For about two seconds today in class, I discussed with Nick L. how infuriating the behavior of Baby Kochamma was by the end of the novel. Even though it seemed to me like she wasn't truly a central character of the book (at least compared to the twins, Ammu, Velutha, etc.), I think she ignited a more passionate response in me than any of the other characters did.
Baby Kochamma seemed to epitomize many abhorrent qualities, all at once. She was extremely intolerant of people whom she did not like, such as the Untouchables (her own people might call her law-abiding, but I think we in AP College English all agree that her strict observance of the "Love Laws" was definitely a trait to be frowned upon). She was self-serving and manipulative, as evidenced by her bullying of the twins into claiming that Velutha had kidnapped them. And she just seemed like a person seriously lacking in natural compassion for others, which was vividly demonstrated through the hateful attitude she had, even toward members of her own family at times.
I just couldn't get over Baby Kochamma's outrageous antics... but maybe I am over-reacting. Does anyone feel that she is a more complex character than I am giving her credit for? Can anyone identify any redeeming qualities to her personality at all? I would like to read them, if in fact they exist.
I completely agree. I was infuriated with Baby K. as Estha mouthed "yes" before the lights were turned off on the dying Velutha. She had always seemed like a minor chracter to me too, until the end when she became Osama bin Hitler. I felt sorry for her at the beginning of the book, but she became increasingly detestable as the book moved along. I thinik that her behavior is part of the disappointment in life epitamized in the family by Pappachi's moth. She had an unsafe edge, just like Ammu, but she channeled it into an edge that was safe for society, but not for those around her.
Posted by: Alex K! | November 17, 2004 at 12:37 AM
Regardless (for now) of whether or not Baby K is really a one-dimensional representation of evil, it can definitely be coherently argued that she is "Osama bin Hitler." And I must say that I really dislike it in any novel when a character is solely a one-dimensional symbol for pure evil. Never, I think, is this acceptable, because there has never been a person that has been totally, completely evil--not even Hitler. Maybe sadly, pitiably deluded, but not evil. Even if some people have nary an ounce of good in them, they at least have, in all cases, gone through certain things that have led them to their state of coldness, ruthlessness, and evil. It is never solely their fault. Now, I am in no way defending Baby K's actions. What she did was horrible and wrong. But, if she is a believable and therefore complex character, she must have been under some bad circumstances for doing so. One possible scenario: she was rejected by Father Mulligan, felt horrible about herself because of it, and unconsciously loathed paravans so as to give herself some desperately-needed self-esteem.
Indeed, it is for this reason, I think, that most class divisions arise. Many people need someone to look down upon in order to have self-esteem. Society provides these arbitrary objects of loathing for them in the form, historically, of paravans, blacks, Jews, homosexuals, etc. Class arises fundamentally out of this need of everyone who is to thrive to do so at the expense of others. No society has ever grown grand and mighty without an oppressed people at home, and the greatest societies have historically been some of the most oppressive--America became a world imperialist power at the height of Jim Crow sharecropping racism, which many have argued to be worse than slavery. In AP Euro, we recently finished a unit about the great 18th century eastern European powers of Prussia, Russia, and Austria. All attained their power by making life worse and worse and worse for the serfs.
But anyways, back to Baby K. I think that if she truly is evil and nothing else, Roy has done a disservice to the complexity of life and human nature. She professes to reveal a universal truth, but that is impossible if one of the principal players in the elucidation of this truth is supposed to be pure evil in and of herself. A universe in which pure evil exists is a fantasy universe, and can offer us not enlightening universal truth.
In defense of Roy, I don't think that this is what she does. The process of Baby K's embitterment is tracked for the reader through the story of Father Mulligan, etc. And even if it wasn't, I think it would be OK if Roy, realizing that she writes in a 'hopelessly practical world,' omitted all the causal factors of Baby K's disposition. After all, she could take the chain of causation back to the Big Bang, but who would want to read that book? First the plasma condensed into protons, then they made nuclei, then they made more nuclei, on and on and on for thousands of pages and billions of years: THAT would be boring.
But anyways, I think that, while we should condemn Baby K's actions, we should not condemn her as a person, because her actions are as much a fault of science, or nature, or society, or Father Mulligan, than her own self. But I just think that we should give people a break more than we do.
Posted by: Mark S. | November 17, 2004 at 05:02 PM
"I just think that we should give people a break more than we do."
And then what? If we absolve individuals of personal responsibility for their actions, "morality" becomes a meaningless idea. If you say that we cannot blame Baby K personally for her conduct, then you are also saying that we cannot laud or reward someone who is virtuous. Mother Teresa was only selfless, kind, and extremely generous because all these external forces were working on her. Her own Father Mulligan DID fall in love with her so that made her do all the good things she did.
I concede that people's actions and character are affected and changed by external phenomena, but I think we have to give credence to the fact that ultimately, each and every person has the ability to choose between right and wrong.
I guess I'm very skeptical of psychology in general. It seems like nowadays, everything can be explained by some psychological disorder or mental state that was created by some disparate group of influences. I suppose that you could argue that the whole point is to be able to understand what CAUSES people to act the ways they do and then take appropriate actions to prevent people from becoming disposed to act maliciously. But even if we can understand that Baby K acted the way she did because of X,Y, and Z, is it really in our power to change those factors? How are we going to change something like "capital-H" History? I think Roy understands that we can't. That's why God of Small Things ends in Ammu and Velutha completely ignoring the consequences of their actions and just focusing on their love in the moment. They know that an attempt to side-step History would be futile.
Sorry for the tangents. Personal responsibility is a must if morality is to have any meaning, and we shouldn't let considerations about psychology dominate our thinking too much.
Posted by: Darius W. | November 17, 2004 at 10:08 PM
Aha... so now we have created a discussion as to what the definition of true evil in a person is (going off on a philosophy tangent). Mark wants to argue that there essentially is no such thing as an evil person. Darius concedes that external circumstances may affect the behavior of humans, but he claims that they are ultimately responsible for making moral decisions about right and wrong.
There is plenty of validity in both of these arguments, but I think that from a practical standpoint, Darius' makes more sense (Mark's seems to be more appealing from an idealistic point of view). There has to be accountability for humans as a result of their actions. If there weren't, then our society's laws would have to be entirely thrown out, and our society would cave in on itself and be destroyed.
Posted by: Luke W. | November 17, 2004 at 11:39 PM
Ahhh, but what, Darius, about today's philosophy class? It seems... no, it IS true that all mental states proceed from brain states, we are completely determined by the laws of science, and yes, one of the consequences of that is that morality, like consciousness, is just an illusion. But, biologically, both are very productive and successful illusions. Consciousness allows us to 'think' of creative ways to build a better society in which we can flourish--the Darwinian 'point' of life. It also gives us a strong drive to seek the truth everywhere. The problem arises when that truth (psychology, scientific determinism) is proven (it will be) to be in direct confict with another incredibly successful biological process that takes on illusory meaning in consciousness: morality (and, see EO Wilson, spirituality). These are both concepts that are very important and effective parts of a flourishing society, but that are also untrue, and a flourishing society will also seek to dispel the untrue. What to do? Certainly, this is a dilemma of incredible proportions.
Posted by: Mark S. | November 18, 2004 at 04:01 PM
Remember the fascists I mentioned in class? I guess we know who you're allied with.
Posted by: Darius W. | November 18, 2004 at 04:19 PM
Until I was three-quarters done with the book I thought Ammu was just as despicable. As the book ended, I saw a more compassionate and justified Ammu and began to agree with everyone about the awfulness of Baby Kochamma's antics. I'm not sure if I hate her as a person, but I definitely do not condone her attitude. Especially after the last few pages between Ammu and Velutha and seeing how every piece in the book fell together I felt more and more sympathetic to Ammu and held less and less respect for Baby Kochamma.
Posted by: Ari F. | November 18, 2004 at 09:35 PM
As much as I love a good conversation about "evil characters" while I read about Baby K I remembered something my mom would always say to me when people acted mean to me, "misery loves company". Baby K is obviously the most miserable character in the novel, her only source of happiness is wrestling...the main reason she can't stand the twins or Ammu is because regardless of their situations and circmstances, they tend to be genuinely happy. Baby K's miserable behavior isn't as contagious as she would like it to be and because of that she removes Ammu from the house. She also takes advantage of Chacko's emotional state after Sophie Mol's death, by convincing him to get Ammu out. I think the only thing that she gets pleasure from is knowing at the end of the day she is better than someone.
Posted by: David M. | November 18, 2004 at 09:48 PM
Well I would have to say I think Ari beings up a pretty good point about Ammu. And I want to disagree with what Heidkamp said a few days ago about us being too critical on Ammu. All of that criticism is rightful, and had she been the father and not the mother I would have said she was a terrible father. I also didn't find Baby K to be that detestable early. In fact I found her obsession with American TV to be funny. But today after reading the interviews with Roy, especially the one that refers to Afghanistan and 9/11, I think Baby K's American TV obsession was to make us compare her to well...us. Even in the book she makes Americans look bad (Estha's time in the US is never described as a positive experience). So by making us look evil, corrupt, obsessed with status and well just detestable in general, I think Roy is getting her anti-American sentiment out here. Not saying I agree with it but some parts (the incest and the scene at Cambridge on top of Baby K) of this book were defiantly made to make Americans and only Americans think long and hard.
Posted by: Nick L | November 18, 2004 at 09:54 PM
Allied with fascists? Me? Hardly.
Although I see how a fascist could use the ideology of hard determinism to subvert the people and gain control: "It's written in the stars that I will rule you as a fascist, so don't try to stop it, etc." But if that happens, it happens: it has already been determined. I wouldn't agree with it, but a) my agreement or disagreement is not my decision (it is the work of molecules in my brain) and, b) I wouldn't be able to stop the fascist anyway.
Is that statement a little too strong for your liking?
Posted by: Mark S. | November 18, 2004 at 09:57 PM
Just realized I forgot to say how much I hated Baby K at the end of the book. So much in fact the free flowing sexual encounter that followed her scene with the cops didn't bother me as I was still overwhelmed with hatred for her. That and the new spell-check on here is a very good addition!
Posted by: Nick L | November 18, 2004 at 09:57 PM
Alright Mr. Stankevitz. Now you're trying to confuse me so I can't respond to your power-hungry arguments.
First of all, we need to clarify the relationship between hard determinism and a scientific understanding of the "mind." I'm not sure that a complete psychological/neurological understanding of human actions or consciousness necessarily leads to hard determinism. Psychology is explanatory, it doesn't dictate what actions we must take.
And I think this is where my understanding differs from yours. You think that because our actions or consciousness can be explained scientifically, we have no free will. I say, "so what if my 'mental states = brain states.'" All that's changed is you being able to explain and describe what's going on in my brain in material terms.
What's scary is that if my analysis of psychology as merely explanatory is true, that still leaves leaders in authority positions to abuse and manipulate people. A neurologist with the proper technology and complete understanding of the brain would be able to control us.
Oh. Well, I guess I see where the connection with hard determinism comes. Because the neurologist could even have the ability to control someone, that means that all actions/feelings are determined. Well, we could avoid that by not letting science progress that far.
DEATH TO MODERNIZATION AND TECHNOLOGY!
Posted by: Darius W. | November 18, 2004 at 11:02 PM
Well, Darius W. Weil, thanks for revealing my identity to the world. So much for anonymity, Darius W. Weil.
Anyways, "we could avoid that by not letting science progress that far." I'm sorry, but that is just pure ignorance of the worst form--the voluntary ignorance of denial. You KNOW that mental states are brain states, and that that necessarily leads to hard determinism--you even admit it in your post. Yet you still wish to deny this truth, only to satisfy your craving for an "I" that you can cherish and love, and feel proud of (for you are a very accomplished fellow, and you know it). Denial of the truth cannot change the truth, and it is our responsibility as truth-seekers to accept the truth when we find it, no matter how disagreeable it may be.
Posted by: Mark S. | November 19, 2004 at 12:03 PM
And then what? So we find the truth. But what if it's a truth that we cannot possibly live with? What if the truth leads to violence, unhappiness, and the general disintegration of everything we associate with being human?
If you can convince me that we would still be able to live satisfying and meaningful lives with your scientifically determined theory of "truth," then fine, go ahead.
Posted by: Darius W. | November 19, 2004 at 01:26 PM
I can't convince you that we could lead "satisfying and meaningful lives" once science has definitively proven such a truth. You're right: once people understand the ramifications, all sorts of horrible things will happen. But the truth is still the truth and we can't shy away from it, even if it means the destruction of happiness or humanity: since they were all just illusions to begin with, destroying them amounts to nothing.
Sorry if I sound radical or thoroughly devoid of moral values, but I find it even more offensive when people proudly proclaim that they "believe in" determinism but then don't accept its consequences (which, as you astutely point out, are what we instinctively consider 'horrible').
Posted by: Mark S. | November 19, 2004 at 04:04 PM
All right. This fight has gone on long enough and I'm starting to get annoyed. Darius, Mark is right. If you truly accept hard determinism (and I'm about to tell you both why you shouldn't) then you are necessarily led to the idea that there is no responsibility for human action, and thus, no morality or reason for anyone to act morally. If you state that humans should ignore the idea of determinism and act as though morality were a legitimate concept, then you undermine the idea of hard determinism in the first place, because you are stating that people have a choice in the actions they perform. You can't reconcile hard determinism with freedom.
Mark, I know you well enough to say that you are fundamentally unable to give up the idea of human freedom. You are entirely too much of an activist. You see deep problems with the world: with economic injustice, social relations, diplomacy and foreign relations. But you don't resign yourself to them, you argue against what you see as wrong and you try to aid the world as best you can. Hard determinism means that the universe is completely fixed throughout all time, and that humanity is powerless to change its future. You don't believe that your thoughts and actions are meaningless, because you know that the world can be changed.
So you accept that mental states are brain states. That's not a point I'll be able to refute. I did write an essay trying to prove the existence of souls for philosophy class last year, but I don't feel I really succeeded. There is a way to know whether there truly is a self outside of the interactions of matter, but in my book, a noose or a bottle of sleeping pills is too high a price to pay for that piece of knowledge.
But even if this brain and this body is all there is, I still have a choice in what I do. You are assuming that if a single water molecule cannot think, then a much more complex system composed of water and other simple molecules cannot think either. Water is influenced by physical forces that are absolute, and thus is the brain. But saying that physical forces influences brain activity is not to say that humainity cedes thought or intelligence to nonthinking forces. Thought is the interaction of synapses in the brain, and physical forces are better understood as the method by which thought occurs rather than a great force that subverts will. By realizing that thought is a physical process, not an abstract exercise, one can understand that the influence of physical forces on human brains does not preclude freedom. It is the process by which thought, and freedom, both take place.
Sorry if I offended either of you. I don't mean to "determine" (sorry, bad pun) how you think, it's just that hard determinists get on my nerves. They reject morality for all the wrong reasons...
Posted by: Colin F. | November 22, 2004 at 12:13 AM
Colin: Well, I guess I'm about to "get on your nerves," but...
You're right; I do style myself an activist in many respects. I don't like the war in Iraq, the state of social security, health care, rights to privacy, etc. in this country and I'm trying to do something about it (in my own small way, of course). But how are these actions incompatible with hard determinism? The system of human life as we know it has flourished over the last 100,000 years. In this respect it is similar to the solar system, which is another stable, flourishing system obeying physical laws. Other solar systems who don't have enough planets or whose stars are too cold have fizzled out and no longer exist.
The difference between these solar systems and life is that life is a self-propagating system. This (sorry, no noun) is purely a Darwinian concept. Life only exists because it has the physical mechanisms to do so. Life will only continue to exist so long as it has the mechanism to continue to do so. Any successful system of life will have the mechanisms to continue to exist, and humans definitely do. We have instincts (which are biological and chemical functions) such as the desire for food, sleep, and the aversion to death, that ensure our current existence, and we have the instinct of the drive for sex to ensure the continued existence of the species. We, though, as a particularly successful form of life, have more instincts than just our immediate survival and sex, and one of those is an instinct to use our reasoning (which is, of course, just a convenient way to talk about certain advanced and complicated brain states) to further the survival and ability to flourish of our species. My reasoning brain states 'say' that the current policies of the Bush administration will, in the long run, undermine the survival and ability to flourish of humanity, and I don't want that.
Now, when I say 'I don't want that,' I mean to say that, as a healthy unit of a highly successful species of life, I must by definition be equipped with certain physical brain states that promote the continued success of the species. Reason is one of those brain states, and I am programmed by physical nature to act on the conclusions of my reason. These conclusions, which are really brain states, tell my mouth to repeatedly say stuff like "the Bush administration is wrong," presumably as a way to alert the reasoning parts of others' brains to the fact convince them to do something about it, thereby furthering the interests of the species. Now, the word 'convince' is suspect. What I am really doing is creating, by my act of speaking, certain causally determined brain states in others that my brain states have 'determined' (no pun) will further the interest of the species.
In one way or another, all our brain states are centered around that: furthering the interest of the species, and activism is entirely compatible with hard determinism.
Posted by: Mark S. | November 22, 2004 at 11:40 PM
You seem to suggest that it is impossible for the individual to act against the welfare of the group, because they are causally determined by evolution to aid the group. If that idea were true, how could anyone ever commit murder? Now I know that in regards to incest I showed my existentialism and threw absolute morality out the window, but I still believe in the underlying ideas to which some thinkers give moral qualities. I especially agree with utilitarians in the existence of pain and the existence of the lack of pain, though I do not see pain as the antithesis of morality.
Murder, by definition, is the act by which one human deprives another human of life against his or her will. This act destroys all opportunity for that individual to reproduce following the murder and aid the species by doing so. Let's assume that the murdered person did not carry any genetic traits that would cause his offspring to consume resources without being able to reproduce themselves, or that would cause the offspring to harm the community in other ways. If genetic variation is a desirable status for a species (and it is, becuase it promotes genetic adaptability which increases the species' chance of survival), then murdering the individual does nothing but harm to the larger community. The man committing murder is acting outside of the interest of his species. Although the interest of the species is clearly a large influence on human behavior, a conception of human action completely lacking free will denies the very possibility of certain observable behaviors.
Posted by: Colin F. | November 23, 2004 at 12:32 AM
Okay philosophy nerds, make way for...
THE VOICE OF IGNORANCE!:
Didn't this discussion start out as a discussion of Baby Kochama? She is deplorable at the end which was probably the combined result of her experience of disappointment with father Mulligan and her weak will. There, done.
I don't know what synapses in my brain are wired to which collective indivuality with regards to whose natural law that makes me say this, but: This conversation is ridiculous (at best).
Posted by: Alex K! | November 23, 2004 at 01:25 AM
Colin: The physical forces that guide human behavior as of now are barely understood scientifically at all. I do not pretend to understand them. Through my example of activism, I am merely pointing out an entirely logical scenario in which hard determinism and physicalism can make sense, even if they appear unable to do so at first glance.
And maybe people who commit murder, etc., are in some way 'defective.' I.E., their brain's system of self- and species-continuation has deviated from the ideal. Given the laws of entropy and the complexity of the human brain, such occurrences would be fairly common, and they are just so. While relatively few are driven to murder, many routinely do minor self-destructive and 'others-destructive' things, such as petty theft, name-calling, and heavy drinking, just as a few examples.
Posted by: Mark S. | November 23, 2004 at 05:18 PM
Wow. So, Mark, are my Republican neighbors "defective" because they support George Bush?
Hehe. What a great way to totally write someone off! Hey, guess what? You two are defective. Go get repaired.
Posted by: Darius W. | November 23, 2004 at 10:15 PM
Here, in the present state of human condition, many people will indeed see my label 'defective' as a thoughtless insult. But I am by no means passing judgment on 'defective' people. It is just a semantical definition for people whose brain states cause them to do things that are subversive to the continuation of the system of life. Defective is meant to be understood Darwinian-ly, not personally. Sorry if I offended anyone; maybe my brain state that caused me to use the word 'defective' has caused much personal injury in others, injury that is contrary to the survival of the system of life. So maybe I'm defective. (In fact, I would say that I probably--no, definitely, am... but for other reasons...)
Posted by: Mark S. | November 23, 2004 at 11:21 PM
And yes, I would call voting Republican a 'defective' behavior... :)
Posted by: Mark S. | November 23, 2004 at 11:23 PM
Alex, stop reveling in your specific ignorance of philosophy and don't dare pretend that you aren't an elitist. If we want to intellectually debate on a post that was originally created for something else, that's our perogative.
Mark, what I ultimately take issue with is your assertion that there is a behavioral ideal for humanity, and that one could be "defective" by not adhering to it. Whether or not human action is free or determined, you suggest that there is a specific way that people should act, and that by not acting that way, something must be wrong with them. Your system of hard determinism excludes moral failings as a reason for not acting according to the proscribed manner, and instead points to chemophysical interactions. How does name calling represent a deviantion from the biological goals of humankind? It seems to me that your system does not promote the interests of human life, but rather those of a government looking to control its citizens by discouraging name calling.
Posted by: Colin F. | November 29, 2004 at 12:29 AM
Colin: (and everyone else who has complained) I'm SORRY about the use of the word 'defective.' My example of 'non-defective' human behavior as that which promotes the best interest of the species was merely an example of a possible way to counter a frequent argument made by those who do not agree with determinism. Anti-determinists like to argue that, due to the complexity, triviality, or illogical nature of many types of human behavior, such behaviors are not fundamentally determined. What, they ask, is the system that leads to such behaviors? In asking that question rhetorically, they presume that the only logical answer is "well, there is no system; human beings just choose to do them." In my example of 'defectivity,' I attacked this belief by (I hope) showing that such a system could logically be conceived. While my system is flat-out wrong (I won't contest that), it is logically sound, and some sort of behavioral system exists.
I'm sorry if I did not make that clearer.
Posted by: Mark S. | November 29, 2004 at 09:54 PM
In response to the original blog, "the despicable Baby Kochamma”.
I stumbled upon this blog by sheer happenstance, and felt the subject was quite interesting. As it is, we too have been looking at "The god of small things" in a class of mine. I fear that many of you might be missing the point Roy is trying to make by her description of the actions made by Baby Kochamma following her discovery of the Ammu/Velutha scandal. Her point is not to demonstrate to the reader how "evil" Baby is, but rather the extent to which pre-modern Indians will go in order to preserve tradition. Tradition which is, as a result of post-colonialism and globalization, slipping away into the modern. Everything in her book is an attempt to show the struggle that Indians are now facing in order to find their own culture, and the lengths at which some will go in order protect what little traditional culture they have. In the mind of Baby, the world is changing all too fast. The British have left, and globalization has come in. In the wake of modernization, Baby holds desperately onto the only thing in her life that has not changed for centuries, the traditional Caste system. We can easily suggest that by any standard, Baby Kochamma over-reacted to the scandal. However I believe that Roy uses this extreme example to show the two directions Indians are being torn. Ammu and Velutha are examples of those ready to join cultural change. Baby Kochamma is an example of Indians who are not ready to accept it.
Posted by: Ryan O. | December 08, 2004 at 07:57 PM
I, too, just happened to stumble upon this blog.
I will present my ideas on "The God of Small Things" tommorrow for my own AP class, and, from all our discourse, what I have come to believe is that Baby Kochamma turned into this vile person because she was once denied the ability to love and be loved.
This is a recurring theme in the novel, it seems: Ammu cannot love Velutha; Velutha cannot love Ammu; Chacko cannot be loved by Margaret Kochamma; Rahel cannot love her ex-husband; Estha ends up just not loving anybody.
It's a vicious circle.
And, like Ryan O. above me stated, I believe this is entirely an attempt to show the problems with the Hindu caste system, and the problems with Indian society in general. There is a strong political undercurrent, too.
Basically, she is saying, "It is wrong for people to be denied love..." and then completes it with examples of how they are denied love, and how we can (should) change things so as to avoid this in the future.
Posted by: Sofía O. | December 06, 2006 at 04:46 PM
she cant be totally evil as she persued love. and how can love be evil.
Posted by: Ben.J | February 06, 2007 at 04:17 AM