Cultural Studies: Contemporary Cultural Concepts

Hello Everyone !!

This blog is a part of the Worksheet Activity for postgraduate students, assigned by Prof. and Dr. Dilip Barad Sir. In this blog, I explore contemporary cultural concepts in cultural studies using AI tools and my own critical understanding and experience.

 For Background Reading Click Here.

 Contemporary Cultural Concepts 

• Slow Movement
• Dromology
• Risk Society
• Postfeminism
• Hyperreal
• Hypermodernism
• Cyberfeminism
• Posthumanism

1) Slow Movement

The Slow Movement, introduced by writers like Carl Honoré in In Praise of Slowness (2005) and expanded by Wendy Parkins (2010), advocates for a mindful and sustainable lifestyle. It emerged as a reaction to the fast-paced, efficiency-driven modern world, emphasizing quality, reflection, and connection over constant acceleration.

Real World Example: The Slow Food Movement in Italy promotes traditional cooking and local ingredients instead of fast food. It focuses on community, health, and cultural preservation.

2. Dromology

Paul Virilio’s concept of Dromology means “the science of speed.” He argues that modern life is defined by speed  in communication, transport, and media. Power and progress are measured by how fast things move.

Real world Example: On social media, news spreads within seconds. People react before thinking, and information often replaces reflection.

3. Risk Society

Ulrich Beck introduced the term Risk Society to explain how modern technology and industry create new global risks. Unlike past societies that feared natural disasters, modern risks are man-made like pollution, nuclear waste, or data privacy issues.

Real World Example: The climate crisis is a direct result of industrial growth and overconsumption. Every person, rich or poor, is affected by global warming.

4. Postfeminism

Postfeminism is a concept that explores how feminist ideas have changed in a world that believes gender equality is already achieved. It focuses on individual empowerment, personal choice, and self-expression, often influenced by media and consumer culture.

Real World Example: In TV shows like Sex and the City or campaigns like Dove’s “Real Beauty,” women’s independence and confidence are celebrated, but often through consumer products and lifestyle choices. This shows how feminism is both empowering and commercialized in modern culture.

5. The Hyperreal

Jean Baudrillard’s concept of the Hyperreal describes a world where the line between reality and simulation disappears. Media and technology create images that feel “more real than reality.”

Real World Example: Disneyland is a famous example  a fantasy world that feels real and shapes people’s ideas of happiness. Similarly, on Instagram, people present idealized versions of their lives that may not reflect reality.

6. Hypermodernism

Gilles Lipovetsky defines Hypermodernism as an intensified form of modernity, marked by extreme speed, consumerism, and self-awareness. People are highly connected through technology but often feel anxious and restless.

Real World Example: Smartphone dependence reflects hypermodern life — constant multitasking, checking updates, and chasing productivity. People enjoy instant communication but struggle with stress and distraction.

7. Cyberfeminism

Cyberfeminism combines feminism with digital culture. Emerging in the 1990s through groups like VNS Matrix, it studies how women use technology to challenge patriarchy and create new identities online.

Real world Example: The #MeToo movement is a strong example of cyberfeminism. Women across the world used digital platforms to share experiences and demand justice.

8. Posthumanism

Posthumanism questions the idea that humans are superior to all other forms of life. Thinkers like Donna Haraway in A Cyborg Manifesto (1985) explore how humans, machines, and nature are interconnected.

Real World Example: The development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and robotics shows how machines now share tasks once limited to humans. It challenges the meaning of identity and consciousness.

Connections Between the Concepts

All these concepts are interrelated. Dromology and Hypermodernism explain the acceleration of life, while the Slow Movement acts as a counter-response. The Hyperreal and Cyberfeminism show how digital media shape identity and representation. Risk Society and Posthumanism deal with the global effects and ethical questions of technological progress.

Together, they describe a world that is fast, digital, and interconnected  but also uncertain and fragile. These theories help us see both the benefits and the costs of modern culture.

Critical Analysis and Contemporary Relevance

In today’s world, these concepts are not just theoretical  they define our daily experiences. Speed and technology improve communication but reduce attention and emotional connection. Digital media create opportunities for activism and creativity but also blur truth and promote consumerism. Environmental and ethical risks demand global awareness, while posthuman thinking challenges us to rethink what it means to be human in an age of AI and biotechnology.

It is essential to understand how these forces shape thought and behavior. Awareness of these cultural ideas helps individuals make balanced choices  to use technology wisely, protect the environment, and value real relationships over virtual ones.

Insights and Implications of these concepts for the future.

The contemporary concepts like Slow Movement, Dromology, Risk Society, Postfeminism, Hyperreal, Hypermodernism, Cyberfeminism, and Posthumanism as essential tools to understand the complexities of modern life. Each concept highlights how technology, media, and social change shape identity, relationships, and human behavior.

In the future, the Slow Movement will encourage mindfulness and sustainable living, countering the pressures of speed and constant productivity highlighted by Dromology and Hypermodernism. Risk Society reminds us that technological and industrial advancement brings ethical and environmental responsibilities, emphasizing foresight and accountability. Hyperrealism shows how media and digital representations influence perceptions, while Cyberfeminism and Postfeminism highlight the dual role of technology and culture in empowering women, but also in commodifying empowerment. Posthumanism challenges traditional human-centered thinking, urging us to rethink our relationship with machines, nature, and other forms of life.

A Cultural Studies Approach to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

This blog is a part of the Thinking Activity on “Critically and In-depth Analysis of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein through the Lens of Cultural Studies,” assigned by Prof. and Dr. Dilip Barad, Department of English, MKBU. In this blog, I explore the novel’s revolutionary ideas, its engagement with cultural, political, and scientific discourses, Fiction, Drama, Film, Television and its  lasting influence on contemporary media and society.

For Background Reading Click Here

Introduction: Frankenstein as a Cultural Text

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (1818) is not merely a Gothic horror tale—it is a profound cultural artifact that bridges literature, science, and social philosophy. Written in an age of political upheaval and industrial revolution, the novel reflects the anxieties of a society grappling with the promises and perils of modernity. Through the tale of Victor Frankenstein and his creature, Shelley explores the moral, social, and philosophical consequences of human ambition, creation, and alienation.

A Cultural Studies perspective allows readers to interpret Frankenstein as a dynamic cultural text that interacts with power structures, ideologies, and evolving technologies. Dr. Dilip Barad’s “Thinking Activity” divides this exploration into two critical dimensions: “Revolutionary Births” and “The Frankenpheme in Popular Culture.” Together, these frameworks uncover the revolutionary, political, and cultural significance of Shelley’s masterpiece.

Part 1: Revolutionary Births

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein emerged in the early nineteenth century—an era charged with revolutionary energy. The French Revolution had redefined concepts of liberty and justice, while industrial progress reshaped human identity and labor. In this climate, Frankenstein became a symbolic “revolutionary birth,” challenging the boundaries between creator and creation, authority and rebellion.

The novel critiques the Enlightenment ideal of reason and scientific control, suggesting that knowledge pursued without empathy leads to destruction. It asks whether the modern commodification of Frankenstein has obscured its revolutionary message or whether its continued adaptation reveals its enduring oppositional power.

1. The Creature as Proletarian

The creature in Frankenstein can be read as a metaphor for the proletarian figure—the oppressed masses created by industrial modernity yet denied humanity. Mary Shelley, influenced by radical thinkers such as her parents William Godwin and Mary Wollstonecraft, as well as Thomas Paine, was sensitive to the social inequalities of her time.

The creature, abandoned by his creator and rejected by society, embodies alienation and class struggle. His suffering and anger symbolize the revolutionary energy of the oppressed. His quest for companionship and justice echoes the aspirations of the lower classes seeking recognition and equality.

When the creature turns violent, Shelley dramatizes the ruling class’s fear of rebellion a reflection of early nineteenth-century anxieties about revolution. This paradoxical nature of the creature innocent yet vengeful mirrors the dual perception of revolution itself: both a cry for freedom and a threat to order.

“The creature’s paradoxical nature simultaneously an innocent and a vengeful force comments on societal fears of revolution and sympathy for the suffering masses.”

Thus, Shelley’s monster becomes a political symbol an early representation of Marx’s alienated worker, who is both product and victim of his creator’s ambition.

2. A Race of Devils

Shelley’s depiction of the creature also intersects with issues of race, empire, and cultural otherness. The creature’s physical difference and societal rejection mirror the colonial attitudes toward non-European races. Victor Frankenstein’s fear of his creation parallels the imperialist fear of the “Other” rising against the empire.

In this sense, Frankenstein becomes a critique of imperial arrogance. Victor’s desire to control nature and create life reflects the colonial drive to dominate foreign lands and peoples. His failure suggests the moral bankruptcy of imperial conquest creation without compassion, authority without responsibility.

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s concept of the subaltern (those whose voices are silenced by power) helps illuminate the creature’s position: he can articulate his pain and knowledge, but society refuses to hear him. His suffering becomes a metaphor for the colonized subject educated, aware, yet eternally excluded.

“The novel explores issues of race and imperialism, with characters like Victor Frankenstein embodying a guilty, colonial mindset.”

Shelley’s narrative anticipates postcolonial discourses on race and privilege, demonstrating how Western civilization’s fear of its own creations be they scientific or racial continues to shape global inequalities.

3. From Natural Philosophy to Cyborg

Victor Frankenstein’s pursuit of knowledge places Frankenstein at the intersection of science and morality. The novel’s depiction of “natural philosophy” foreshadows modern debates about artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and genetic engineering. Shelley’s warning is timeless: when science overreaches ethical limits, humanity risks self-destruction.

In today’s world of AI, cloning, and synthetic life, Frankenstein resonates as a prophetic text. Victor’s laboratory mirrors our digital laboratories where humans attempt to create sentient beings. The monster becomes a prototype for the modern cyborg a being that challenges the boundary between human and machine.

“In the age of genetic engineering and biotechnology, Frankenstein becomes increasingly pertinent. The novel questions the moral and ethical boundaries of scientific discovery.”

Through this perspective, Shelley’s work remains a revolutionary critique of technological arrogance and moral detachment. The novel urges us to balance innovation with empathy and to remember that creation without responsibility leads to chaos.

Part 2: The Frankenpheme in Popular Culture

Timothy Morton’s concept of the “Frankenpheme” refers to the repeated use of Frankenstein’s themes, images, and ideas across cultural forms films, literature, political debates, and digital media. The endurance of these “Frankenphemes” shows how Shelley’s creation transcends its original context to become a universal symbol of human anxiety about progress and identity.

1. First Film Adaptation and Popular Retellings

The first cinematic adaptation of Frankenstein was made in 1910 by Thomas Edison. Since then, the story has been retold in countless forms horror, comedy, science fiction, and even animation. Each adaptation reshapes the novel’s message to suit the fears and desires of its time.

Films like The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) reflect concerns about social conformity and individuality; Young Frankenstein (1974) uses humor to critique scientific pretensions; Blade Runner (1982) reimagines the creature as an artificial being seeking humanity.

These adaptations keep Frankenstein relevant by linking it to contemporary issues technology, surveillance, dehumanization, and artificial life. The term “Frankenstein foods” in political debates about GMOs also reflects the novel’s continuing power as a cultural metaphor.

“Frankenstein has had such a lasting impact on popular culture because it speaks to the timeless conflict between creator and creation a metaphor for our moral anxieties about progress.”

Whether in literature, cinema, or politics, Frankenstein’s adaptability demonstrates its status as a living myth one that evolves with every generation’s ethical dilemmas.

2. Reading and Analysis

In the novel, the creature’s education plays a pivotal role in shaping his consciousness. Through reading texts like Paradise Lost and Plutarch’s Lives, he develops moral reasoning and a sense of injustice. Yet, this very knowledge alienates him further.

A Cultural Studies perspective interprets this as a critique of Enlightenment education. Knowledge does not automatically liberate it can also deepen the awareness of exclusion. Shelley thus exposes the contradictions of intellectual progress in a society that refuses to extend equality to all beings.

3. Film and Media Reflection

Films such as The Bride of Frankenstein, Young Frankenstein, Blade Runner, and even Hindi adaptations reinterpret Shelley’s myth according to their cultural and historical moments.

In Blade Runner, the replicants’ quest for identity mirrors the creature’s plea for recognition. Similarly, Indian adaptations tend to humanize the monster, emphasizing emotion and moral redemption reflecting cultural values of compassion and family.

These reinterpretations show that Frankenstein is not bound to one culture or era. Each version transforms it into a mirror of its own society’s fears be it fascism, technological domination, or moral alienation. The “Frankenpheme” thus becomes a powerful tool for exploring what it means to be human in an ever-changing world.

Conclusion: The Enduring Power of Frankenstein

More than two centuries after its publication, Frankenstein continues to provoke, inspire, and caution. Its revolutionary spirit lies not only in its critique of scientific arrogance but also in its empathy for the marginalized and its challenge to social hierarchies.

Through a Cultural Studies approach, the novel emerges as a text that bridges literature and life it speaks to the oppressed, critiques power, and questions progress. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein teaches that creation, whether human or technological, must be guided by moral responsibility and compassion.

References 

• Barad, Dilip. Thinking Activity: A Cultural Studies Approach to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Bhavnagar University, 2024. ResearchGate Publication.
• Guerin, Wilfred L., et al. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. 5th ed., Indian ed., Oxford University Press, 2007.
• Levine, George, and U. C. Knoepflmacher, editors. The Endurance of Frankenstein: Essays on Mary Shelley’s Novel. University of California Press, 1979.
• Morton, Timothy. Routledge Literary Sourcebook on Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Routledge, 2002.
• Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein; Or, The Modern Prometheus. Project Gutenberg, 1993, www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/84
• Smith, Johanna M. “‘Cooped Up’ with ‘Sad Trash’: Domesticity and the Sciences in Frankenstein.” In Frankenstein: Complete, Authoritative Text with Biographical, Historical, and Cultural Contexts, Critical History, and Essays from Contemporary Critical Perspectives, edited by Johanna M. Smith, Bedford Books, 2000, pp. 227–240.
• Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Three Women’s Texts and a Critique of Imperialism.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 12, no. 1, 1985, pp. 243–261.

Thinking Activity: Exploring Marginalization in Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead

This Blog is a Part of Cultural Studies on Exploring Marginalization in Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead assigned by Prof. and Dr. Dilip Barad Sir, In this blog I examine the marginalization of minor characters in Hamlet and explore how this reflects broader themes of power and systemic exclusion, drawing parallels with hierarchical structures in contemporary corporate culture.

For Background Reading:- Click Here

Exploring Marginalization and Power: A Cultural Studies Perspective on Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead

Introduction

Shakespeare’s Hamlet dramatizes not only royal ambition and revenge but also the silent suffering of those who exist at the margins of power. Characters such as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, often overlooked, reveal the hidden mechanisms of hierarchy that operate within the play’s political structure. Their obedience, disposability, and eventual death serve as profound commentaries on systemic marginalization. Centuries later, Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead reimagines these figures, shifting the focus from tragedy to existential absurdity. This reinterpretation exposes the deeper cultural and institutional forces that continue to shape human identity and power relations forces that are equally visible in modern corporate hierarchies. Through the lens of Cultural Studies, this blog explores how both Shakespeare and Stoppard critique systems of control and exclusion that persist from Renaissance courts to twenty-first-century boardrooms.

1. Marginalization in Hamlet

In Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern occupy a peripheral yet significant position within the play’s intricate hierarchy. They are summoned by Claudius and Gertrude not as friends but as instruments of surveillance a reminder that, in power structures, loyalty often replaces individuality. Hamlet’s description of Rosencrantz as a “sponge that soaks up the king’s countenance, his rewards, his authorities” vividly captures their condition: they absorb favor from those above only to be squeezed dry when no longer useful.

Louis Althusser’s theory of “Ideological State Apparatuses” explains how subjects are unconsciously shaped to sustain dominant power. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern represent this ideological subjection they serve the monarchy without questioning its authority, demonstrating how hierarchy reproduces obedience through internalized consent. Their marginalization, therefore, is not personal failure but structural necessity. Shakespeare exposes how the “little people” within systems of dominance exist merely to maintain the stability of those in control.

2. Modern Parallels to Corporate Power

The expendability of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern finds a striking echo in modern corporate culture. Today’s employees clerks, assistants, and lower-tier managers often face similar treatment, valued for function rather than individuality. In the era of globalization and automation, workers can be dismissed or replaced when profit margins demand it, much like Hamlet’s casual disposal of his childhood companions.

Raymond Williams, in “Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory”, argues that culture reflects and reinforces material relations of power. The corporate system mirrors Shakespeare’s royal court: a hierarchical structure where decision-making is centralized, and those at the bottom remain voiceless. When multinational companies relocate or downsize, employees experience a modern version of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s fate displacement without acknowledgment. Both contexts reveal how power treats individuals as assets, not as autonomous beings, underscoring the continuity between feudal subservience and capitalist exploitation.

3. Existential Questions in Stoppard’s Reinterpretation

Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (1967) elevates Shakespeare’s minor characters into central figures of existential uncertainty. Removed from the main plot of Hamlet, they inhabit a liminal space where meaning is elusive, and agency is absent. Their endless questioning “Who are we?” “What’s going on?” reflects the existential disorientation of modern individuals trapped within opaque systems of power.

Michel Foucault’s concept of “power/knowledge” is key to understanding this dynamic. The two courtiers lack access to the knowledge that defines their existence; they live inside a narrative written by others. Their ignorance is not mere folly it is structural, imposed by an order that withholds information to maintain control. Stoppard transforms their marginalization into a philosophical metaphor for the contemporary worker or citizen aware of existence yet powerless to influence its direction. Their eventual, unnoticed deaths dramatize what Jean-Paul Sartre described as “nausea”: the recognition of human insignificance within vast, indifferent systems.

4. Cultural and Economic Power Structures

Both Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead critique systems that marginalize “little people,” revealing how power operates across cultural and economic domains. Antonio Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony helps explain this continuity: dominant classes maintain authority not merely through coercion but by shaping ideology, convincing subordinates that their place in the hierarchy is natural. In Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern internalize obedience, believing service to the crown defines their worth. In modern capitalism, workers internalize productivity ethics and corporate loyalty as moral virtues, even when those ideals perpetuate exploitation.

Stephen Greenblatt’s Renaissance Self-Fashioning (1980) also illuminates this process. In the Renaissance, individuals constructed their identities through alignment with authority; in Stoppard’s modern world, self-fashioning collapses altogether, leaving the characters adrift in meaninglessness. Edward Said’s Culture and Imperialism (1993) extends this idea to the cultural domain, showing how literature reflects imperial and institutional power. Both Shakespeare and Stoppard thus reveal how art can expose systemic inequalities that shape society, from monarchy to multinational corporations.

5. Personal Reflection

The marginalization of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern continues to resonate in the modern experience of being seen as a dispensable “asset.” Their roles remind us that systems of power whether political, economic, or cultural depend on invisibility and compliance at the lower levels. In the workplace, this invisibility manifests in job insecurity, burnout, and alienation, as individuals strive to prove worth in structures designed to overlook them.

Through Cultural Studies, we learn to question these hierarchies rather than accept them as natural. Both Shakespeare and Stoppard challenge us to see the human cost of systemic power: how the machinery of success is built on silent sacrifice. Reflecting on their fate encourages us to reclaim agency to recognize that awareness of marginalization is the first step toward resistance. As students and thinkers, our task is not only to analyze such patterns but to envision systems where human dignity replaces expendability.

Conclusion

Through the lens of Cultural Studies, Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead reveal the enduring structures of marginalization that bind human experience. From the courts of Elsinore to the cubicles of corporate offices, power continues to operate through ideology, knowledge, and economic necessity. Shakespeare’s tragedy and Stoppard’s absurdist reinterpretation remind us that while systems evolve, the logic of exclusion persists. By exposing these dynamics, literature becomes a form of resistance an act of reclaiming meaning for those silenced by authority.

References

• Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.” Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, translated by Ben Brewster, Monthly Review Press, 1971.
• Foucault, Michel. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. Edited by Colin Gordon, Pantheon, 1980.
• Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. International Publishers, 1971.
• Greenblatt, Stephen. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. University of Chicago Press, 1980.
• Said, Edward W. Culture and Imperialism. Vintage, 1993.
• Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Project Gutenberg, 1999.
• Stoppard, Tom. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Grove Press, 1967.
• Storey, John. Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An Introduction. Routledge, 2018.
• Williams, Raymond. “Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory.” New Left Review, vol. 1, no. 82, 1973, pp. 3–16.

Cultural Studies, Media, Power, and the Truly Educated Person

This blog is a Part of Cultural Studies on Cultural Studies, Media, Power, and the Truly Educated Person assigned by Prof. and Dr. Dilip Barad sir, in this blog i reflect my thought about how media shapes culture, power, and education in contemporary society. I critically explore how media influences our ways of thinking, living, and learning. Through this reflection, I aim to understand what it truly means to be an educated person in today’s media-driven world.

For Background Reading Click Here.

Introduction

In the contemporary world, media has become a central force in shaping culture, politics, and individual perception. Beyond merely reporting events, media functions as a mechanism that constructs reality, informs public discourse, and shapes collective identities. The interplay between media and power is crucial to understanding contemporary society, while education, particularly critical media literacy, provides the tools necessary to navigate these dynamics. In this blog, I reflect on three interconnected themes: how media and power intersect in shaping modern culture, the importance of critical media literacy as a component of education, and what it means to be a “truly educated person” in today’s media-saturated world.

1. How Media and Power Intersect in Shaping Modern Culture

Media is a powerful instrument that reflects, reinforces, and shapes societal power structures. It operates not as a neutral conduit of information, but as a system influenced by ownership, corporate interests, and political agendas. In contemporary society, large media conglomerates wield considerable influence, determining which narratives gain visibility and which remain marginalized. This dynamic ensures that the perspectives and interests of economic and political elites are disproportionately represented, shaping public opinion and cultural norms.

Media also functions as a mechanism for defining social legitimacy. Through selective framing and agenda-setting, media outlets influence what the public perceives as important, acceptable, or credible. For instance, coverage of social policies often emphasizes economic benefits or political narratives while underrepresenting the lived experiences of marginalized communities. However, media is not monolithic. Independent films and journalism, such as the The Sabarmati Report film (2024), demonstrate the capacity of media to highlight alternative narratives, challenge dominant discourses, and give voice to underrepresented groups. This duality of media—as a tool for both domination and resistance—illustrates its central role in shaping contemporary culture.

Furthermore, the dynamic nature of media ensures that power is fluid. Social media, digital platforms, and citizen journalism provide spaces for individuals and communities to contest established narratives, mobilize social movements, and influence cultural discourse. Understanding these dynamics is essential for recognizing how culture is produced, reproduced, and transformed in a media-saturated society.

2. The Importance of Critical Media Literacy as a Component of Education

Education in the twenty-first century cannot be confined to memorizing facts or achieving technical competence. It must prepare individuals to engage critically with information systems, particularly media, which permeates daily life. Critical media literacy is thus a foundational skill for navigating contemporary society.

Critical media literacy involves more than recognizing overt biases; it requires understanding the structural, economic, and ideological forces shaping media content. Students and citizens must develop the ability to “read” media critically, identifying whose interests are represented, which voices are amplified, and what perspectives are systematically excluded. By cultivating this skill, learners can resist the passive consumption of information and engage with media in a reflective and analytical manner.

Moreover, critical media literacy encourages active civic engagement. It equips individuals to create, communicate, and disseminate alternative narratives that challenge dominant power structures. It also fosters a culture of questioning assumptions, verifying information, and evaluating sources rigorously. In an era where partisanship, misinformation, and echo chambers can distort perception, media literacy empowers individuals to navigate the complexities of information critically, ensuring that public discourse remains informed and accountable.

Education must also emphasize the ethical dimension of media engagement. Understanding how narratives influence culture and society is inseparable from the responsibility to use knowledge constructively. By integrating critical media literacy into curricula, education cultivates citizens who are not only informed but capable of participating responsibly in shaping social, cultural, and political realities.

3. Defining a “Truly Educated Person” in Today’s Media-Saturated World.

A truly educated person today is defined not by the accumulation of knowledge alone, but by the capacity for independent thought, ethical judgment, and reflective engagement with the world. Education in a media-saturated environment requires the ability to critically evaluate information, recognize structural influences on knowledge, and discern the intersection of power, culture, and ideology.

Independent inquiry is central to being truly educated. It involves questioning assumptions, investigating evidence, and generating knowledge rather than passively accepting pre-packaged narratives. In a media-saturated society, this means scrutinizing the framing, sources, and intentions behind the information presented and resisting the influence of partisanship or social conformity.

Creativity and contextual awareness further define a truly educated individual. Human cognitive faculties allow for problem-solving and innovation, yet these must be exercised within an understanding of cultural, political, and institutional constraints. Awareness of how media shapes perception, amplifies certain values, and silences others is essential to developing informed, nuanced perspectives.

Finally, ethical and civic responsibility distinguishes a truly educated person. Knowledge and critical thinking alone are insufficient; education must foster the ability to act with integrity, contribute to public discourse, and challenge unjust power structures. A truly educated individual leverages media literacy, critical thinking, and ethical engagement to participate meaningfully in society, ensuring that their actions promote justice, inclusivity, and collective well-being.

Conclusion

Media, power, and education are inextricably linked in shaping contemporary culture. Media functions both as a mechanism for consolidating elite power and as a platform for resistance, influencing public perception and cultural norms. Critical media literacy, as an integral component of education, equips individuals with the analytical tools necessary to navigate these dynamics, fostering reflective, independent, and ethically engaged citizens.

In a world saturated with information, a truly educated person is one who interrogates media critically, engages creatively and ethically with knowledge, and participates actively in shaping culture and society. This conception of education transcends rote learning, emphasizing inquiry, reflexivity, and civic responsibility as essential qualities. By cultivating these skills, education becomes transformative, preparing individuals not only to understand the world but to contribute to its continual reshaping in pursuit of justice, equity, and human flourishing.

Additional Source: 

How the media shapes the way we view the world   

Comparative and Critical analysis of Daniel Defoe’s ‘Robinson Crusoe’ and J. M. Coetzee’s ‘Foe'

 This Blog is a Part of Thinking Activity on Daniel Defoe’s ‘Robinson Crusoe’ and J. M. Coetzee’s ‘Foe’ assigned by Megha Trivedi Ma'am, Department of Of English MKBU.

Title page from the first edition
Author	Daniel Defoe
Original title	The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, of York, Mariner: Who lived Eight and Twenty Years, all alone in an un-inhabited Island on the Coast of America, near the Mouth of the Great River of Oroonoque; Having been cast on Shore by Shipwreck, wherein all the Men perished but himself. With An Account how he was at last as strangely deliver'd by Pyrates. Written by Himself.
Language	English
Genre	Adventure, historical fiction
Set in	England, the Caribbean and the Pyrenees, 1651–1687
Publisher	William Taylor
Publication date	25 April 1719 (306 years ago)
Publication place	Great Britain
Dewey Decimal	823.51
LC Class	PR3403 .A1
Followed by	The Farther Adventures of Robinson Crusoe
Text	Robinson Crusoe at Wikisource

Robinson Crusoe | FULL MOVIE | Daniel Defoe | Classic Literature Adventure

Introduction

Robinson Crusoe, written by Daniel Defoe in 1719,is widely regarded as one of the earliest and most influential novels in English literature. It tells the story of Robinson Crusoe, a man who becomes shipwrecked on a deserted island. Using his intelligence and faith, he learns to survive alone for 28 years. He builds a life of self-reliance and eventually meets a native man, Friday, whom he teaches and befriends. The novel explores themes of survival, civilization, faith, and colonialism. It reflects the spirit of the Enlightenment, emphasizing reason and hard work.

Major Characters

• Robinson Crusoe – The protagonist and narrator, who represents the ideal of self-made manhood and the rational, industrious spirit of the Enlightenment.

• Friday – The native man rescued by Crusoe; he symbolizes both the colonial subject and the “Other” in European imagination.

• Crusoe’s Father – A symbol of wisdom and social stability, representing the moderate life that Crusoe rejects.

• The Captain – The Englishman whom Crusoe helps to restore to power; he serves as a means of Crusoe’s eventual return home.

Themes

      

• Survival and Self-Reliance
• Civilization vs. Nature
• Colonialism and Cultural Superiority
• Capitalism and Materialism

Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe (1719) tells the story of a young Englishman who defies his parents’ wishes and goes to sea in search of adventure. After several voyages and misfortunes, he is shipwrecked on a deserted island and becomes the sole survivor. Alone and cut off from civilization, Crusoe learns to survive using his intelligence, faith, and hard work. He builds a shelter, grows crops, raises animals, and documents his experiences in a journal. Over the years, he transforms the island into a self-sufficient colony, symbolizing human mastery over nature. One day, he rescues a native man from cannibals and names him Friday, teaching him English and Christianity, thus reflecting colonial attitudes of the time. The two live together in harmony until Crusoe helps an English captain regain his ship from mutineers. After twenty-eight years on the island, Crusoe finally returns to England, finding himself wealthy from earlier investments. The novel ends with his reflections on faith, providence, and human endurance. Ultimately, Robinson Crusoe becomes a tale of survival, self-reliance, and spiritual awakening.

First edition
Author	J. M. Coetzee
Language	English
Publisher	Viking Press
Publication date	1986
Publication place	South Africa

Introduction

Foe (1986) by J. M. Coetzee is a postmodern retelling of Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe.

It tells the story of Susan Barton, a woman shipwrecked on an island with Cruso and Friday, a mute slave. Unlike Defoe’s version, Coetzee focuses on silence, authorship, and marginalization rather than adventure. Through Susan’s struggle to tell her story, the novel questions who has the right to speak or write history. Friday’s muteness symbolizes the silenced voice of the colonized.

The author Mr. Foe represents literary power and manipulation.

 Major Characters

Susan Barton 

The protagonist and narrator for most of the novel. A shipwreck survivor who strives to tell her story, she represents the silenced female voice struggling for authorship in a patriarchal literary world. Through her, Coetzee explores questions of agency, narrative control, and gendered marginalization.

Friday 

A mute black slave, whose tongue has been cut out symbolizing the erasure and silencing of colonized voices. His muteness becomes a powerful metaphor for the untranslatable trauma and the impossibility of giving speech to the subaltern within colonial discourse.

Cruso 

Coetzee’s reimagined version of Defoe’s Crusoe. Unlike Defoe’s industrious and optimistic islander, this Cruso is weary, apathetic, and disillusioned, representing the decay of imperial ambition and the futility of colonial mastery.

Mr. Foe 

A fictional representation of Daniel Defoe. He is the metafictional author figure who seeks to reshape Susan’s story to fit popular expectations, symbolizing the power of literary authority and the manipulation of truth in storytelling.

Themes

• Silence and the Voice of the Subaltern
• Authorship and Narrative Authority
• Colonialism and Power
• Gender and Marginalization

J. M. Coetzee’s Foe (1986) is a postmodern and postcolonial reimagining of Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe. The novel follows Susan Barton, a woman who is shipwrecked and finds herself on an island with Cruso and his mute servant Friday, whose tongue has been cut out. Unlike Defoe’s Crusoe, Cruso is tired and unambitious, showing no interest in building or recording his life. After their rescue, Cruso dies on the voyage home, leaving Susan to tell their story. She seeks out the writer Mr. Foe (a fictional version of Defoe) to help her publish it, but he wants to change her plain truth into an adventure tale. Susan struggles to preserve her voice and Friday’s silence against Foe’s manipulative storytelling. Friday’s muteness becomes a haunting symbol of the silenced colonized subject whose story remains untold. The novel blends fiction, history, and metafiction, questioning who has the right to speak and write history. Coetzee exposes the power imbalance between author and subject, and between colonizer and colonized. In the end, the story dissolves into ambiguity, leaving Friday’s silence as the only lasting truth.

Comparative and Critical analysis of Daniel Defoe’s ‘Robinson Crusoe’ and J. M. Coetzee’s ‘Foe’.

Introduction

Daniel Defoe’s The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe (1719) is often hailed as the birth of the English novel and a landmark text of colonial modernity. It narrates the story of a solitary Englishman who, through faith, labor, and reason, transforms a deserted island into a miniature empire. Yet, beneath its adventurous exterior lies the spirit of Enlightenment rationalism and imperial conquest, making Robinson Crusoe both a survival story and a metaphor for colonial expansion.

Over two and a half centuries later, J.M. Coetzee, one of the most profound postcolonial voices of the twentieth century, revisits Defoe’s text in his 1986 novel Foe. Coetzee’s Foe is not a retelling but a revisionist critique that exposes how power operates through storytelling itself. Through metafictional narrative and postmodern techniques, Coetzee questions authorship, narrative authority, and the silencing of the subaltern, especially in the context of postcolonial South Africa.

From Empire to Critique: Shifting the Narrative Lens

Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe encapsulates the optimism of imperial England. Crusoe, the self-reliant castaway, embodies the rise of the bourgeois individual who masters nature and “civilizes” the other. His dominion over the island and over Friday mirrors the colonial ideology of superiority and the expansionist drive of the British Empire. The text celebrates reason, labor, and faith as virtues that justify conquest  aligning with the emerging capitalist and Christian ethos of 18th-century Europe.

In contrast, Coetzee’s Foe dismantles these very assumptions. Set against the historical backdrop of apartheid and postcolonial identity, Coetzee rewrites Defoe’s island narrative to expose the constructed nature of “truth” and “civilization.” His version strips away adventure and heroism, replacing them with ambiguity, silence, and fragmentation. The novel critiques how the colonial mindset was perpetuated through storytelling itself  revealing that what we accept as “truth” in canonical literature often stems from the erasure of non-European voices.

Authorship and Narrative Power

While Defoe’s narrative grants Crusoe complete control over his world, Foe relocates the site of power to the act of writing itself. The central struggle in Coetzee’s text is not about physical survival, but about who gets to tell the story.

The protagonist, Susan Barton, a female castaway, attempts to recount her experience with Cruso (Coetzee’s stripped-down version of Crusoe) and the mute slave, Friday. When she seeks to publish her story, the professional author Mr. Foe (a fictional representation of Daniel Defoe) insists on altering her account  adding cannibals, lost daughters, and sensational details to fit the expectations of the English reading public.

Through this metafictional conflict, Coetzee reveals how literary authority mirrors colonial domination. Just as Crusoe imposed order upon the island, Mr. Foe imposes his version of truth upon Susan’s narrative. Authorship becomes a tool of power  shaping, editing, and silencing voices that do not conform to the established norms of storytelling.

As Marco Caracciolo (2012) notes, Coetzee’s Foe transforms the “embodiment of meaning” into a site of contestation, where the body and silence of the oppressed speak louder than language itself.

Friday: From the ‘Grateful Savage’ to the Silenced Subaltern

Perhaps the most radical reimagining in Foe is Coetzee’s portrayal of Friday.

In Defoe’s novel, Friday is depicted as the perfect colonial subject—obedient, converted, and thankful to his white master. Crusoe’s act of naming and teaching him English signifies not liberation but possession, as Friday’s identity is rewritten within a colonial framework.

Coetzee, however, strips Friday of speech altogether. His tongue has been cut out, either by slavers or by Cruso himself—a detail never clarified, reinforcing the opacity of historical violence. Friday’s silence becomes a haunting symbol of the unspeakable trauma of enslavement and colonization.

Susan Barton’s repeated attempts to give Friday a voice through writing, music, and empathy end in failure. His muteness challenges the assumption that the oppressed can be represented by others, even well-intentioned allies. As Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (1990) suggests in “Theory in the Margin,” Coetzee’s Foe illustrates how the subaltern’s voice is not merely unheard but untranslatable within the language of the colonizer.

Friday’s silence, then, becomes a form of resistance  a refusal to conform to the linguistic structures that once enslaved him. It transforms him from a passive subject into a symbol of enduring historical absence and suppressed truth.

Susan Barton: Gender, Storytelling, and the Quest for Voice

Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe is a thoroughly masculine narrative, where women exist only at the margins   unnamed, peripheral, and voiceless. Coetzee deliberately subverts this by centering Foe around Susan Barton, a woman striving to narrate her own experience in a patriarchal and colonial literary world.

Susan’s relationship with Mr. Foe dramatizes the gendered nature of authorship. Her straightforward, unembellished story is dismissed as inadequate, while Foe’s desire to fictionalize her account reflects how women’s voices are shaped by male authority. Susan’s frustration mirrors the broader feminist struggle to assert authorship in a system that equates masculinity with creativity and credibility.

However, Susan’s role is also ambivalent. As a white woman, she holds a position of privilege in relation to Friday, yet she too experiences silencing. Her attempt to “speak for” Friday reproduces the same structures of domination she resists. Thus, Coetzee interweaves postcolonial and feminist critiques, revealing how both gender and race are inscribed within the politics of storytelling.

Postmodernism and the Collapse of Meaning

Foe employs postmodern strategies such as intertextuality, metafiction, and narrative ambiguity to destabilize the notion of truth inherited from Enlightenment realism. The novel constantly reminds readers of its own artifice, exposing how “history” is always a construct.

The final chapter (Chapter IV) exemplifies this postmodern rupture. Here, an unnamed narrator—possibly a symbolic reader—descends into a dreamlike underwater world, encountering the drowned bodies of Susan and others. When he opens Friday’s mouth, a stream of water flows out, representing a language beyond words.

This haunting image signifies the persistence of suppressed histories, flowing silently beneath the surface of written discourse. As López and Wiegandt (2016) argue, Coetzee uses intertextuality to engage with “non-English literary traditions” that have long been marginalized by Western canons. The water imagery suggests that meaning, though buried, continues to circulate — unreachable but not erased.

Conclusion: Rewriting the Silence

Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe constructs the myth of the self-made man and the colonial master, celebrating human conquest over nature and other cultures. Coetzee’s Foe, on the other hand, dismantles this myth from within. By rewriting the canonical narrative through a postcolonial and feminist lens, Coetzee reveals how empire was built not only through guns and trade but through stories and silences.

In Foe, speech, silence, and authorship become metaphors for historical power relations—between colonizer and colonized, man and woman, writer and subject. The novel forces readers to confront an uncomfortable truth: that the very act of storytelling can perpetuate oppression.

Ultimately, Coetzee’s Foe is not just a response to Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe but a redefinition of narrative itself a reminder that literature, like history, must continually reckon with the voices it has excluded.

References

• Caracciolo, Marco. “J. M. Coetzee’s Foe and the Embodiment of Meaning.” Journal of Modern Literature, vol. 36, no. 1, 2012, pp. 90–103.
• Coetzee, J. M. Foe. Vintage International, 1987.
• Defoe, Daniel. The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe. Ed. Michael Shinagel, W.W. Norton, 1994.
• López, María J., and Kai Wiegandt. “Introduction: J.M. Coetzee, Intertextuality and the Non-English Literary Traditions.” European Journal of English Studies, vol. 20, no. 2, 2016, pp. 113–126.
• Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Theory in the Margin: Coetzee’s Foe Reading Defoe’s ‘Crusoe/Roxana.’” English in Africa, vol. 17, no. 2, 1990, pp. 1–23.