions telling her not to kill her children, Euripides

8

convinces his audience that Medea’s actions were out of her control, and thus, justified. This juxtaposes her cleverness being an aspect of herself that she despises due to its negative implications in society, and clearly portrays Medea as intelligent, despite her gender.

Conversely, Bartlett portrays his Medea as slightly unhinged, as Medea appears to kill her son, Tom, on an impulse and only briefly hesitates before murdering him. The audience is not given rational explanations in the final scene from Medea, rather she is depicted as wild, frantic, and axe-wielding, standing over her son’s mutilated corpse, on top of her burning house. The violent insanity portrayed in this scene through the ludicrous choice of music, religious pleas and long emotive monologue, departs from Euripides’ Medea , as the modern Medea is more insane, rather than rationalised and vindicated. A review of the production of Medea considered the implications of this departure from rationality to insanity for whether Medea’s character should be considered a sinner or sinned against (Anon., 2012). Another difference between the two Medeas is their social statuses in the two plays. In the original, Medea is of noble ranking, as all Ancient Greek heroes had to be of noble ranking in order for the audience to relate to the character’s plight (Roomland, 2022). As a result of her class, she is granted the attention of the chorus and is able to share her plans without fear of being hindered. The chorus is free to share their opinions, yet have no power compared to Medea, as she maintains a higher status. Many attempts are made by the chorus, to convince Medea not to go murder her son, yet they are expressed as appeals and requests, rather than demands. The chorus simultaneously uses rational appeals to Medea’s logos and personal appeals to her ethos, by posing the question, “How, then, shall the city of sacred streams or the land so hospitable to friends give you a home, the killer of your children, the unholy one who would live among them?” (lines 848-850). This causes Medea to pause, as she

9

recognises the logic behind their words; she would be unable to find support if she murdered her own children. She is also personally affected by their argument that she be considered ‘unholy’ of living in this ‘sacred’ and ‘hospitable’ city because of her actions. Her noble status means that the chorus is unable to stop her, yet continuously attempt to dissuade her by appealing to her reasoning and further emphasising that Euripides’ Medea placed a heavier emphasis on logic and rationality than emotions. Alternatively, Bartlett’s Medea is fundamentally alone throughout the play. Due to her newcomer status and her average economic circumstances, she is isolated and ostracised by other characters such as Pam and Carter. Her isolation results in her inability to divulge her plans to others, and Bartlett instead subtly foreshadows Medea’s murder of her son, throughout the play. In act one, Sarah drops Tom off at Medea’s house and mentions to Pam that she is “never sure about leaving her with... ( She means Tom . ) I’m never sure about leaving them on their own.” (Act 1, Scene 2). The use of ellipses and pauses in the script and the unspecific movement direction which could be portrayed to the audience in many ways, denotes Medea’s isolation from these characters. She is feared and misunderstood by all of the other characters in the play, and this inevitably causes her to murder Tom. Through this foreshadowing, Bartlett effectively illustrates how Medea’s isolation is a potential cause of her insanity. This is unlike Euripides’ Medea, whose rationality allows for her actions to be justified, at least to herself. The modern Medea is entirely alone, and Bartlett utilises foreshadowing, along with her low social class, to provide ample evidence that Medea is slowly reaching the level of insanity and irrationality that allowed her to murder her child.

10

Societal Expectations of Medea Relationships

In Ancient Greece, and now, women are expected to behave in particular ways regarding their spouses in public and private. During Euripides’ time, religion dictated many relationships. Men and women of the time strove to emulate Zeus and Hera’s “perfect” (Cartwright, 2016). Upper class women were strictly forbidden from associating with men other than their husbands, whilst most men at the time were polyamorous, reflecting Zeus’ many lovers and Hera’s faithfulness. Despite this, it was considered to be a betrayal of the oaths of marriage if a man was to marry another woman. Particularly in the case of Medea and Jason, where Medea betrayed her family, and saved Jason’s life, yet Jason still betrayed her. Medea and other characters in Euripides’ play were justifiably outraged by Jason’s actions. At one point, Medea declares, “wrong a woman in love and nothing on earth has a heart more murderous” (lines 263-264). This paradoxical imagery of a woman, who is stereotypically timid, being murderous and vengeful, allows the audience to sympathise with Medea as the betrayal of marital oaths was condemned. Medea’s long monologue, ending with this powerful statement, is a representation of the expectations of men in relationships, and the expectations of a woman’s response to her husband’s actions. Oaths were sacred for all genders in Ancient Greece. Medea is vindicated in her anger, a typically masculine emotion, by the leader of the chorus, who replies to Medea’s monologue with, "It is just that you should take revenge upon your husband. Your grief at what has happened to you causes me no surprise." (lines 267-268). The chorus challenges the ancient stereotype of women being ‘cowardly’ and ‘timid’, by allowing the importance of oaths to transcend the gender confines of the society. In exonerating Medea’s anger, Euripides reveals that the gendered expectations in relationships, particularly of women, were not above their religion.

11

While there is some stigma regarding divorce in modern society, it is a much more accessible possibility for everyone. In the United Kingdom, divorce rates were approximately 42% in 2021 (Atanasovska, 2021). As a result of this normalisation of divorce, society is less opposed to breaking marriage oaths and there is an expectation for everyone, especially women, to accept the events and move on. In Bartlett’s adaptation, Jason responds to Medea’s anger with, “This reaction has become predictable and dull. It’s going on too long.... they can’t see why you haven’t put it behind you. Why you’re still stuck here.” (Act 2, Scene 1). Bartlett also utilises stage directions for Jason’s character, to indicate that Jason is ‘ bored of this ’, ‘this’ being Medea’s tears and accusations. The characterisation of Jason as ‘bored’, through his facial expression and his brusque change from pretending to be sympathetic to revealing his accusatory beliefs, delineates that in current society, women are expected to quickly move past their divorces. Medea is expected ignore her emotions and accept her situation as is. Furthermore, Jason generalises society through his vague use of the collective pronoun ‘they’, when referring to other people’s thoughts on Medea. Without specifying who he is referring to, Jason implies that the entirety of society expects Medea, the woman, to simply accept her situation and move on. In the words of Fisher, “in these 21st-century terms, [Medea] is being over the top and [Jason is] right to protest. At such moments, the play becomes a soap-opera episode about a woman reacting badly to a messy divorce.” (Fisher, 2012). This review of Medea encapsulates societal reactions to the character of Medea, and the expectations placed on her regarding her marital relationship. She is constantly told by Jason, his friends, and others, that she should cease complaining about Jason’s actions and focus on herself. This invokes an understanding of Medea’s loneliness, caused by the expectations placed on her by society, starkly contrasting Euripides’ Medea, whose fuming reaction to Jason’s betrayal was accepted by a considerable portion of society, as oaths were more important than modern gendered expectations of acceptance. Bartlett’s society valued

12

their expectations of Medea to move past what happened more than the oaths between Jason and Medea. This could stem from the religious beliefs of society in Ancient Greece, whereas, currently in the United Kingdom, over half of Britons say they do not belong to any religion (Dinic, 2020), and the remaining 45% belong to many different religions. Due to these clashes of belief systems in Bartlett’s Medea , her society instead values the gendered nature of its individuals. Emotions Ancient Greece had a bipartite gendered division of emotions, where men were expected to only express anger and bravery, and women were expected to sadness, jealousy and cowardice. This stems from the way the Ancients did not separate emotions from reason, and reasoned that men and women were entirely different, and so must experience different emotions (Allard & Montlahuc, 2018). Allard and Montlahuc stressed the importance of understanding that it was not the emotions themselves which were gendered, but rather the way they were expressed or how they were dealt with by Greek society (Allard & Montlahuc, 2018). Through the emotions experienced by Medea, Euripides attempts to reverse the stereotypical gender roles of the characters, by allowing Medea to express more externalising negative emotions such as anger and bravery. Medea expresses feelings of anger towards Jason throughout the entire play, referring to him as an ‘unspeakable wretch’ (line 467) and ‘unfeeling monster’ (line 489). Euripides only challenges these gender stereotypes to a particular degree, as he still enables Medea to experience the sadness and cowardice of a stereotypical woman of the time, qualifying Medea as neither man nor woman, simply as a human being. Upon deciding to murder of her children, Medea has a lengthy monologue

13

where she argues with herself and changes her mind many times mid-monologue. Medea asks herself, “In bringing suffering on them to cause their father pain, why should I bring twice as much suffering on myself?”, coming to the conclusion, “No, I shall not do it.” (lines 1045-1049). Immediately after this decision she again changes her mind: “And yet what is the matter with me? ... To think I could have been so weak! Did I actually let myself be influenced by such cowardly thoughts?” (lines 1049-1053). The repetitive use of self reflective rhetorical questions in Medea’s entire monologue, positions the audience to understand that Medea is essentially questioning her emotions, and by extension of that, her society’s gendered emotional stereotypes. In referring to her feminine emotions as ‘weak’ and ‘cowardly’, she insults her entire gender, and defies the expectations of women in her position, placing her as the man or ‘hero’ of the story. She eventually comes to the conclusion: “I am well aware how terrible a crime I am about to commit, but my passion is master of my reason, passion that causes the greatest suffering in the world” (lines 1078 1080), indicating that she is simultaneously experiencing anger, suffering, and reasoning. Euripides utilised this dramatic conclusion to Medea’s monologue to build tension within the audience, as they were bluntly confronted with the notion that women are able to experience the same emotions as men, as well as the emotions they already experience. Euripides essentially blurred the lines between the genders in regard to their management of emotions. Through Medea’s constant changes of mind, and the reactions of other characters to her emotions, Euripides advocates that despite the Ancient Greek perception of women to be timid and cowardly, they could experience as many emotions as any other human being.

There is a parallel between the two plays, regarding the treatment of Medea’s angry and vindictive emotions. It is revealed through Medea’s monologue, where she verbalises increasingly gruesome scenarios of Jason and his fiancée’s (Kate’s) death, in both Euripides’

14

and Bartlett’s plays. Ironically, Bartlett’s Medea believes herself to be magic, which is an outrageous claim for modern times, where society understands the world through a realist perspective, whilst in Ancient times, magic and Gods were more openly spoken about. Bartlett’s Medea, in a fit of anger, reveals to Pam that she can use her ‘magic’ to have Jason and Kate murdered. The scenarios which Medea describes in the modern play are almost identical to the original play, implying that by placing Medea in a modern setting, her anger towards Jason’s actions did not diminish or increase, from the original. Furthermore, in both plays, Medea graphically enumerates all of the ways she could commit murder, which highlights the true extent of her anger. Despite the patriarchal stereotypes, Medea is a character who experiences anger, sadness and bravery in both plays, demonstrating that Euripides and Bartlett believed that women could experience all typically male and female emotions. The reactions of other characters to their murderous fantasies constructs the extent to which the productions of the two plays reflect society’s perception of women in the two time periods. Pam’s shocked and horrified, ‘ What? ’ in response to Medea’s monologue marginalises Medea’s angry emotions as being atypical for women in her position, in the social context of Bartlett’s play. On the other hand, in Euripides’ play, the chorus feels vindicated by and acceptive of Medea’s murderous intent, they claim that thanks to Medea, “no more shall we women endure the burden of ill-repute” (lines 420-421). Bartlett’s productional choice to have Medea by marginalised by her society, directly contradicting the acceptance that Medea received by characters in Euripides play confronts the audience with the notion that the social expectations of women have not necessarily improved over time.

15

Conclusion Through the expectations placed on the character Medea in both productions of Medea , and the verbal interactions between Medea and the chorus in Euripides’ play and the conversations between Medea and Pam and Sarah in Bartlett’s play, both playwrights are able to effectively reflect their society’s perception and expectations of women through their productions of the play. The impact of chorus’ reactions to Medea’s relationships and emotions, is bolstered by other literary devices employed by the playwrights, such as lengthy versus short monologues, and graphic imagery. Additionally, the paradigm of role reversal confronted the relative audiences of the plays with their patriarchal expectations of the feminine role to be weak and subservient to the male gender, providing an insight into the social constraints of the relative time periods. Furthermore, the similarities between the gendered management of emotions in Ancient Greece and modern times are revealed through the similarities between the emotions felt by Euripides’ and Bartlett’s Medea. Ultimately, the production of the plays Medea by Euripides and Medea by Mike Bartlett reflect their relative society’s perceptions of women through the contradiction of Medea’s character compared to a stereotypical women. Both Euripides and Bartlett accurately reflect the gendered expectations of their relative time periods, in the areas of a woman’s marital relations and her emotions.

16

References and Bibliography Allard, J.-N. & Montlahuc, P., 2018. The Gendered Construction of Emotions in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Women, Gender, History, I(47), pp. 23-44. Anon., 2012. Mike Bartlett’s Medea (after Euripides): some thoughts. [Online] Available at: https://thelyreandthelexicon.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/mike-bartletts-medea after-euripides-some-thoughts/ [Accessed 30 April 2022]. Atanasovska, B., 2021. UK Divorce Statistics to Keep You Engaged in 2021. [Online] Available at: https://dontdisappoint.me.uk/resources/lifestyle/divorce-statistics-uk/ [Accessed 27 May 2022]. Bartlett, M., 2012. Euripides Medea, a Version by Mike Bartlett. 7th Edition ed. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Cartwright, M., 2016. Women in Ancient Greece. World History Encyclopedia , 27 July. Dinic, M., 2020. How religious are British people?. [Online] Available at: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2020/12/29/how-religious are-british-people [Accessed 1 June 2022]. Euripides, 1884. Alcestis. 2nd Edition ed. Cambridge: Clarendon Press. Euripides, 1996. Medea and Other Plays. 3rd Edition ed. London: Penguin Group. Fisher, M., 2012. Medea - Review. [Online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2012/oct/03/medea-review [Accessed 2 May 2022]. Mambrol, N., 2020. Analysis of Euripides’ Medea. [Online] Available at: https://literariness.org/2020/07/13/analysis-of-euripides-medea/ [Accessed 30 April 2022]. MasterClass Staff, 2022. Guide to the Greek Chorus. [Online] Available at: https://www.masterclass.com/articles/greek-chorus-guide [Accessed 4 June 2022]. Messing, A., 2009. Protofeminist or Misogynist? Medea as a case study of gendered discourse in Euripidean drama. s.l., Research Gate. Pomeroy, S., 1975. Goddesses, Whores, Wives and Slaves. 1st Edition ed. London: Random House. Roomland, C., 2022. 7 Characteristics of Epic Heroes: Summary and Analysis. [Online] Available at: https://www.ancient-literature.com/characteristics-of-epic-heroes/ [Accessed 4 June 2022]. Trumbic, T., 2020. How have women’s legal rights evolved over the last 50 years?. [Online] Available at: https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/how-have-womens-legal-rights-evolved over-last-50-years [Accessed 2 May 2022].

An Exploration of Culture within Post-Colonialist Indian Society

Research Question: How does Arundhati Roy explore the impacts of cultural values on the lives of individuals in ‘The God of Small Things’?

Subject: Language A Literature Word Count: 3999

How does Arundhati Roy explore the impacts of cultural values on the lives of individuals in ‘The God of Small Things’?

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3

Part 1: Kerala’s Changing Society ...........................................................................................5

Part 2: ‘Love Laws’ and the Search for Human Connection .................................................9

Part 3: Collective Trauma and Colonisation .........................................................................12

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 15

References ...............................................................................................................................16

2

How does Arundhati Roy explore the impacts of cultural values on the lives of individuals in ‘The God of Small Things’?

Introduction

‘The God of Small Things’ takes place against the backdrop of the 1947 Partition of the Indian Subcontinent; set in 1969, the novel tackles the issues of postcolonialism and the rise of communism in Kerala. Throughout the novel, Arundhati Roy explores the impacts of both traditional and colonialist cultural values on individuals, by illuminating the effects of major socio-political issues on the lives of characters. Through this exploration, Roy illuminates the intersection of cultural values with post-colonialism, communism and tourism, representative of Kerala’s changing society. Roy specifically highlights how authoritative powers dictate the lives of the twins, Estha and Rahel, through language, and the life of Velutha, through the traditional Indian caste system. Furthermore, Roy establishes how the caste system restricts love within Keralan society. This particularly impacts Velutha and Ammu, as they only find salvation through defying the ‘Love Laws’. Ultimately, Roy reveals that trauma has become normalised in Keralan society, due to the impacts of colonisation on societal values. The specific effects of society’s collective trauma are explored through inability of the twins to heal from their shared traumatic experiences. The methodology used for this investigation was a close reading of the text, followed by critical secondary research into the context of the novel, and academic articles on the novel itself. By first conducting a close reading of the novel, initial ideas on key themes and techniques implemented by Roy to fulfill her artistic intention, and the effects of these techniques on the reader, were illuminated. Then, through secondary research, these initial ideas were contextualised and expanded upon, through the understanding and implementation of specific literary theories used by academics in the field. In particular, Post-Colonialist Theory allowed me to understand how Roy sheds light on issues previously unexplored in the Western canon

3

How does Arundhati Roy explore the impacts of cultural values on the lives of individuals in ‘The God of Small Things’? of literature, through exploring colonialism from an Indian perspective, rather than a British perspective. Additionally, Trauma Theory provided insight into the construction of trauma within the novel, and how this impacts the reader. ‘The God of Small Things’ is important to analyse, as Roy provides numerous insights into the ways people are affected by the major social and political issues in Keralan society during 1969. I chose to focus my research question on cultural values, as although Roy discusses many socio-political issues in her novel, her discussion of these issues arises primarily from an analysis of cultural values. My research question focuses specifically on the lives of individuals, as while, for example, the structure of the novel is interesting, and provides insight into Roy’s intention, the real value of the novel to society as a whole is how Roy utilises characterisation to create empathy for tragic characters, allowing for specific, individual struggles within society to be illuminated.

4

How does Arundhati Roy explore the impacts of cultural values on the lives of individuals in ‘The God of Small Things’?

Part 1: Kerala’s Changing Society

Within Indian society, the effects of postcolonialism are felt through the perpetuation of colonialist cultural values. Roy highlights the effects of postcolonialism through the English language, and how this impacts the lives of the twins as individuals. Whenever the twins speak in their native language, Malayalam, Baby Kochamma makes them “write lines – ‘impositions’ she called them – I will always speak in English. I will always speak in English. ” (36). The fact that the request to speak in English is phrased as a command, as well as the negative connotation of ‘impositions’, highlights Baby Kochamma’s authoritative methods, and thus how the twins see the use of the English language as a command that must be followed, lest they incur punishment. By exploring the impacts of the English language specifically on the twins, Roy implies that the adoption of the English language into Indian society as a whole is an imposition. The fact that Baby Kochamma has experienced colonialist oppression throughout her own lifetime additionally creates an inherent irony, as Baby Kochamma’s own punishment of the twins directly mirrors the actions of said colonialist power, demonstrating to the reader how the citizens of Kerala have internalised English colonialist attitudes. Thus, Roy emphasises how colonialist values shape cultural values in Keralan society, impacting the lives of the twins. Furthermore, although the novel is written in English, Roy utilises certain Malayalam phrases, and translates them into English for the reader, such as when Estha is remembering Sophie Mol’s death and he hears the song of the Onam boatrace: “ Enda da korangacha, chandi ihra thenjadu? (Hey Mr Monkey man, why’s your bum so red?)” (196). However, as the song continues, Roy no longer chooses to translate the lyrics into English for the reader: “Theeyome Thithome Tharaka Thithome Theem” (197). By discontinuing this translation, the reader’s suspension of disbelief is broken, confronting them with the fact that their understanding of the novel has been manufactured, as they can only understand

5

How does Arundhati Roy explore the impacts of cultural values on the lives of individuals in ‘The God of Small Things’? Malayalam through the lens of Roy’s translations. The narration surrounding the untranslated lyrics is in a stream of consciousness style, juxtaposing the lyrics themselves, which are formally formatted, with indentation and each new lyric being on a new line. This positions the reader to feel unsettled by the insertion of these lyrics, and therefore uncomfortable with the lack of translation. Ultimately, this demonstrates to the reader that by only understanding the lyrics through the translation, the reader does not actually understand the lyrics at all, as they are unable to comprehend the cultural intricacies of the lyrics, and by extension Malayalam as a whole. By showing the reader the ease at which they can become alienated from the novel, simply through a lack of understanding of Malayalam, Roy demonstrates how the characters themselves, specifically the twins, can become alienated from their own culture, by being forced to adopt the English language, and by extension colonialist values. Overall, Roy develops the motif of the English language as an extension of colonialist cultural values, to explore how postcolonialism leads to a loss of traditional culture, preventing the freedom of the twins, as individuals within Indian society. Additionally, authoritative forces can use traditional beliefs to restrict the agency of individuals. Roy depicts the rising influence of communism, another aspect of Kerala’s changing society, to demonstrate the detrimental effects of the caste system on Velutha’s life. Throughout the novel, Comrade Pillai represents the influence of communism, as he is the leader of the Communist Party in Kerala. Velutha is a member of the Paravan people, who are considered to be outside of the traditional Indian caste system, and are thus ‘Untouchables’. Therefore, when Pillai tells Chacko to “send [Velutha] off” (278), as he believes “these caste issues are very deep-rooted” (278), he is discriminating against Velutha based on his caste, despite the ideals of communism suggesting that Pillai should be pursuing equality within society. This implies to the reader that Pillai only cares about his political power, and not the

6

How does Arundhati Roy explore the impacts of cultural values on the lives of individuals in ‘The God of Small Things’? values of communism, as he believes getting rid of Velutha would garner him support. In the article ‘Reading Arundhati Roy Politically’, Aijaz Ahmad criticises Roy’s representation of communism within Kerala, stating that she “dismisses the actually constituted field of politics as either irrelevant or a zone of bad faith”. There is merit to this claim, as developing the head of the communist party as corrupt is indicative of communism being ‘a zone of bad faith’, and the fact that communism plays little part in the climax of the novel, namely the death of Velutha, demonstrates how Roy, despite purposefully setting the novel in Kerala during the rise of communism, deems its impact, within the plot of the novel, as irrelevant. While Ahmad actively criticises Roy’s depiction communism within Kerala, in ‘In Desire and In Death’, Brinda Bose, while believing that “Ahmad’s criticism of Roy’s apparent lack of knowledge… of the contemporary left-wing politics of Kerala… is valid”, suggests that “one’s personal politics is often an extension of, but always greater than, one’s [political] positioning”. Bose emphasises that a political reading of the novel should not be confined to explicit political references, but rather should include how the personal is often political. Specifically, rather than the corrupt nature of the communist party functioning as a value judgement of communism, by considering the overarching themes of the novel, this portrayal of Pillai serves instead to highlight how the flaws in Keralan society itself cause immoral actions to occur. While Kerala may be a changing society, traditional caste values are still present, restricting the freedoms of Velutha and creating difficulties in the implementation of communist ideals. Therefore, while Ahmad sees the surface-level dismissal of communist characters as a failure to engage with political ideas entirely, Bose considers Roy’s use of “personal politics”, suggesting that radical political ideals struggle to be realised in a complex society shaped by traditional values. Therefore, Roy explores how the communist party utilises the traditional caste system to demonstrate that, even within changing societies, powerful figures may still maintain discriminatory traditional values, a detriment to the life of Velutha as an individual.

7

How does Arundhati Roy explore the impacts of cultural values on the lives of individuals in ‘The God of Small Things’? Furthermore, Roy uses the motif of pollution to symbolise society’s views on the Untouchables during Kerala’s industrialisation. Near to the river where Ammu and Velutha have sex, “the view from the hotel [is] beautiful, but here too the water [is] thick and toxic” (125). A tourist staying at the hotel cannot see the toxic river, only the beautiful view, implying that pollution is hidden from tourists in Kerala. Specifically, the authorities “had built a tall wall to screen off the slum” (125), suggesting that society hopes to keep pollution outside of high-class society. This polluted imagery parallels when Mammachi reminisces about how Paravans had “to divert their polluted breath away from those whom they addressed” (74). Therefore, much like the polluted river, Paravans are hidden from society, allowing Roy to demonstrate why they are considered to be outside the traditional caste system, because other members of society should not interact with them. This suggests that, as society continues to innovate, with the prevalence of tourism increasing, members of the Untouchable populations become more separated from, and therefore forgotten by, society. According to Jane Poyner, “what we see at work in the Keralan tourist industry is environmental racism: the “treat[ment of] certain communities as more expandable than others””. As such, while the environment is used a motif to symbolise how society continues to ignore the Untouchables, it also literally indicates “why the world’s poorest will be worst affected by the immediate and long-term effects of… environmental degradation.” There is merit to Poyner’s literal interpretation of the polluted imagery, as Roy, outside of the novel, “expresses concern for the effects of dam-building and transnational capital on the poorest communities”. Therefore, Roy uses the motif of pollution to demonstrate how, as Keralan society continues to innovate, the Untouchables are ignored under traditional caste values.

8

How does Arundhati Roy explore the impacts of cultural values on the lives of individuals in ‘The God of Small Things’?

Part 2: ‘Love Laws’ and the Search for Human Connection

Roy explores how traditional Indian values control love, and how this impacts the formation of meaningful relationships, through the ‘Love Laws’. The traditional caste system dictates that people should only marry within their caste. This is explained in the novel through the Love Laws, that are defined within the novel to be “the laws that lay down who should be loved, and how. And how much.” (33). As Ammu and Velutha inhabit different castes, their sexual relationship is a defiance of the Love Laws and the caste system. Roy’s purposeful choice to describe this aspect of the caste system as ‘laws’ demonstrates that this cultural value is an imposition on the lives of people within Indian society, and that love is perceived as a societal practice for the benefit of society, rather than an idea based on real human connection. According to Bose, Ammu and Velutha’s deaths are representative of “punishment for transgression” of the Love Laws. While this could imply that their actions are immoral, Bose instead interprets Ammu and Velutha as martyrs. This is supported by the fact that Roy portrays Velutha’s death as a tragedy, as the narrator rhetorically questions, “Who was he, the one armed man? Who could he have been?” (217). By using the epithet of ‘the one-armed man’, Roy positions the reader to empathise with Velutha’s struggle. Additionally, Roy italicises ‘ could ’ to highlight how Velutha’s legacy was cut short by his death, further emphasising how, within the context of the novel, Velutha’s death is a tragedy. Furthermore, Velutha’s death is, from a literal perspective, caused by the police. When Ammu goes to the police station to make a statement about Velutha, the inspector says the police “[don’t] take statements from veshyas or their illegitimate children” (8), despite the police slogan being “ P oliteness O bedience L oyalty I ntelligence C ourtesy E fficiency” (8). Roy invites the reader to view the police slogan as ironic, emphasising the discriminatory nature of the police force. By explicitly bringing up Ammu’s caste position, the police are represented as explicitly discriminatory through caste

9

How does Arundhati Roy explore the impacts of cultural values on the lives of individuals in ‘The God of Small Things’? system values. The fact that the police have to enforce adherence to the caste system implies that the system itself is unnatural, and the corrupt nature of the police demonstrates how these values can be used to restrict freedoms. As such, in support of Bose’s interpretation, Roy implies that Velutha’s death was not a natural consequence of his defiance of the Love Laws, but rather a result of the corrupt nature of the police force, as a symbol for authority. Overall, Roy uses the Love Laws and the police force to elucidate how traditional caste values are imposed by authority figures, preventing meaningful love between individuals within Keralan society. Due to the detrimental effects of the Love Laws, salvation is only found through defiance of these societal norms. Roy utilises Velutha and Ammu’s sexual relationship to exemplify how love can lead to salvation from restrictive caste values. When Ammu is dreaming about Velutha, she questions whether he is “The God of Loss? The God of Small Things? The God of Goose Bumps and Sudden Smiles?” (217). As Ammu calls Velutha ‘The God of Small Things’, Roy links the motif of the ‘Small Things’ to Ammu’s love for Velutha. Roy purposefully places the epithet that titles the novel in the middle of two other names to suggest to the reader that Ammu believes the ‘Small Things’ are relatively unimportant. This juxtaposes the title of the novel, which emphasises the importance of the ‘Small Things’ to the novel’s message. Therefore, while Ammu deems love as relatively inconsequential, representing the views of members of Keralan society, it is clear that love is important to the novel. This is specifically explored through the nature of Velutha and Ammu’s relationship, as Ammu obsesses over every detail of Velutha when having sex with him: “His neck. His nipples. His chocolate stomach” (336). Within the caste system, dark skin is seen as a negative quality, as it is representative of lower caste divisions. Despite this, the positive connotation of ‘chocolate’ as an indulgence implies that Ammu does not see Velutha’s ethnicity as inferior,

10