Unpacking the Paradoxes of Freedom: A Comparative Analysis of Existential Alienation in Albert Camus’ ‘The Stranger’ and Arundhati Roy’s ‘The God of Small Things’

Abstract

This comparative analysis delves into the paradoxes of freedom through an existential lens, examining the concept of alienation in Albert Camus\' \"The Stranger\" and Arundhati Roy\'s \"The God of Small Things\". By exploring the tensions between individual freedom and societal expectations, this research reveals the complexities of human existence and the inherent contradictions of freedom.

Introduction

The concept of freedom is complex and paradoxical, seen both as a fundamental human aspiration and a burden of responsibility. Existentialist philosophy emphasizes this tension between freedom and responsibility, particularly in human existence.

This research compares existential alienation and the paradoxes of freedom in Albert Camus' The Stranger and Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things. While existentialism’s treatment of freedom is well-studied in works like The Stranger, the intersection of existentialism with postcolonial contexts, as seen in Roy’s novel, has been less explored. This study aims to fill that gap by analyzing how both novels portray freedom, alienation, and societal constraints.

Using a qualitative, comparative approach grounded in existentialist and postcolonial theory, the study focuses on three key chapters:

1. The Absurdity of Freedom in The Stranger: Camus’ protagonist Meursault exemplifies existential alienation through his detachment and confrontation with the absurd. His freedom is paradoxical—he can choose his path but must bear the heavy burden of responsibility amidst societal moral expectations.

2. The Politics of Alienation in The God of Small Things: Roy’s novel depicts postcolonial alienation through the lives of twins Rahel and Estha, highlighting fragmentation and dislocation caused by cultural, familial, and social pressures. Their freedom is constrained by postcolonial societal structures.

3. Comparative Analysis: Both novels explore existential alienation but differ in context and form—absurd detachment in Camus versus postcolonial fragmentation in Roy. Yet, both reveal the inherent tensions between individual freedom and societal expectations, illustrating the complex and contradictory nature of freedom.

Conclusion

This research has explored the paradoxes of freedom through an existential lens, examining the concept of alienation in Albert Camus\' \"The Stranger\" and Arundhati Roy\'s \"The God of Small Things\". By comparing and contrasting the representation of existential alienation in both novels, this study has highlighted the complexities of human existence and the inherent contradictions of freedom.The findings of this research contribute to the existing body of literature on existentialism and postcolonialism, offering new insights into the human condition. This study has demonstrated that existential alienation is a universal human experience, transcending cultural and historical contexts. However, the manifestation and context of this alienation differ significantly depending on the specific cultural and historical context.Ultimately, this research highlights the importance of considering the complexities of human existence and the inherent contradictions of freedom. By examining the paradoxes of freedom through an existential lens, we can gain a deeper understanding of the human condition and the ways in which individuals navigate the complexities of existence.

References

[1] Camus, A. (1942). The Stranger. Translated by Matthew Ward. New York: Vintage Books. [2] Roy, A. (1997). The God of Small Things. New York: HarperCollins. [3] Sartre, J.-P. (1943). Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology. Translated by Hazel E. Barnes. New York: Philosophical Library. [4] Heidegger, M. (1927). Being and Time. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. New York: Harper & Row. [5] Fanon, F. (1952). Black Skin, White Masks. Translated by Richard Philcox. New York: Grove Press. [6] Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Divyashree Tongbram, Dr. Jayatee Bhattacharya. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.