A Cultural Studies Approach to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein

 A Cultural Studies Approach to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein

This blog is part of the Thinking Activity assigned by Dr. Dilip Barad Sir as a part of our Cultural Studies module. It explores Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein through the lens of Cultural Studies, connecting the novel’s revolutionary ideas with its modern cultural influence. The blog is divided into two parts  Revolutionary Births and The Frankenpheme in Popular Culture  to examine how the novel reflects and continues to shape political, social, and philosophical discourses from the 19th century to the digital age.

For more information click here 

 Introduction: Frankenstein as a Cultural Text

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (1818) is not merely a Gothic horror story  it is a cultural text that reflects the anxieties, ambitions, and contradictions of the modern world. Born out of the revolutionary spirit of the early 19th century, it intertwines the Romantic fascination with imagination and the Enlightenment’s obsession with reason.

Through the tragic tale of Victor Frankenstein and his Creature, Shelley raises profound questions about science, ethics, class, race, and human identity. What makes the novel extraordinary is its timelessness  it continues to echo in the age of artificial intelligence, cloning, and digital technology.

As cultural theorist Timothy Morton suggests, Frankenstein has evolved into what he calls the “Frankenpheme”  a recurring cultural phenomenon that adapts to new contexts while maintaining its core questions about humanity and creation.

Part 1: Revolutionary Births

1. The Creature as Proletarian: Class Struggle and Social Exclusion

Mary Shelley lived during an era marked by political upheaval and social unrest. Her parents  William Godwin and Mary Wollstonecraft  were radical thinkers who inspired her to question authority and privilege. The Creature in Frankenstein can be viewed as a symbol of the proletariat, the oppressed working class yearning for recognition and equality.

“I am malicious because I am miserable; am I not shunned and hated by all mankind?”

The Creature’s paradoxical nature  innocent at birth yet driven to vengeance by rejection  mirrors society’s treatment of the poor and disenfranchised. Like the revolutionary masses of Shelley’s time, he becomes a threat only when denied compassion and inclusion.

From a Cultural Studies perspective, this reflects Karl Marx’s later ideas about alienation and revolution. The Creature’s suffering and revolt symbolize the anger of the marginalized, while Victor represents the elite ruling class  privileged yet morally bankrupt.

Reflection:

Shelley’s narrative warns that when society fails to embrace the oppressed, it gives rise to rebellion. The Creature becomes both a victim and an avenger, embodying humanity’s fear of revolution and its sympathy for the suffering masses.

2. “A Race of Devils”: Race, Empire, and the “Other”

Shelley’s Frankenstein also engages deeply with the 19th-century anxieties surrounding race, colonialism, and the concept of the “Other.”

Victor Frankenstein’s horror upon seeing his creation reflects the colonial fear of the racialized Other  beings perceived as “monstrous” or “inferior.” When he calls the Creature “a race of devils,” it mirrors the imperial mindset that dehumanized non-European peoples.

“His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath.”

Through this lens, Frankenstein can be read as a critique of Western imperialism and its moral contradictions. Victor’s act of creation giving life only to abandon it  parallels how empires created colonies and then exploited them, leaving behind ruin and resentment.

Reflection:

In today’s context, the novel’s engagement with race and privilege remains strikingly relevant. The Creature’s plea for empathy echoes the modern global discourse on racial justice and postcolonial identity. Shelley’s narrative reminds us that the “monster” is often a mirror of the creator’s prejudice.

3. From Natural Philosophy to Cyborg: Science, Ethics, and Human Hubris

Shelley’s novel bridges the gap between natural philosophy and modern science, anticipating debates about biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and transhumanism.

Victor’s obsession with mastering nature reflects humanity’s desire to play God. His tragic downfall warns against unchecked ambition and the ethical dangers of creation without responsibility.

In the 21st century, Shelley’s cautionary tale resonates in discussions about:

• Cloning and genetic modification
• Artificial Intelligence and robotics
• Designer babies and transhumanism

Films like Ex Machina and Blade Runner 2049 continue Shelley’s legacy, exploring the blurred boundaries between creator and creation.

🎥 Suggested Viewing:

Blade Runner (1982) – Film Trailer

Reflection:

Modern science has made Victor Frankenstein’s dream a near reality. Yet, Shelley reminds us that knowledge without empathy leads to destruction. The moral lesson remains: creation demands compassion and accountability.

Part 2: The Frankenpheme in Popular Culture

1. The First Film Adaptation and Popular Retellings

The Frankenpheme, as coined by Timothy Morton, refers to the enduring cultural life of Frankenstein  a narrative retold across film, television, politics, and even food (“Frankenfoods”).

The First Adaptation:

The first Frankenstein film was produced in 1910 by Thomas Edison Studios. It transformed Shelley’s novel into a moral fable about ambition, making it accessible to a new technological era.

Watch: Edison’s 1910 Frankenstein 

Over the decades, Frankenstein has inspired:

• The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) – exploring gender and creation.z
• Young Frankenstein (1974) – parodying scientific hubris through humor.
• Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994) – restoring emotional depth to the Creature.

• Blade Runner (1982) – reimagining the Creature as an android in a dystopian world.

These retellings transform Shelley’s message for new audiences. They engage with technological fears, identity crises, and posthuman anxieties, showing the novel’s adaptability and cultural vitality.

Every new version of Frankenstein reflects its own age. While Shelley’s original questioned Enlightenment rationality, today’s versions interrogate digital power, AI ethics, and human alienation.

2. The Creature’s Education: Power of Words and Alienation

In the novel, the Creature learns to read by observing a family and studying texts like Paradise Lost and Plutarch’s Lives. His literary education gives him language  the power to reason, feel, and articulate injustice yet it also deepens his isolation.

 “I learned of the division of property, of immense wealth and squalid poverty.”

This tension between empowerment and alienation mirrors modern debates about media literacy and cultural power. Knowledge can liberate, but it can also intensify self-awareness of exclusion  a core issue in Cultural Studies.

Reflection:

Shelley’s Creature becomes the “educated subaltern,” similar to what Gayatri Spivak discusses in Can the Subaltern Speak? His voice is intelligent but unheard  a symbol of the silenced Other in modern societies.

3. From “Frankenfoods” to Political Metaphor

The Frankenpheme extends beyond fiction into everyday discourse. The term “Frankenfoods” is used for genetically modified crops, suggesting public fear of “unnatural” science. Politicians often invoke Frankenstein to critique technological excess or moral decay.

For example:

• AI chatbots are called “Frankenstein’s monsters” by critics of automation.
• Political leaders accused of creating uncontrollable movements are said to have “created a Frankenstein.”

 This shows how Shelley’s story remains embedded in cultural consciousness  as a metaphor for the unintended consequences of power, creation, and control.

Conclusion: Frankenstein’s Cultural Legacy

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is more than a Gothic novel  it is a cultural text that bridges revolutions: political, scientific, and technological. From the industrial age to the AI era, its questions remain urgent:

• What happens when creation outgrows its creator?
• Can humanity coexist with its own inventions?
• How do power, privilege, and prejudice shape our notion of the “monster”?

The novel’s enduring adaptability  the Frankenpheme  proves that it is both revolutionary and oppositional. It warns against human arrogance while celebrating the creative spirit that defines us.

Shelley’s genius lies in creating not just a story, but a mirror of humanity  one that continues to reflect our fears, ambitions, and ethical dilemmas across centuries.

References

Barad, Dilip. “(PDF) Thinking Activity: A Cultural Studies Approach to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.” ResearchGate, www.researchgate.net/publication/385485826_Thinking_Activity_A_Cultural_Studies_Approach_to_Mary_Shelley’s_Frankenstein. Accessed 30 Oct. 2025.

Guerin, Wilfred L., et al. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. 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.” Frankenstein: Complete, Authoritative Text with Biographical, Historical, and Cultural Contexts, Bedford Books, 2000.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Three Women’s Texts and a Critique of Imperialism.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 12, no. 1, 1985, pp. 243–261.

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

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

This blog is part of the Thinking Activity on “Exploring Marginalization in Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead,” assigned by Dr. Dilip Barad, Department of English

For more information click here 

Introduction: Marginalization and Cultural Studies

Marginalization refers to the process by which certain individuals or groups are pushed to the edges of society, denied agency, and treated as insignificant within larger systems of power. Through the lens of Cultural Studies, we can analyze how literature mirrors social hierarchies, political control, and systemic inequality.

In this activity, two texts William Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead serve as mirrors reflecting both Renaissance and modern cultural power structures. While Shakespeare presents a world ruled by monarchy and fate, Stoppard reimagines it through absurdism and existential inquiry, giving voice to the previously voiceless.

1️⃣ Q1. Marginalization in Hamlet

Describe how Rosencrantz and Guildenstern represent marginal figures in Hamlet. How does Hamlet’s reference to Rosencrantz as a “sponge” reflect their expendability in the power dynamics of the play?

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are classic examples of marginal characters in Hamlet. They are introduced as Hamlet’s childhood friends and former classmates from Wittenberg, but Shakespeare gives them very little individuality or inner life. The passage you provided calls them “jellyfish” and “plot-driven”: they exist mainly to move the plot forward, not to develop as people. Shakespeare gives them lightweight names that sound sing-song and blur their personalities; critics in the passage even note actors find them boring or interchangeable.

Their marginalization shows in several ways:

• Instrumental role: Claudius summons them to spy on Hamlet and report back. They perform a role assigned by the king rather than acting from conviction. That makes them instruments of a higher power, not independent moral agents.

• Lack of subjectivity: The passage shows they are “empty of personality” and “sycophantic.” They flatter and obey Claudius to gain favour; their motives are mainly to please the king rather than to act from conscience.

• Plot expendability and death: Hamlet manipulates them he forges a letter so that they carry a death warrant instead of him. Their deaths are not treated with weight by Hamlet (“They are not near my conscience”), which proves they are expendable. They are useful until they are not.

Hamlet’s “sponge” metaphor (Act 4) captures this precisely:

 he soaks up the king’s countenance, his rewards, his authorities. But such officers do the King best service in the end. He keeps them, like an ape, in the corner of his jaw, first mouthed, to be last swallowed.

A sponge soaks up and then can be squeezed dry. Hamlet’s image implies that Rosencrantz soaks up the king’s favour and information; when Claudius needs them squeezed (used for his purposes), he squeezes them  and when done, throws them away. The metaphor stresses their instrumental value and final disposability within the court’s power structure. Because they accepted the king’s request without critical thought, they are precisely the sort of “little people” who are useful to those in power and safe to discard.

2️⃣ Modern Parallels to Corporate Power

 The passage compares Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to modern workers impacted by corporate downsizing and globalization. Reflect on this parallel: How does their fate in Hamlet mirror the displacement experienced by workers when multinational companies relocate or downsize?

The passage draws a direct line from the court of Claudius to the modern corporate office: both are hierarchies where decision-makers manipulate people below them. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are “small annexments” to the king’s “massy wheel”  a vivid image of a huge system whose spokes hold many lesser parts. When a massive wheel falls or shifts, the small annexments fall with it.

This mirrors corporate realities in several key ways:

Instrumentalisation of human labour: Just as Claudius calls on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to serve a political purpose, corporations deploy workers for projects, mergers, or relocations. Workers may be moved between offices, asked to relocate, or shifted into precarious roles to meet corporate strategy. They are valued for the function they perform, not for individual dignity.

Lack of knowledge and agency: The two courtiers do not know the full content of the commission they carry; they go where they are told. Similarly, many employees only know fragmentary information about corporate decisions (restructuring, outsourcing) and are given little control over outcomes.

Sudden disposability: The way Hamlet ensures the two carry a death warrant reveals how a system can suddenly convert a role into a liability. Corporate downsizing often has the same suddenness: employees can be informed abruptly that their positions are redundant.

Structural inequality: The “massy wheel” image explains structural imbalance: decisions are made at the top and cause ripple effects below. Workers (like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) feel the consequences but have little influence on causes.

Emotionally and culturally, both situations produce alienation (workers feeling disconnected from meaningful work) and vulnerability (fear of unexpected dismissal or replacement). The passage’s comparison helps students see that marginalization is not merely personal failure but a structural feature of  systems of power.

3️⃣ Existential Questions in Stoppard’s Reinterpretation

 In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, Stoppard deepens their marginalization by questioning their existence and purpose. Why might Stoppard emphasize their search for meaning in a world indifferent to them? How does this mirror the feeling of powerlessness in today’s corporate environments?

Stoppard rescues Rosencrantz and Guildenstern from marginality by putting them at the centre  but he intensifies their marginalization by making their existence itself uncertain. The passage notes Stoppard’s framing: the two may be “never-living” or “already dead,” and the whole play becomes an exploration of ontological uncertainty  who are they, and why are they here?

There are several reasons Stoppard emphasises this search for meaning:

• To dramatize the human condition of the modern era: In twentieth-century thought, many writers questioned whether life has inherent meaning. Stoppard uses the pair as archetypal modern humans who seek answers in a world that gives none.

• To shift marginalization from social to existential: Shakespeare’s marginalization is social/political (they are pawns). Stoppard’s is philosophical: the characters are actors who suspect they are only characters. Their marginality becomes ontological alienation.

• To expose power as depersonalising: When systems are so large and impersonal (political or corporate), people feel they have no subjectivity. Stoppard makes this feeling literal: they are marginal even to their own existence.

This mirrors corporate powerlessness because:

Role ambiguity and loss of meaning: Modern workers often do tasks without seeing the larger purpose (routine, KPI-driven work). Like Stoppard’s pair, they can ask: “Why am I doing this?”

Feeling scripted: Corporate life can feel scripted  employees follow procedures and policies rather than exercising moral judgment. This is similar to Stoppard’s characters who try to understand their lines and directions.

Existential vulnerability: The modern worker’s sense of self can be tied to employment. When jobs are insecure (downsizing, gig economy), identity and meaning are threatened  the same existential anxiety Stoppard stages.

Stoppard’s emphasis is a powerful cultural critique: marginalization is not only a matter of being politically invisible, it can also mean being ontologically marginalised deprived of purpose,agency, and identity

.

4️⃣ Power Structures in Both Works

Compare Shakespeare’s treatment of power in Hamlet to Stoppard’s reimagining. How does each work critique systems that marginalize “little people”? How might Stoppard’s existential take resonate with contemporary issues of job insecurity and corporate control?

Shakespeare (political/monarchical power):

Shakespeare frames power as concentrated and personal. Kings, princes, and courtiers exercise visible authority. The court controls life and death; historical examples (execution of nobles) show the real danger of political power. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are instruments of these visible power struggles: they are used as spies, messengers, and eventual sacrificial pawns. The critique is political: those at the top manipulate human lives to maintain order or advantage.

Stoppard (existential/systemic power):

Stoppard moves the critique into the systemic and philosophical realm. The people who are marginalised are not just socially inferior; they face a universe that may not recognise them as having autonomous being. Power here is structural, impersonal, and absurd. The play suggests modern life (and by extension modern institutions like corporations) can strip people of significance and leave them as nameless extras facing meaningless ends.

How each critiques marginalization:

Shakespeare shows how political systems produce and discard marginal figures for the preservation of the state and dynasty.

Stoppard shows how modern systems (political, cultural, economic) can produce existential marginality  people who lack meaningful roles and whose lives are governed by opaque forces.

Resonance with job insecurity and corporate control:

Stoppard’s depiction of being “on a ship to nowhere” or “actors in a script” mirrors the uncertainty of modern careers: temporary contracts, outsourcing, algorithmic management. Workers may not grasp why decisions are made but suffer consequences anyway. The existential tone intensifies the critique: marginalization is not only losing a job it is losing the narrative that makes life intelligible. Stoppard’s take thus heightens our understanding of how corporate control can be both materially damaging (losing livelihood) and psychologically destructive (losing meaning).

5️⃣ Personal Reflection

In both Hamlet and Stoppard’s reinterpretation, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern mirror the modern experience of being treated as a dispensable asset. Today’s workers, students, and citizens often feel like them valued only for their temporary utility.

This understanding deepens my appreciation of Cultural Studies, as it reveals how literature, across centuries, exposes invisible hierarchies. Through this lens, I realize that marginalization isn’t confined to Elsinore or Stoppard’s stage it persists in everyday structures of our world.

Creative Engagement

Monologue Writing: Create a short monologue for either Rosencrantz or Guildenstern, incorporating modern corporate language to highlight their disempowerment. 

Here I make video with help of AI on this monologue story:  

Title: “Notice of Reassignment — Guildenstern Speaks”

 Ladies and gentlemen of Denmark Inc.,

Thank you for your commitment. Please be advised that your positions will be reassigned. We appreciate your loyalty. Please pack personal items and report to Docking Bay A.

(Beat.)

We were told we were important once. “Come home,” they said. “Help us watch our mad prince.” We came, briefcases open, dignity folded. We asked small questions; we smiled the correct smiles. We were paid in promises and footnotes.

Now there is a memo. It’s very polite. It calls us “personnel adjustments.” It calls us “cost centres.” It calls us everything but human. We are to be exported, redeployed, or quietly deleted.

If there is a moral here, it is this: never mistake utility for love. The kingdom that raises you will also ship you out when the ledger says so. We were not tragic heroes. We were line items. Be warned, employees of the world: the wheel is big, and you are only an annexment.

Conclusion

Both Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead illuminate how systems be they political, cultural, or corporate marginalize individuals. Through Cultural Studies, we see that power is not always visible but always present, shaping who matters and who is forgotten.

Shakespeare began the conversation; Stoppard modernized it. Together, they remind us that to understand literature is to understand life’s hierarchies and our place within them.

 References

Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.” Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, 1971.

Barad, Dilip. “Exploring Marginalization in Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.” ResearchGate, Oct. 2024, www.researchgate.net/publication/385301805_Thinking_Activity_Exploring_Marginalization_in_Shakespeare’s_Hamlet_and_Stoppard’s_Rosencrantz_and_Guildenstern_Are_Dead. Accessed 31 Oct. 2025.

Foucault, Michel. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1980.

Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 1971.

Greenblatt, Stephen. Renaissance Self-Fashioning, 1980.

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Project Gutenberg, 1999.

Stoppard, Tom. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Grove Press, 1967.

From Slow Movement to Posthumanism: Understanding Contemporary Cultural Concepts

 From Slow Movement to Posthumanism: Understanding Contemporary Cultural Concepts

Introduction

This blog is part of an academic activity assigned by Dr. Dilip Barad Sir for the Paper on Cultural Studies. The task aims to explore key contemporary cultural concepts through the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a learning tool. Using ChatGPT and Google Gemini, I have interacted with AI to understand eight important concepts  Slow Movement, Dromology, Risk Society, Postfeminism, Hyperreal, Hypermodernism, Cyberfeminism, and Posthumanism.

The goal of this blog is to explain these ideas in a clear and simple way, connect them with real-world examples, and reflect on their significance in today’s world. Each concept helps us understand how culture, technology, gender, and speed shape human life in the 21st century. By combining AI-generated insights with academic research, this blog attempts to present a critical and thoughtful understanding of these contemporary cultural phenomena.

 1. Slow Movement

The Slow Movement began as a reaction against the fast pace of modern life. It encourages people to live mindfully, value quality over quantity, and enjoy simplicity. Carl Honoré in In Praise of Slowness (2005) describes it as “challenging the cult of speed.” This movement includes ideas such as slow food, slow travel, and slow living.

For example, the Slow Food Movement promotes eating local, organic food instead of relying on fast food chains. In today’s digital age, where everything happens instantly, the slow movement reminds us to pause and live intentionally. It represents a kind of cultural resistance to consumerism, technology-driven haste, and burnout.

2. Dromology

The term Dromology was introduced by Paul Virilio, meaning “the science of speed.” It explains how technological acceleration affects every part of human life  communication, politics, war, and even thought. In Speed and Politics (2006), Virilio argues that modern society is obsessed with speed as a sign of progress.

For instance, social media demands immediate responses, creating pressure to stay constantly connected. While technology makes life faster and more efficient, it also leads to superficiality and exhaustion. Dromology reveals that our culture measures success by speed, not by depth  a theme that contrasts sharply with the Slow Movement.

 3. Risk Society

Ulrich Beck, in his book Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (1992), argues that we live in an age defined by global risks. These are not natural dangers but the outcomes of modernization itself like climate change, pollution, and pandemics. Society now focuses on preventing or managing these risks.

For example, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed how global systems depend on technology and science to control uncertainty. Media coverage also amplified public fear, showing how information shapes our perception of risk. The Risk Society concept teaches that the same progress which brings comfort also produces new insecurities and inequalities.

 4. Postfeminism

Postfeminism suggests that the goals of feminism  equality and empowerment  have already been achieved, and women now express freedom through personal choice and consumption. According to Rosalind Gill and Angela McRobbie, postfeminism often appears in media representations of independent, confident women who still conform to beauty standards.

For instance, TV shows like Sex and the City portray women as powerful consumers who equate independence with luxury. However, this raises questions: has society truly achieved gender equality, or just turned feminism into a marketing trend? Postfeminism reflects both progress and contradiction in the representation of women today.

5. Hyperreal

The concept of the Hyperreal was developed by Jean Baudrillard in Simulacra and Simulation (1994). It means a condition where the distinction between reality and its representation disappears where simulations feel more real than the real itself.

For example, social media platforms like Instagram show idealized lifestyles that influence how people view themselves and others. These images are often edited or filtered, but they shape our sense of reality. The hyperreal world makes us live in a state of imitation and illusion  where what is seen online feels more real than what exists outside the screen.

 6. Hypermodernism

Gilles Lipovetsky describes Hypermodernism as the era following postmodernism  one marked by extreme individualism, consumerism, and technological dependence. In hypermodern culture, people are constantly connected, productive, and self-optimized.

For example, smartphone apps that track steps, moods, and sleep show how deeply we are tied to digital self-monitoring. Hypermodernism values speed, visibility, and constant reinvention. It connects with Dromology and Hyperrealism, as all three reflect a world where people live faster, consume more, and rely heavily on technology for identity and success.

 7. Cyberfeminism

Cyberfeminism combines feminism with digital technology. It emerged in the 1990s through thinkers like Donna Haraway (A Cyborg Manifesto, 1991) and Sadie Plant, who viewed cyberspace as a place where women could resist patriarchal structures and redefine identity.

For instance, online communities allow women and marginalized groups to share experiences and ideas freely. However, issues like digital harassment and algorithmic bias show that online spaces also reproduce inequalities. Cyberfeminism encourages us to think critically about how technology shapes gender relations and how AI systems must be designed to avoid gender bias.

 8. Posthumanism

Posthumanism questions the idea that humans are the center of the universe. Thinkers like Rosi Braidotti and N. Katherine Hayles argue that humans, machines, animals, and the environment are all interconnected. In the age of AI, robotics, and biotechnology, this concept has become increasingly relevant.

For example, wearable devices and artificial intelligence now extend human abilities, blurring the line between human and machine. Posthumanism helps us rethink what it means to be human in a world of intelligent systems. It also raises ethical questions about control, consciousness, and coexistence between humans and technology.

Connections Between the Concepts

These eight concepts are deeply connected. Slow Movement and Dromology represent two sides of the same coin one promotes mindfulness, the other acceleration. Hyperrealism and Hypermodernism explore how technology creates exaggerated forms of life and identity. Postfeminism and Cyberfeminism show how gender politics evolve within digital culture. Risk Society highlights the dangers of modernization, while Posthumanism reflects the merging of human and machine as a result of that progress. Together, they form a map of the contemporary cultural condition  fast, uncertain, hyper-connected, and deeply technological.

 Critical Reflection

Through this exploration, I learned how these theories help interpret the realities of our time. Concepts like Dromology and Hypermodernism warn us about the dangers of excessive speed, while Slow Movement offers an alternative lifestyle based on care and reflection. Similarly, Cyberfeminism and Posthumanism push us to reconsider power, gender, and humanity in a digital age. AI tools like ChatGPT and Gemini played a helpful role in simplifying complex theories and encouraging critical thinking. However, true understanding came through further reading and reflection. These concepts remind us that technology and culture must evolve together  ethically, thoughtfully, and inclusively.

 Conclusion

Studying these eight concepts has given me a deeper understanding of how culture responds to rapid change. From the need for slowness to the challenge of posthuman existence, each idea shows how humans adapt and question their place in a fast, risk-filled, and technological world. This blog, guided by AI and academic research, highlights that learning in the digital age requires both curiosity and critical awareness. As we move further into the hypermodern era, these theories remain essential for understanding who we are and what we are becoming.

References

Armitage, John. “Paul Virilio: From Modernism to Hypermodernism and Beyond.” Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 21, no. 1, 2004, pp. 53–78.

Baudrillard, Jean. Simulacra and Simulation. University of Michigan Press, 1994.

Beck, Ulrich. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Sage Publications, 1992.

Braidotti, Rosi. The Posthuman. Polity Press, 2013.

Eco, Umberto. Travels in Hyperreality. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1986.

Giddens, Anthony. The Consequences of Modernity. Polity Press, 1990.

Gill, Rosalind. Postfeminist Media Culture: Elements of a Sensibility. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

Griffiths, Michael B., and Dawn Gilpin. “Slow Tourism: An Alternative Tourism for a Sustainable World.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 28, no. 7, 2020, pp. 904–918.

Haraway, Donna J. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. Routledge, 1991.

Hawthorne, Susan, and Renate Klein. “Cyberfeminism: Connectivity, Critique and Creativity.” Spinifex Press, 1999.

Hayles, N. Katherine. How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. University of Chicago Press, 1999.

Honoré, Carl. In Praise of Slowness: How a Worldwide Movement Is Challenging the Cult of Speed. HarperOne, 2005.

Kellner, Douglas. “Jean Baudrillard: From Marxism to Postmodernism and Beyond.” Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 10, no. 2, 1993, pp. 1–48.

Kirby, Alan. “The Death of Postmodernism and Beyond.” Philosophy Now, no. 58, 2006, pp. 31–33.

Leberecht, Tim. “3 Ways to Practice Slow Leadership.” TED, [Video]. Accessed 12 Oct. 2024.

Lipovetsky, Gilles. Hypermodern Times. Polity Press, 2005.

Lupton, Deborah. “Risk and the Ontology of Pregnant Embodiment.” Risk Management, vol. 4, no. 4, 2002, pp. 33–49.

McRobbie, Angela. “Post-feminism and Popular Culture.” Feminist Media Studies, vol. 4, no. 3, 2004, pp. 255–264.

Parkins, Wendy. The Slow Food Movement: Politics, Pleasure, and the Paradox of Locality. Temple University Press, 2010.

Plant, Sadie. Zeros + Ones: Digital Women and the New Technoculture. Fourth Estate, 1997.

Tasker, Yvonne, and Diane Negra. Interrogating Postfeminism: Gender and the Politics of Popular Culture. Duke University Press, 2007.

Virilio, Paul. Speed and Politics: An Essay on Dromology. Semiotext(e), 2006.

Virilio, Paul. The Art of the Motor. University of Minnesota Press, 1995.

Virilio, Paul. The Information Bomb. Verso, 2000.

Wolfe, Cary. What Is Posthumanism? University of Minnesota Press, 2010.

Blogs:

Barad, Dilip. “Cyberfeminism, AI and Gender Biases.” Dilip Barad’s Blog, 2020, https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2020/02/cyberfeminism-ai-and-gender-biases.html.

Barad, Dilip. “Slow Movement.” Dilip Barad’s Blog, 2020, https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2020/02/slow-movement.html.

Barad, Dilip. “Why Are We So Scared of Robots & AIs?” Dilip Barad’s Blog, 2019, https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2019/03/why-are-we-so-scared-of-robots-ais.html.

The Unfiltered Mind: Re-defining Education in the Age of Manufactured Consent

 This blog is assigned by Dr.Dilip Barad sir as part of Thinking Activity. The aim of this activity is to develop critical thinking and analytical skills by examining the intersections of media, power, and education through the lens of Cultural Studies. In this blog we reflect on the blog post by Dilip Barad and engage in a critical dialogue on media influence, education, and cultural practices in contemporary society.

For teachers blog click here 

Step 1: 

Read the blog post by Dilip Barad, and consider the following themes:

The role of media in shaping culture and identity.

This response is structured in two parts: first, addressing the reflection questions from Step 2, and second, providing the full Blog Post required for Step 3, which meets the specified length and evaluation criteria.

Step 2: Critical Reflection Questions

1. Media and Power 

The blog articulates the relationship between media and power as instrumental and pervasive. It explicitly states that the study of Cultural Studies is incomplete without the study of 'Power', and in our times, 'Media' is the tool to control the perceptions and the subject. This suggests media is not a neutral mirror of society, but a mechanism through which the powerful exert control and maintain a preferred narrative.

 Blog Examples:

 Manufacturing Consent (Chomsky): The concept of "Manufacturing Consent" highlights how corporate mass media uses "Five Filters" (Ownership, Advertising, Media Elite, Flack, Common Enemy) to "create the illusion of Democracy." Media is owned by major corporations, which naturally filters content to align with their economic and political interests, ensuring the status quo benefits the elite.

 Bounding Thought: The blog notes that the system is so effective that even seemingly liberal or adversarial media helps to "bound thought," defining the limits of acceptable public debate and making it difficult for the public to question fundamental assumptions.

Own Observations: A clear example is the sensationalist coverage of specific international conflicts. Media outlets, often owned by corporations with defense contracts or political ties, may focus intensely on the alleged atrocities of one side while minimizing or ignoring the historical context or the actions of the other. This selectivity and framing mobilizes public support for specific foreign policies or military actions, directly serving the interests of powerful, deep-seated elite groups.

2. Role of Education 

The blog's discussion of the "truly educated person," largely drawn from Noam Chomsky, challenges traditional notions of education by shifting the focus from content accumulation to independent inquiry and intellectual autonomy.

 Challenge to Traditional Education: Traditional education often emphasizes discipline-specific knowledge, "what we cover in the class," and the assimilation of "standard doctrine." The blog's view challenges this external control, arguing that a true education opens the door to "human intellectual freedom and creative autonomy." It suggests the process of "unlearn[ing] what specific disciplines taught" and "teach[ing] controversies" is essential.

 Alignment with Traditional Education: It aligns with the highest, humanistic ideals of educationto cultivate a "fulfilled human being" capable of constructive and independent creation.

Qualities Defining a Truly Educated Person Today (with Media Literacy):

•  Skeptical Resourcefulness: The ability to "formulate serious questions" and "find your own way," moving beyond surface-level information to seek diverse, vetted sources.

• Discourse Literacy: Understanding that information is connected to a 'discourse' (a system of knowledge and power), requiring the skill to 'read power' in all artifacts, especially media.

•  Critical Autonomy: The core capacity to "question standard doctrine" and the 'Manufacturing Consent' that media pushes, thus resisting the control of perceptions.

3. Cultural Practices 

Media representation fundamentally influences cultural norms and practices by shaping what is considered 'normal,' 'acceptable,' and 'important' within a society's 'discourse'.

 Influence on Marginalized Groups: As per the blog's argument, when power structures use media to control perceptions, marginalized groups are particularly vulnerable. Media often reinforces stereotypes or promotes invisibility, either by consistently portraying them through a narrow, negative, or pathological lens, or by simply excluding them from significant narratives. This delegitimizes their cultural identities and reinforces the dominant group's norms as universal. For instance, the 'history' recorded in elite media archives tends to center dominant narratives, marginalizing the historical and cultural contributions of minority groups.

 Media as a Tool for Resistance: Yes, media can and does act as a tool for resistance. Digital media, particularly social platforms, provides the means for marginalized groups to bypass the corporate filters. They can:

Create Counter-Narratives: Produce their own content to assert authentic cultural identities and challenge negative stereotypes.

Mobilize and Assert Legitimacy: Organize collective action and express the "collective intensity of interest," thereby asserting legitimacy and shifting social norms that the established media seeks to maintain.

4. Critical Media Consumption 

My media consumption habits, primarily through social media and aggregated news platforms, influence my worldview by prioritizing immediacy and polarization over nuanced analysis, and shaping my daily choices through algorithmic consumerism.

 Worldview and Daily Choices: Algorithms feed me information tailored to my past engagement, often reinforcing existing biases (partisanship) and creating an echo chamber. This can lead to an exaggerated sense of political division and influence daily choices through incessant, targeted advertising—for example, prompting me to buy a new product not out of genuine need, but because the algorithm effectively manufactured the desire.

Contribution to Becoming a Truly Educated Person: A critical approach is the gateway to true education in this era. It moves the user from being a passive recipient of propaganda to an active, autonomous thinker.

Deciphering the Filters: By actively questioning the source, ownership, and financial interest behind every piece of news, I apply the Chomsky filters.

 Achieving Autonomy: This critical skepticism is precisely what Chomsky defines as true education the ability to "inquire and create constructively, independently, without external controls." It transforms the act of media consumption into an exercise in intellectual freedom.

Step 3: Blog Post 📰

The Unfiltered Mind: Re-defining Education in the Age of Manufactured Consent

The concept of Culture has always been a battleground. As Cultural Studies scholar Dilip Barad notes, the pendulum swings wildly from Matthew Arnold's high-minded ideal of "perfecting what was best thought and said" to the poststructuralist celebration of "everyday life as really lived." In the 21st century, that everyday life is overwhelmingly mediated. To understand modern culture, we must stop looking at media as a mirror and start seeing it as a forge a powerful mechanism where our identities, beliefs, and reality are actively shaped by forces we rarely acknowledge.

This exploration, rooted in the critical insights of Cultural Studies, demands a radical redefinition of what it means to be educated.

I. The Symbiotic Grip: Media, Power, and the Shaping of Culture

Cultural Studies insists that the examination of culture is incomplete without the study of 'Power.' The relationship between media and power is not one of occasional influence; it is a symbiotic, systemic control. In a media-saturated world, the blog rightly asserts that media is the primary tool through which power structures "control the perceptions and the subject."

The clearest articulation of this control comes from the work of Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman on 'Manufacturing Consent.' They argue that mass media, particularly the "agenda setting media" like major national newspapers and television networks, functions as a system for mobilizing public support for the powerful interests that dominate government and the private sector. The mechanism is a series of structural filters:

•  Corporate Ownership and Advertising: Media outlets are not philanthropic entities; they are major corporations, often owned by even larger conglomerates. As Chomsky notes, the real market for elite media is the advertisers, who pay to reach a "privileged audience." This structure dictates that content must avoid antagonizing its corporate masters or its lucrative buyers, ensuring that narratives which promote hyper-consumerism or defend corporate interests are normalized. For instance, stories that detail environmental deregulation are often buried or framed as beneficial for 'economic growth,' while climate activism may be framed as a fringe, politically inconvenient movement.

•  Bounding the Debate: This filtering process effectively bounds thought. Even when media appears adversarial or liberal, the debate still operates within a set of elite presuppositions. The result is that even when we feel we are engaging in critical dialogue, we are often just circling the approved boundaries of the discussion. My own experience watching political talk shows confirms this: differing opinions are voiced, but the fundamental capitalist or political structure under which they operate is rarely, if ever, questioned.

This media-power nexus ensures that the 'discourse' the accepted way of thinking, talking, and behaving is always favorable to the powerful.

II. Culture as the Battlefield: Identity, Omission, and Resistance

Media is a relentless cultural producer. It creates and reinforces the social norms that define who we are and what we value. But for marginalized groups, this system of representation can be deeply destructive.

The selective gaze of the elite media often results in omission or negative framing. If a cultural group is consistently portrayed through stereotypes as a source of social anxiety, or simply rendered invisible.the media is essentially delegitimizing their identity and reinforcing the idea that their history, language, and experiences are marginal to the main 'history' being created. This is a subtle, yet profound, act of power: it shapes the dominant culture's perception, making it easier to accept policies that disregard the needs of the marginalized.

However, the proliferation of digital media, while often a tool of the powerful, has simultaneously become a crucial tool for resistance. The internet has democratized the ability to 'write power.'

When corporate media fails to cover a social injustice, or covers it through a biased lens, affected communities now have the ability to bypass the filters. They can use social media platforms to:

•   Assert Collective Intensity: Mobilize large numbers of people a source of power in itself to express a collective will and assert legitimacy.
•   Create Counter-Narratives: Publish original content that reframes the issue, documents lived experiences, and challenges the established narrative. This act of self-representation breaks the monopoly on cultural production and begins to shift social norms from the ground up.

In this sense, media is both the ultimate weapon of the status quo and the most essential platform for its resistance.

III. The Unfiltered Mind: Critical Literacy as the New Educational Core

Given the strategic use of media to manufacture consent, the very purpose of education must shift. We must move away from the traditional, content-driven model lthe focus on "what we cover in the class" to a model centered on cultivating "intellectual freedom and creative autonomy."

The blog highlights Chomsky’s core educational principle: "It’s not important what we cover in the class; it’s important what you discover." This intellectual independence is the defining characteristic of a truly educated person in the 21st century.

This concept of true education aligns perfectly with critical media literacy. To be educated is to be able to:

•  Read Power: To analyze every piece of media a news headline, an advertisement, a social media trend as an artifact connected to a powerful discourse. It means asking the essential question: Who owns this message, who paid for it, and whose interests does it serve?

•  Question Standard Doctrine: To have the skeptical resourcefulness to "formulate serious questions" and challenge not just the conclusions presented, but the very premises upon which they are built.

Reflecting on my own media consumption habits, I recognize how easily my worldview is shaped. I once accepted political rhetoric about economic necessity because the narrative was repeated across multiple seemingly credible news sources. However, the application of critical literacy specifically identifying the ownership ties of those sources to the industries benefiting from the policy forced me to "unlearn" that assumption. This act of discovery, of realizing that the rhetoric was manufactured consent, was more valuable than any grade I could earn in a traditional class.

IV. Conclusion: Becoming an Author of Change

To be a truly educated person today is to possess the unfiltered mind a mind that is constantly aware of the systems of control operating beneath the surface of everyday life. It is not about accumulating facts; it is about cultivating skeptical autonomy.

This modern education demands:

1.  Media Consciousness: A conscious rejection of the passive consumer role.
2. Interdisciplinary Inquiry: The habit of questioning one discipline (e.g., economics) with the findings of another (e.g., cultural studies, history), as the blog recommends.
3. Ethical Resourcefulness: The courage to "find your own way" and use that intellectual freedom to create a more just society.

The goal is not merely to understand the world, but to be an author of change, armed with the critical literacy to resist the constant attempts to manufacture our consent. This is how we move the pendulum of culture toward a more authentic, emancipated human experience.

References:

Barad, Dilip. "Cultural Studies: Media, Power and Truly Educated Person." Dilip Barad's Blog, 22 Mar. 2017, blog.dilipbarad.com/2017/03/cultural-studies-media-power-and-truly.html.

Herman, Edward S., and Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon Books, 1988.

Liu, Eric. "How to understand power." YouTube, uploaded by TED-Ed, 4 Nov. 2014, https://youtu.be/c_Eutci7ack.

"Noam Chomsky - Manufacturing Consent." YouTube, uploaded by Chomsky's Philosophy, 15 Oct. 2015, https://youtu.be/tTBWfkE7BXU.