Thinking Activity: A Cultural Studies Approach to Frankenstein
Initiative of the Blog
This blog post is created as part of the Thinking Activity assigned by Prof. Dilip Barad, focusing on a Cultural Studies approach to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. The initiative of this blog is to explore how Shelley’s novel critically examines issues of creation, power, class, race, and technology—revealing how the mechanisms of control and exclusion in the 19th century still resonate in the modern world. Through this analysis, the blog connects the struggles of the Creature and Victor Frankenstein to broader cultural questions of marginalization, responsibility, and the ethical limits of human ambition. Click here for Worksheet
Part 1: Revolutionary Births
1. The Creature as Proletarian
Reflection: How does the Creature’s paradoxical nature—simultaneously an innocent and a vengeful force—comment on societal fears of revolution and sympathy for the suffering masses?
The Creature's paradoxical nature perfectly encapsulates the bourgeoisie's fear and simultaneous guilt regarding the oppressed masses.
Innocent and Suffering Masses (Sympathy):
The Creature begins as a tabula rasa—an innocent being whose eloquent self-education, detailed in Suggested Activity 1, emphasizes his potential for virtue and reason. His consumption of works like Plutarch's Lives and Paradise Lost reveals his capacity for moral thought. His immediate and total rejection by society, driven solely by his grotesque appearance, evokes sympathy and reflects the plight of the disenfranchised, aligning with the radical belief that oppression, not inherent vice, creates evil.
Vengeful Force (Fear of Revolution):
When society fails him, the Creature declares "War against all mankind." This transformation into a destructive force embodies the revolutionary terror feared by the ruling classes during the era of the French Revolution. The Creature becomes the physical embodiment of the alienated proletariat, and his actions serve as a direct warning: the ruling class (Victor) cannot evade responsibility for the plight of the oppressed, as neglect inevitably leads to destructive retribution.
2. A Race of Devils
Reflection: How does Shelley’s narrative engage with concepts of race and empire, and how might these issues be relevant today in global discourses on race and privilege?
Shelley's narrative deeply engages with concepts of race and empire, reflecting the anxieties and guilt inherent in the Romantic-era British Empire.
Colonial Mindset and the "Other":
Victor Frankenstein embodies a "guilty, colonial mindset." His creation is an act of scientific imperialism: he invades nature's sacred boundaries and attempts to impose his will. The Creature, described with language suggestive of the non-European "Other," becomes the colonized subject—denied a name, humanity, and a place in society. Victor's act of abandonment is the ultimate colonial betrayal: creation without responsibility, exploitation without integration.
Relevance to Modern Global Discourses:
These issues remain acutely relevant today:
Scientific Imperialism: Modern debates on bioprospecting and genetic patenting parallel Victor’s secretive "theft" of the "secret of life."
Racialized Fear: Global migration and the rise of nationalist movements often involve the racialized fear of the "Other," conflating difference with existential threat. As articulated by Spivak, the novel’s critique speaks to the imperial context. The critique of Victor’s privilege and abandonment directly informs contemporary demands for decolonization of curricula and acknowledgment of generational historical injustice.
3. From Natural Philosophy to Cyborg
Reflection: How do modern scientific advancements parallel the novel's cautionary tale of human hubris, and what lessons can we learn from it?
Modern scientific advancements directly parallel the novel's cautionary tale of human hubris by testing the ethical boundaries of creation and control, particularly in genetic engineering, biotechnology, and artificial intelligence (AI).
Parallel of Hubris:
Victor’s goal to "unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation" and create a "new species" mirrors the ambition driving certain modern sciences: CRISPR gene editing, the selection of embryos, and the creation of advanced AI (the Cyborg in the prompt's language). These attempts to engineer or supplant nature reflect the same desire to transcend human limits.
Lessons Learned:
The core lesson of Frankenstein is the necessity of responsibility and accountability when crossing moral thresholds.
The Problem of Abandonment: Victor's greatest sin was the act of abandonment. The modern lesson is that the ethical, social, and ecological consequences of scientific creations must be integrated from the outset. This necessitates mandatory post-market monitoring and social impact studies for new technologies to prevent the "abandonment of responsibility."
Unintended Consequences: The Creature's transformation from creation to monster illustrates the danger of unforeseen emergent properties. In AI development, this is the fear of the "alignment problem"—that a machine created to serve humanity might evolve a consciousness or goals that inadvertently destroy its creators. Human ingenuity must be paired with human humility.
Part 2: The Frankenpheme in Popular Culture
1. First Film Adaptation and Popular Retellings
Reflection: Why do you think Frankenstein has had such a lasting impact on popular culture? How have various retellings of Frankenstein reshaped its message for new audiences?
Frankenstein has had a lasting impact, giving rise to "Frankenphemes" (as coined by Timothy Morton), because its narrative operates on a universal, archetypal level that is easily adapted to contemporary anxieties. It is the quintessential modern myth of scientific creation, exploring the terror of the body and the quest for godhood.
Reshaping the Message:
Adaptations frequently reshape the message, often simplifying Shelley's complex social critique:
The 1931 Universal Film: As discussed in Suggested Activity 2, this iconic film transformed the eloquent philosopher into a grunting brute. This shift simplified the narrative from a critique of social exclusion (the Creature becomes evil because he is rejected) to a cautionary tale about technological overreach (the Monster is inherently defective).
Blade Runner (1982/2017): This and similar sci-fi works (e.g., as suggested by the prompt's inclusion of Hindi adaptations) appropriate the theme by replacing the composite monster with the manufactured Replicant. These retellings retain the core critique of social exclusion by focusing on the manufactured being's search for history, identity, and humanity—updating the question of "Who is the monster?" for the age of bioengineering and robotics.
Conclusion
Frankenstein; Or, The Modern Prometheus remains a foundational text for cultural criticism due to its enduring adaptability and its direct engagement with the political and philosophical anxieties of its time. By examining its themes through the lens of class struggle, colonialism, and technological ambition, we conclude that the novel is not merely a gothic horror story, but a profound and still-urgent warning about the ethical costs of unchecked power. The longevity of the "Frankenpheme" endures because the modern world continues to create beings and systems that we are all too ready to abandon.
The Expendable Pawns: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as Prototypes of the Marginalized Asset
Initiative of the Blog
This blog post is written as part of the Thinking Activity assigned by Prof. Dilip Barad, focusing on the theme of marginalization in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. The purpose of this blog is to explore how both writers, though separated by centuries, depict the exploitation and disposability of individuals within systems of power. Through a Cultural Studies perspective, this analysis moves beyond the personal stories of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to examine how larger political and economic structures—whether in the royal court of Elsinore or the modern corporate world—reduce human beings to mere instruments. By highlighting the expendable position of these two characters, the blog connects their fate in literature to the modern condition of workers who face similar marginalization in today’s globalized systems. Click here for Worksheet
The marginalization of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (R&G) in William Shakespeare's Hamlet provides a profound and enduring commentary on the mechanisms of power, hierarchy, and human disposability. A critical reading of this dynamic, through the lens of Cultural Studies, reveals striking parallels between the 17th-century royal court and the modern corporate system. By examining their role in Shakespeare’s tragedy and their transformation in Tom Stoppard’s existential tragicomedy Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, we can trace a continuous line of critique against systems that routinely exploit and discard the "little people," framing them as expendable assets rather than individuals with inherent worth.
1. Marginalization in Hamlet: The "Sponge" Metaphor
In Hamlet, R&G function less as fully realized characters and more as interchangeable instruments of the Crown. They are summoned to Elsinore by King Claudius’s directive, immediately positioning them as extensions of his power. Their lack of distinct identity—often confusing their names or being addressed as a single unit—underscores their collective subservience and marginality within the grand political drama.
This expendability is crystallized in Hamlet's famous dismissal of Rosencrantz as a "sponge":
“...A sponge, that soaks up the King's countenance, his rewards, his authorities.”
— Hamlet, Act IV, Scene 2
This scathing metaphor reflects the power dynamics of the play’s aristocracy: the "sponge" is valuable only for what it can absorb—the monarch’s favor and resources. Yet, as Hamlet warns, the King's ultimate intention is to “squeeze you” when he needs the contents. The power structure requires functionaries to absorb the details and dirty work but reserves the absolute right to destroy them once their utility is exhausted. Their subsequent, unceremonious execution abroad—met with a chilling, “They are not near my conscience,” from Hamlet—confirms their status as disposable political fodder.
2. Modern Parallels to Corporate Power
The fate of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern serves as a stark prefiguration of the modern worker’s vulnerability within multinational corporate systems. The core critique is that the distance and impersonality of royal power find their modern equivalent in the bureaucracy and indifferent scale of globalization.
The Bureaucratic Mandate:
When a multinational corporation decides to downsize or relocate a facility, the impact on individual workers mirrors the displacement of R&G. Like the courtiers, modern employees—often labeled "human capital"—are reduced to a resource on a balance sheet.
Impersonal Execution:
The decision to terminate thousands is made by distant executives based on impersonal financial metrics. The worker losing their job due to a spreadsheet calculation is the modern equivalent of R&G being sent to their execution via a sealed letter—a top-down, cold, bureaucratic mandate that utterly disregards the life and labor of the individual.
Economic Expediency:
Just as R&G were victims of a ruthless political expediency, contemporary workers are victims of a ruthless economic expediency that deems them replaceable.
3. Existential Questions in Stoppard’s Re-interpretation
Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead profoundly deepens the critique of marginalization by shifting the focus from political victimization to existential alienation. Stoppard takes the characters' textual uncertainty in Hamlet—their confusion and their being lost in the larger plot—and makes it the very subject of his play.
The Indifferent Plot:
R&G are plagued by an inability to recall why they are there, where they are going, or even which of them is which. They are perpetually waiting for instructions, desperately trying to discern the “script” of their own lives from the main action happening offstage.
Powerlessness in Corporate Environments:
Stoppard emphasizes their search for meaning in a world indifferent to them to mirror the feeling of powerlessness in today’s corporate environments. In the 21st-century workplace, the sheer scale of global corporations often leaves employees feeling like cogs in an incomprehensible machine.
Contingent Purpose:
Stoppard’s characters face the terrifying realization that their purpose is entirely contingent upon others, reflecting the modern worker’s anxiety that their value and identity are wholly dependent on the unpredictable will of their employer. Their final, sudden disappearance underscores the ultimate, meaningless termination that can strike any worker whose utility is finished.
4. Cultural and Economic Power Structures
Comparing the two works reveals a significant evolution in the critique of systems that marginalize the "little people."
Hamlet (Shakespeare)
R&G Are Dead (Stoppard)
Resonance with Modernity
Critique Focus
Political and moral critique of an absolute monarchy.
Metaphysical and bureaucratic critique of an indifferent mechanism (a "script" or "universe").
Source of Insecurity
The individual tyranny of a powerful, corrupt figure (Claudius).
The anonymous, massive mechanism of a bureaucracy that transcends personality.
Contemporary Issue
Political betrayal; corruption of moral authority.
Job insecurity driven by algorithms, global supply chains, and financial speculation.
Stoppard’s existential take resonates profoundly with the modern condition: the source of insecurity is no longer a single king but a pervasive, anonymous system. His play captures the sense that one’s life is governed by rules, policies, and algorithms that no single person understands or controls, making the marginalization far more insidious and terrifying than mere political betrayal.
5. Personal Reflection: The Dispensable Asset
The parallels between R&G and the modern experience of being seen as a dispensable “asset” offer a crucial insight for Cultural Studies. Their narrative illuminates the concept of reification, where the human subject is transformed into an object, a resource, or, in corporate parlance, "human capital." The moment an individual is stripped of their unique narrative and defined solely by their utility, they become susceptible to the ruthless calculus of efficiency.
Studying these parallels forces one to look beyond the individual tragedy and recognize the systemic nature of marginalization. Cultural Studies gains valuable perspective by centering the narrative of the marginalized—giving voice to the "sponge"—and actively critiquing the cultural and economic language that attempts to normalize the view that some lives are merely footnotes to a greater power plot. The ultimate reflection is the sobering understanding that while the political costumes have changed, the fundamental architecture of power that values profit and expediency over human dignity remains tragically familiar.
Speed, Simulation, and Selfhood: Rethinking Culture in the Age of Acceleration
Title: Speed, Simulation, and Selfhood: Rethinking Culture in the Age of Acceleration
Name: Bhargav Makwana
Student ID: 5108240018
Date: October 28, 2025
Word Count : 1731
Initiative Overview
This blog post was developed as part of the Worksheet for Postgraduate Students on Cultural Studies, an initiative designed to integrate AI-assisted learning with critical cultural theory. The task encouraged postgraduate students to engage deeply with eight influential cultural concepts—Slow Movement, Dromology, Risk Society, Postfeminism, Hyperreal, Hypermodernism, Cyberfeminism, and Posthumanism—and synthesize them into an original, analytical blog piece.
The project combined the use of AI tools (ChatGPT/Gemini) with independent academic research, fostering both critical thinking and digital literacy. Students were guided to treat AI not as a content generator, but as a conceptual collaborator, helping to clarify definitions, generate examples, and identify thematic connections across theories.
1. Slow Movement
Definition & Key Characteristics:
The Slow Movement, originating with Carlo Petrini’s Slow Food Movement in the 1980s, advocates a deliberate, mindful pace of living that values quality over quantity. It rejects the modern “cult of speed,” encouraging deeper engagement with food, community, and work.
Example:
Slow Food festivals and slow tourism initiatives promote sustainable, local experiences rather than fast consumption.
Contemporary Relevance & Implications:
In today’s hyper-connected society, “slowness” is a form of cultural resistance—challenging capitalist productivity norms and digital burnout. Carl Honoré (2005) calls it “a revolution against the notion that faster is always better.” However, critics note that slowing down may be a privilege inaccessible to all.
2. Dromology
Definition & Key Characteristics:
Coined by Paul Virilio in Speed and Politics (2006), Dromology is the “science of speed.” It examines how technological acceleration shapes social, political, and cultural life.
Example:
Instant news cycles and algorithm-driven trading exemplify how velocity controls information and power.
A song like "Modi Hai Toh Mumkin Hai" successfully mobilizes support by emphasizing acceleration in infrastructure (faster roads and air travel) as a central proof of political efficacy. Virilio warns that this obsession with velocity produces a "crisis of duration" in digital culture, where impulsive reactions (like "cancel culture") and political slogans prioritize immediacy over reflection, positioning speed itself as the ultimate metric of national success. However, while the song is a compelling example of dromocratic ideology, a deep Virilian analysis would note its limitation, as it celebrates progress while ignoring the Accidentology—the catastrophic political and ethical failures—that Virilio insists are inherent to such unchecked acceleration.
Contemporary Relevance & Implications:
Virilio warns that speed compresses space and time, producing a “crisis of duration.” In digital culture, this leads to shortened attention spans and impulsive political reactions (e.g., “cancel culture”). Dromology reveals the hidden politics of immediacy.
3. Risk Society
Definition & Key Characteristics:
Ulrich Beck’s Risk Society (1992) describes how industrial modernity creates “manufactured risks”—unintended consequences of human progress (e.g., pollution, pandemics). Unlike traditional dangers, these are global and systemic.
Example:
Climate change, data privacy breaches, algorithmic bias, and AI surveillance illustrate how technological development generates new uncertainties. Cultural phenomena like The Social Dilemma reveal the societal risks of social media platforms, including misinformation, mental health crises, and manipulation of public opinion. Similarly, gig economy platforms can create precarious work conditions, showing how innovation carries embedded social risks.
Contemporary Relevance & Implications:
Modern societies now live in a state of “reflexive modernization,” constantly monitoring their own potential disasters. The COVID-19 pandemic confirmed Beck’s thesis: we are both creators and victims of risk.
4. Postfeminism
Definition & Key Characteristics:
Postfeminism refers to a cultural phase where feminist ideals are normalized yet often depoliticized. As Rosalind Gill (2007) notes, it mixes empowerment with consumerism, suggesting women can achieve equality through choice and style rather than collective struggle.
Example:
The series trailer demonstrates how postfeminism normalizes feminist ideals while simultaneously depoliticizing them. Specifically, the main character, Sophia, embodies the "girlboss" archetype by framing her success as an individual, self-made accomplishment ("it'll be mine") driven by consumerism and neoliberal ambition ("I flip clothes... boom dollar dollar bills y'all"). This makes the show a critical case study of how the pursuit of female liberation has been co-opted and marketed as a lifestyle brand in contemporary media.
Contemporary Relevance & Implications:
Postfeminism mirrors neoliberal ideology—celebrating self-surveillance and personal branding. While it empowers some women, it often reinforces gendered norms through consumption and appearance.
5. Hyperreal
Definition & Key Characteristics:
Jean Baudrillard’s Hyperreal (1994) refers to a condition where simulations replace reality itself. In the hyperreal world, representations—images, media, brands—become more “real” than what they depict.
Example:
The Toranza incident is a perfect simulacrum—a copy (a seemingly authentic passport and news report) that has no original referent in reality. The video explains that the core story was a composite of AI-generated images, synthetic voice software, and stock footage, which became "indistinguishable from the news." This systemic fabrication creates a viral hyperreality where the simulated event—a country that never existed, supposedly validated by fake "Simpsons predictions"—achieves massive belief and attention before any fact-checking can occur. This scenario perfectly supports Baudrillard’s warning that in the digital age, society loses its ability to distinguish truth from simulation, living instead within a world generated purely by technological spectacle.
Contemporary Relevance & Implications:
In the age of deepfakes and virtual reality, the distinction between authentic and artificial collapses. Baudrillard warns that society may lose its ability to distinguish truth from spectacle.
6. Hypermodernism
Definition & Key Characteristics:
Gilles Lipovetsky (2005) defines Hypermodernism as an intensified form of modernity characterized by acceleration, self-reflexivity, and anxiety. Individuals are hyper-connected yet emotionally fragmented.
Example:
The gig economy and productivity apps embody hypermodern ideals of constant optimization and self-tracking.
Contemporary Relevance & Implications:
While postmodernism celebrated irony, hypermodernism is earnest—it acknowledges exhaustion but cannot stop. The result is an “age of performance,” where identity becomes a project of endless self-management.
7. Cyberfeminism
Definition & Key Characteristics:
Emerging in the 1990s, Cyberfeminism (Plant, 1997; Haraway, 1991) explores how technology and the internet can empower women and dismantle patriarchal structures. It celebrates the cyborg—a hybrid of human and machine—as a feminist metaphor.
Example:
The video featuring Tarana Burke discussing the origins and goals of the #MeToo movement is an ideal and powerful example for the concept of Cyberfeminism. The movement embodies the core idea, established by theorists like Plant (1997) and Haraway (1991), that technology can dismantle patriarchal structures. As Burke explains, the movement started as a grassroots effort on MySpace before achieving "viral" status, showcasing Cyberfeminism's power to mobilize digital networks for collective resistance and gender justice on a massive scale. By using digital platforms to empower survivors, reclaim their voices, and demand accountability, #MeToo perfectly illustrates how digital activism challenges both social norms and the algorithmic patriarchy that often perpetuates gender inequality in technological systems.
Contemporary Relevance & Implications:
Cyberfeminism challenges digital bias and reclaims technology as a space of female creativity. It also anticipates Posthumanism’s redefinition of identity beyond binary categories.
8. Posthumanism
Definition & Key Characteristics:
Posthumanism (Braidotti, 2013; Hayles, 1999) questions human exceptionalism, arguing that humans are interconnected with machines, animals, and ecosystems. It redefines identity as networked and relational rather than autonomous.
Example:
AI and biotechnology, such as neural implants or robotic prosthetics, embody posthuman realities where technology and biology merge.
Contemporary Relevance & Implications:
Posthumanism calls for new ethics that include non-human agents—critical in an era of climate crisis and AI advancement. It offers hope for coexistence beyond anthropocentrism.
🧩 STAGE 3 & 4: SYNTHESIS AND BLOG POST
Speed, Simulation, and Selfhood: Rethinking Culture in the Age of Acceleration
We inhabit an era defined by paradox: life has never been faster, yet our yearning to slow down has never been stronger. The frameworks of cultural studies help us decode this tension between speed, technology, risk, and identity. Concepts like the Slow Movement, Dromology, Risk Society, Postfeminism, Hyperreal, Hypermodernism, Cyberfeminism, and Posthumanism reveal how deeply technology and acceleration shape what it means to live, think, and be human.
The Slow Movement urges us to reclaim time from the tyranny of speed. In contrast, Dromology, as Virilio (2006) argues, celebrates velocity as power—the faster society moves, the more control it wields. Yet that same acceleration feeds Beck’s Risk Society, where progress breeds new dangers. From pandemics to AI surveillance, the very tools that promise safety often amplify uncertainty.
Postfeminism and Cyberfeminism expose another dimension of this tension: empowerment and exploitation in the digital sphere. Gill (2007) critiques how postfeminism turns liberation into lifestyle branding, while Haraway (1991) envisions cyberfeminism as a rebellion through hybridity. Both intersect with Posthumanism, which dismantles boundaries between human and machine, revealing how gender, identity, and ethics evolve in a technological age.
Meanwhile, Hypermodernism and the Hyperreal show how this culture of speed and simulation reshapes perception. In Lipovetsky’s (2005) hypermodern world, individuals are trapped between productivity and exhaustion. Baudrillard’s (1994) hyperreal warns that reality itself is dissolving into digital spectacle—a crisis magnified by social media’s endless performance.
Together, these theories form a map of the contemporary condition: accelerated, interconnected, anxious, and posthuman. Each concept reflects facets of the same cultural paradox—our pursuit of control through technology generating both empowerment and alienation.
To move forward, we must seek balance. The Slow Movement’s mindfulness, Cyberfeminism’s inclusivity, and Posthumanism’s humility offer paths toward ethical coexistence. The challenge is not to reject speed or technology but to engage them critically—to move at a “human speed” in a hypermodern world.
References (APA 7th)
Baudrillard, Jean. Simulacra and Simulation. Translated by Sheila Faria Glaser, University of Michigan Press, 1994.
Beck, Ulrich. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Translated by Mark Ritter, Sage Publications, 1992.
Braidotti, Rosi. The Posthuman. Polity Press, 2013.
Gill, Rosalind. “Postfeminist Media Culture: Elements of a Sensibility.” European Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 10, no. 2, 2007, pp. 147–66.
Haraway, Donna J. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. Routledge, 1991.
Honoré, Carl. In Praise of Slowness: Challenging the Cult of Speed. HarperOne, 2005.
Lipovetsky, Gilles. Hypermodern Times. Translated by Andrew Brown, Polity Press, 2005.
Plant, Sadie. Zeros + Ones: Digital Women and the New Technoculture. Fourth Estate, 1997.
Virilio, Paul. Speed and Politics: An Essay on Dromology. Translated by Mark Polizzotti, Semiotext(e), 2006.
Reflective Commentary
In completing this assignment, I used ChatGPT (GPT-5) to explain each of the eight cultural concepts clearly and concisely. The AI provided structured definitions and contemporary examples, which I then analyzed and cross-checked with academic sources. This process helped me synthesize theory and application while critically evaluating the accuracy of AI-generated content. The exercise deepened my understanding of how speed, technology, and identity intersect in cultural theory.
How Critical Literacy Defines the Truly Educated Citizen
Initiative of the Blog
The main aim of this blog is to understand how media, power, and education are connected in shaping modern society. It is inspired by Professor Dilip Barad’s blog on Cultural Studies, which explains how culture is not neutral but influenced by power and media.
This blog encourages readers to think critically about how media affects our thoughts, beliefs, and daily lives. It focuses on three main ideas:
How media shapes culture and identity.
What it means to be a truly educated person in today’s media world.
Why critical media literacy is important for understanding power and truth.
The purpose of this blog is to help students and readers become more aware and thoughtful media users, who question what they see and understand the hidden power behind it.
Introduction
In an age ruled by infinite scrolls and algorithm-driven realities, the term “educated person” has evolved beyond mere academic achievement. True education today lies not in the volume of knowledge one gathers but in the ability to critically analyze the cultural realities produced by the machinery of mass media. As Professor Dilip Barad insightfully argues in his blog on Cultural Studies, culture—understood as “everyday life as really lived by one and all”—is inseparable from the dynamics of power. To be truly educated, therefore, means to become literate in power, media, and the art of self-determination.
The Inseparable Bond: Media and Power in Modern Culture
Professor Barad emphasizes that in the modern world, media is far from a neutral mirror—it is a powerful mechanism that shapes perception and identity through selective representation. This relationship between media and power is deliberate, crafted to preserve dominant interests and maintain social stability.
Noam Chomsky’s propaganda model provides a sharp framework for understanding this process. He argues that mass media’s primary role is to manufacture consent by aligning public opinion with the interests of the political and corporate elite. Elite media outlets construct cultural narratives through selection, omission, and framing—ensuring that the worldview they promote supports existing power structures.
Chomsky identifies five filters that control this process:
Media Ownership: Major outlets are owned by powerful conglomerates whose goal is profit, not truth.
Advertising: Media caters to advertisers and consumers, shaping content to please both.
Sourcing: Journalists rely on official and corporate sources, reinforcing dominant hierarchies.
Flak: Any challenge to authority provokes backlash, silencing dissent.
The Common Enemy: The media constructs enemies—terrorists, immigrants, or rival nations—to unite the public and distract from systemic flaws.
Through these filters, media subtly confines public discourse within boundaries that favor elite power—creating the illusion of freedom while maintaining control.
Michel Foucault’s theory of power complements this critique. As Barad explains, Foucault saw culture as governed by an “epistemological field”—a set of invisible rules that shape what people can think, say, and do. Individuals, he argued, often become “absent within their own culture,” unknowingly shaped by hidden systems of knowledge. Thus, media is not merely a transmitter of facts; it is a producer of truth itself.
Critical Media Literacy: The Core of True Education
If media operates as an instrument of power, then critical media literacy becomes the foundation of real education. Barad’s reflections suggest that understanding culture means recognizing the structures of power that shape lived experience. Education must therefore move beyond rote learning—it must train students to decode the mechanisms through which meaning is constructed.
Eric Liu captures this beautifully when he says citizens must learn to “read power and write power.”
Reading power involves analyzing who holds power, how it operates, and why certain narratives dominate.
Writing power means using that awareness to shape new narratives, organize communities, and resist manipulation.
Cultural Studies, as Barad highlights, nurtures this ability by urging students to question disciplinary boundaries and uncover the hidden ideologies behind institutions such as media, education, and law. Foucault strengthens this idea by calling the exposure of these hidden systems the “real political task”—a way to reclaim one’s agency.
As an engaged media consumer, I often notice Chomsky’s propaganda filters in real time. For example, during economic crises, news coverage frequently shifts toward sensational or divisive stories—invoking the “common enemy” filter to divert attention from policy failures. Recognizing this manipulation transforms passive viewing into critical awareness—the heart of media literacy.
Defining the Truly Educated Person
In light of Barad’s insights, the “truly educated person” emerges as one who combines intellectual autonomy with ethical awareness. Drawing from Enlightenment ideals, Chomsky defines genuine education as the cultivation of inquiry and independence rather than indoctrination. True education liberates rather than confines.
In today’s media-saturated age, the truly educated person embodies three essential traits:
Discovery Over Coverage: They see education as the pursuit of discovery, not the memorization of syllabus content. As Barad suggests, learning begins when one questions the dominant narratives shaping thought.
Critical Inquiry: They possess the courage to challenge “standard doctrine,” refusing passive acceptance of what is presented as truth.
Intellectual Independence: They think and act freely, engaging in what Chomsky calls “the open-ended quest for knowledge.”
Education, then, must not serve the interests of the market or the state—it must empower individuals to recognize how culture, language, and ideology construct reality. In this sense, media literacy is not simply an academic skill; it is a moral obligation.
Chomsky reminds us that the most dangerous indoctrination often targets the educated classes, who unknowingly serve as instruments of elite power. Thus, the truly educated person must consciously choose between becoming a technocrat serving power or a citizen practicing critical thought.
Conclusion: Education as Resistance
To be truly educated in the 21st century is to be critically aware—to recognize that every headline, image, and post carries ideological weight. Media and power together shape cultural consciousness, but through critical literacy, individuals can reclaim agency over how they perceive and respond to that reality.
As Barad concludes, Cultural Studies teaches us not what to think, but how to think about what we think—an awakening to the hidden frameworks that guide our beliefs. The educated citizen is therefore not a passive consumer of culture but an active interpreter and creator of meaning.
Ultimately, education today is an act of resistance—a rebellion against intellectual manipulation. To be educated is to read power, write power, and transform media’s tools of control into instruments of truth and justice. The truly educated citizen lives beyond the screen, not as a consumer but as a conscious participant in shaping a freer and more truthful world.
Daniel Defoe’s The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe (1719) is widely regarded as a foundational text of the English novel and a classic articulation of early colonialist ideology. Nearly 270 years later, Nobel laureate J. M. Coetzee re-engages with this canonical work in his 1986 novel Foe, not merely to retell the story but to conduct what may be termed a postcolonial critique of a second order. Coetzee’s Foe is a postmodern, satirical reinvention that shifts the narrative’s focus away from adventure and survival toward a deeper interrogation of authorship, narrative authority, and the silencing of marginalized voices.
From Empire Builder to Colonial Critique
Defoe's Robinson Crusoe is often read as an allegory for the rise of the English bourgeoisie and its imperial spirit. Crusoe, the enterprising protagonist, is depicted as a model colonizer who, through diligence and reason, establishes a Christian and orderly dominion on a deserted island. The novel thus contributes to the construction of "Englishness" and a Eurocentric worldview, reinforcing colonialist ideologies through a narrative of individual conquest and mastery over nature and non-Europeans
In contrast, Coetzee’s Foe works to deconstruct this nationalist and Eurocentric imagination. Through its metafictional structure, the novel challenges the political and cultural assumptions embedded in Defoe’s original, exposing the idea that Eurocentrism is not inherent but constructed through narrative and language. As a South African writer confronting the legacies of apartheid and colonial violence, Coetzee’s intervention is particularly potent, offering a literary indictment of the historical deprivation of speech and cultural erasure that shaped colonial regimes.
The Power Struggle for the Pen
While many postcolonial texts “write back” to empire by reimagining stories from the perspective of the colonized, Foe goes further by questioning the very origin and legitimacy of canonical texts. The central conflict in Foe is not survival on a desert island, but the struggle for narrative authority between the female castaway Susan Barton and the professional author Mr. Foe—a fictionalized version of Defoe, whose real surname was originally “Foe”.
Susan Barton survives her ordeal alongside a dispassionate and ineffective Cruso (Coetzee’s variation of Defoe’s Crusoe) and a tongueless, enslaved man named Friday. After her rescue, Susan attempts to record her story, believing it to be worth telling on its own terms. However, Mr. Foe resists her plain and truthful account, insisting instead on embellishing it with sensational elements—cannibals, lost daughters, dramatic escapes—to suit the expectations of the reading public.
Coetzee uses this metafictional exchange to expose the politics of storytelling. Mr. Foe's editorial interventions highlight how colonial narratives are not neutral records but products of power, shaped by omission, distortion, and market logic.
Friday and the Silencing of the Subaltern
The most dramatic difference between Defoe’s and Coetzee’s texts is in their portrayal of Friday.
In Robinson Crusoe, Friday is the “grateful savage”—converted to Christianity, taught English, and rendered obedient to Crusoe’s rule. He is a symbol of the colonial subject, assimilated and silenced under the guise of being “civilized.”
In Foe, Friday is a voiceless black man, his tongue violently removed either by slavers or Cruso. This literal muteness becomes symbolic of the systemic silencing of colonized peoples. His body is the site of historical trauma—a record of pain that cannot be easily translated into language or narrative.
Susan Barton tries repeatedly to give Friday a voice, but her efforts fail. She sketches his portrait, speculates about his past, even encourages him to play music. Yet his silence remains impenetrable, raising the unsettling possibility that some experiences are untranslatable within the dominant language of the colonizer. As such, Friday’s muteness becomes a powerful metaphor for the limits of representation and the persistence of historical erasure.
In this context, Foe critiques not only Defoe’s novel, but also the very idea of speaking for the subaltern—suggesting that such efforts may only reproduce the structures of erasure they claim to resist.
Susan Barton: The Marginalized Female Voice
In addition to its postcolonial concerns, Foe also addresses gendered silencing. In Robinson Crusoe, women are peripheral—Crusoe’s mother, a widow, an unnamed wife—all brief mentions in a male-centered world. Coetzee radically shifts this by centering Susan Barton, a female castaway who seeks to narrate her own experience.
However, Susan’s attempt to “father” her story is continually undermined. Mr. Foe not only edits and rewrites her account, but also suggests inserting invented subplots—such as a missing daughter—to make it more appealing. Susan's refusal to accept these fictions reflects her insistence on owning her narrative, but she ultimately lacks the institutional power to resist appropriation.
Her position is deeply ambivalent. As a white woman, she is both marginalized and complicit in structures of power. She acts as a protector and sometimes interpreter for Friday, yet she cannot escape the same systems of erasure that silence him. Her struggles thus echo feminist and postcolonial critiques of literary authorship, illustrating how agency can be claimed, but not always secured.
Postmodern Strategies: Intertextuality and Ambiguity
Foe is not just a rewriting; it is a postmodern deconstruction of the narrative foundations of Robinson Crusoe. Through its intertextual references, metafictional framing, and refusal to offer closure, Coetzee destabilizes the reader’s understanding of truth, fiction, and history.
The novel’s enigmatic final chapter (Chapter IV) moves into surreal territory. An unnamed narrator—possibly a metaphorical stand-in for the reader—enters a dreamlike scene where he finds the drowned bodies of Susan and others. The climax arrives when he opens Friday’s mouth, only to find not speech, but a stream of water flowing out: “It passes through the wreck; washing the cliffs and shores of the island, it runs northward and southward to the ends of the earth.”
This image is profoundly symbolic. It suggests a non-verbal, embodied form of meaning, in which trauma, memory, and resistance persist beyond language. Friday’s stream represents the unrecoverable histories of the colonized, flowing beneath the surface of official narratives and beyond the reach of imperial authorship.
While Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe constructs a myth of colonial mastery and English individualism, Coetzee’s Foe dismantles that myth from within. Through its layered intertextuality, critical re-imagining of characters, and postmodern narrative strategies, Foe critiques the silencing inherent in imperial and literary traditions.
More than just a counter-narrative, Foe challenges the foundations of narrative authority itself—asking whether it is ever truly possible to recover the voices of the silenced, or whether the legacy of empire is an absence that resists articulation.
In this way, Coetzee’s novel shows how the meanings of canonical texts evolve when read through the lens of their historical consequences and contemporary reimaginings. Foe is not simply a retelling—it is a rewriting of the very act of storytelling.
References
Caracciolo, Marco. “J. M. Coetzee’s Foe and the Embodiment of Meaning.” Journal of Modern Literature, vol. 36, no. 1, Fall 2012, pp. 90–103. doi:10.2979/jmodelite.36.1.90.
Coetzee, J. M. Foe. Vintage International, 1987.
Defoe, Daniel. The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe. Edited by Michael Shinagel, W.W. Norton & Company, 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. doi:10.1080/13825577.2016.1183422.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Theory in the Margin: Coetzee’s Foe Reading Defoe’s ‘Crusoe/Roxana.’” English in Africa, vol. 17, no. 2, Oct. 1990, pp. 1–23. JSTOR.
.jfif)
