Thinking Activity: A Cultural Studies Approach to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

This blog is prepared as part of a thinking activity assigned by Prof. Dilip Barad at MKBU. It discusses Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein and analyzes its significance within the context of Cultural Studies. For more information, please visit the Teacher’s Blog.

Part 1: Revolutionary Births

The Creature as the Proletarian

The creature’s combination of innocence and rage reflects how society often perceives revolutions and the struggles of the oppressed. Because he looks and behaves differently, society immediately marks him as dangerous. This reflects how people who don’t conform to social norms are often seen as rebellious or threatening.

From a postcolonial perspective, however, his innocence becomes evident. His anger is a reaction to the cruelty and rejection he faces, not something inherent in him. Victor’s abandonment of his creation parallels how marginalized groups—such as enslaved or colonized communities—have been excluded and dehumanized. They are frequently stereotyped as “dangerous” merely for being different. Thus, the creature symbolizes the oppressed individual who seeks recognition and compassion, responding to injustice not from evil intent but from a deep human need to be acknowledged.

The Black Panther movement’s focus on self-defense and empowerment can be compared to both the Dalit Panther movement and the creature’s transformation—from silent suffering to organized resistance. All three illustrate the journey from helplessness to self-assertion and the fight for dignity and rights.

A Race of Devils

In Frankenstein, Mary Shelley explores themes of race and empire by portraying the creature as the ultimate “Other”—a figure feared and shunned simply for his difference. This mirrors the colonial mindset, where dominant powers dehumanized those who looked or acted differently. Victor Frankenstein’s response to his creation echoes that of the colonizer: he pursues knowledge and dominance without moral accountability. His fear of the creature stems from unfamiliarity, reflecting the colonial rejection of other races and cultures.

Shelley highlights how alienation breeds rebellion. When people are treated as outsiders, they often resist systems that deny them humanity. This dynamic has recurred throughout history and still resonates today, as societies continue to struggle with racial injustice, privilege, and systemic inequality. Shelley’s novel ultimately calls for empathy and inclusion—reminding readers that social healing begins with recognizing the shared humanity of those we label as “other.”

From Natural Philosophy to the Cyborg

Modern scientific advancements echo Frankenstein’s warning about unchecked human ambition. The novel cautions against the pursuit of knowledge without moral responsibility—an issue now resurfacing in fields like artificial intelligence and genetic modification. Technologies such as CRISPR raise questions about “designer babies,” eugenics, and social inequality, leading to what some call “biological elitism,” where only the privileged may access genetic enhancements.

This ethical dilemma mirrors Victor Frankenstein’s failure to foresee the consequences of his creation. Similarly, today’s innovations—whether in AI, robotics, or biotechnology—carry the potential for both progress and peril. Popular culture often revisits these anxieties through stories of rogue robots or genetically engineered beings that rebel against their makers.

Shelley’s message remains crucial: creation comes with responsibility. As we push the boundaries of science and technology, we must consider not just what we can do, but what we should do—ensuring that our innovations serve humanity rather than endanger it.

Part 2: The Frankenpheme in Popular Culture

First Film Adaptation and Popular Retellings

The fear of unchecked scientific progress has long been a recurring theme in literature, and Frankenstein captures it vividly. In the novel, Victor Frankenstein’s relentless quest for knowledge leads him to create life, but his refusal to accept responsibility for his creation turns achievement into catastrophe. The creature stands as a symbol of the unintended consequences of ambition without ethical restraint and the moral questions surrounding human experimentation.

As time passed, society’s outlook on science began to change. With the rise of new technologies such as artificial intelligence and genetic modification, fear has been replaced by a more balanced perspective—one that recognizes both the potential benefits and dangers of innovation. Modern versions of Frankenstein often portray the creature as a misunderstood and sympathetic being, emphasizing human cruelty and emotional neglect rather than innate monstrosity.

This reinterpretation reflects a broader cultural transformation: science is no longer viewed purely as a threat but as a tool that can advance humanity when guided by ethics and empathy. Still, Mary Shelley’s central warning remains relevant—scientific discovery, however revolutionary, must always be governed by moral awareness and responsibility for its outcomes.

Reading and Analysis

The creature’s self-education through books such as Paradise Lost, Plutarch’s Lives, and The Sorrows of Werter expands his understanding of humanity but also deepens his suffering. These texts introduce him to ideals of virtue, love, and civilization, yet they make him painfully aware of his isolation and lack of identity. He identifies with both Adam’s loneliness and Satan’s defiance, revealing his inner conflict between innocence and resentment. His intellectual awakening gives him moral insight, but his inability to experience human connection turns knowledge into torment. Thus, learning becomes a double-edged sword—enriching his mind while intensifying his emotional despair.

Film and Media Reflection

In early film adaptations, such as James Whale’s Frankenstein (1931), the creature is shown as both pitiful and terrifying—a reflection of the era’s fear of the unknown and anxiety about unrestrained scientific progress during industrialization. These versions served as cautionary tales, warning that technology without moral guidance could spiral out of control.

Later reinterpretations, like Blade Runner and Ex Machina, bring the Frankenstein myth into the age of artificial intelligence and bioengineering. They explore questions of consciousness, autonomy, and moral accountability—asking whether artificial beings deserve the same ethical consideration as humans. Recent portrayals tend to highlight the creature’s loneliness and rejection, depicting him less as a monster and more as a symbol of social exclusion. His suffering resonates with modern issues such as racial prejudice, marginalization, and identity crisis.

Ultimately, Frankenstein endures as a timeless narrative that evolves with each generation’s concerns. Its central message—a call for responsible innovation and human empathy—continues to speak to our age, reminding us that progress without conscience can easily become destruction.

References 

Barad, Dilip. “Thinking Activity: A Cultural Studies Approach to Frankenstein.” Reserchgate, Nov. 202AD, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24589.76005.

Barad,Dilip.  Why Are We so Scared of Robots / AIs? blog.dilipbarad.com/2019/03/why-are-we-so-scared-of-robots-ais.html.

“Eugenics: Its Origin and Development (1883 - Present).” Genome.gov, www.genome.gov/about-genomics/educational resources/timelines/eugenics.

Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus. 5 Nov. 2024, www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/84/pg84-images.html.

Levine, “the Ambiguous Heritage of Frankenstein.” knarf.english.upenn.edu/Articles/levine.html.

Lobdell, None. “Never Dead: Mary Shelley’s ≪Em≫Frankenstein≪/Em≫” Science Fiction Studies, vol. 47, no. 2, Jan. 2020, p. 253. https://doi.org/10.5621/sciefictstud.47.2.0253.

CS - Hamlet

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

This blog is written as part of an academic task assigned by Prof. Dilip Barad, focusing on Cultural Studies. It examines how marginalized characters can be compared to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern within the context of Hamlet. For more details about the task, readers can refer to the teacher’s blog.

Marginalization in Hamlet :

In Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern serve as peripheral characters whose main purpose is to fulfill King Claudius’s commands rather than exercise any true autonomy. They lack a sense of individuality and personal will, functioning merely as extensions of royal authority. Acting as Claudius’s agents, they are assigned to observe Hamlet and report on his actions, positioning them at the margins of the play’s core power struggle. They belong fully to neither side—neither sincerely loyal to Hamlet nor completely trusted by Claudius—and are ultimately manipulated by both for their own purposes.

Hamlet’s portrayal of Rosencrantz as a “sponge” vividly expresses their submissive and dependent nature. Like sponges, they absorb the king’s words and orders without question, only to be squeezed dry and discarded once they are no longer useful. This image highlights how powerless individuals are exploited and then abandoned by those in positions of control. In the end, when they are sent to England carrying the sealed orders for Hamlet’s execution, they unknowingly deliver their own death warrant. Their tragic end symbolizes the fragility and expendability of people who serve merely as pawns within greater systems of power.

Modern Parallels: Corporate Exploitation

In today’s corporate world, a similar pattern of exploitation persists. Many employees face long working hours, low pay, and poor treatment, often seen as replaceable rather than respected contributors. Corporate structures driven by profit frequently ignore worker welfare, even disregarding basic labor protections.

The position of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern mirrors that of modern employees. Just as Claudius uses and discards them, corporations often value workers only for their immediate productivity. When companies downsize, automate, or relocate, even loyal employees lose their jobs overnight. In both situations, human beings are treated as disposable resources—valued not for who they are but for what they can provide. This reflects a wider system that prioritizes profit and ambition over humanity and ethical responsibility.

Existential Questions in Stoppard’s Reinterpretation

In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, Tom Stoppard reimagines Shakespeare’s minor characters to explore existential uncertainty and the search for meaning. Ros and Guil wander through a world they do not understand, unaware of the larger plot surrounding them. Their endless questioning and confusion emphasize the absurdity of existence in a world governed by forces beyond individual control.

As critic Murray J. Levith points out, their names—derived from Dutch-German origins meaning “garland of roses” and “golden star”—sound trivial and decorative, underscoring their lack of identity. Anna K. Nardo further notes that Stoppard blurs the boundary between art and reality by allowing them to exist both within Hamlet and outside it, as self-aware yet powerless figures. They occasionally attempt to call for the next scene or interact with the audience, but these efforts only highlight their inability to shape their destiny.

Unlike Hamlet, who ultimately attains awareness through decisive action, Ros and Guil remain passive and bewildered. Their failure to assert agency reflects Stoppard’s criticism of individuals who drift through life without direction. Their struggle mirrors that of modern people who feel powerless within vast systems—be they political, social, or economic—that value conformity over individuality.

This sense of futility closely resembles the experience of workers in today’s profit-driven world. Employees often feel insignificant, subjected to corporate hierarchies that treat them as mere tools. Decisions about layoffs or restructuring are made without considering personal impact, leaving many feeling purposeless and insecure. Through Ros and Guil’s tragic bewilderment, Stoppard thus critiques the modern condition of alienation and dehumanization in bureaucratic and capitalist structures.

Cultural and Economic Power Structures

Shakespeare exposes the corruption of power in Hamlet by showing how those without influence—such as Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and Ophelia—are manipulated and ultimately destroyed by those who hold authority. King Claudius uses others to maintain control, and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are no exception. Once they lose their usefulness, they are swiftly discarded. Hamlet’s “sponge” metaphor vividly illustrates how they absorb the king’s will only to be thrown away when drained of purpose. Shakespeare’s commentary is clear: systems that privilege authority inevitably exploit the powerless.

Stoppard extends this critique by examining how these characters search for meaning in a world that denies them significance. His play deals with themes of fate, choice, and identity, revealing how ordinary people struggle against impersonal systems that render them invisible. By making them central characters in a narrative they cannot control, Stoppard underscores the absurdity of human existence and the futility of seeking autonomy in predetermined structures.

This portrayal resonates strongly with contemporary realities of job insecurity and economic control. Modern workers often find themselves trapped in roles where they have little say, functioning like replaceable parts within massive organizations. Whether in politics or in the workplace, both Shakespeare and Stoppard reveal a shared truth: hierarchical systems devalue individual humanity, reducing people to instruments serving larger agendas.

Personal Reflection

In Hamlet, King Claudius manipulates Rosencrantz and Guildenstern for his own political purposes and abandons them once they lose their worth—leading to their demise. This dynamic mirrors the treatment of workers in modern corporations. Employees may devote years of effort and loyalty, yet are dismissed once they cease to be profitable or efficient.

When workers are young and productive, they are celebrated as valuable assets; however, as their energy or relevance declines, they are swiftly replaced. This reflects the utilitarian mindset dominating the modern economy, where human worth is measured solely by performance and output. Both Shakespeare’s and Stoppard’s works expose this harsh truth: systems of power—whether monarchical or corporate—exploit individuals for personal gain, reducing human life to a tool for maintaining control and achieving profit.

References 

Beckman, Jeff. “Eye-opening Statistics on Job Displacement Due to Automation (2023 Data).” Techreport, 28 May 2024, techreport.com/statistics/business-workplace/job-displacement-due-to-automation.

Kumar, Sanjeev. “HAMLET AND ROSENCRANTZ AND GUILDENSTERN ARE DEAD - a TEXTUAL STUDY.” International Journal of Novel Research and Development, by IJNRD, vol. 8, no. 1, Jan. 2023, pp. b573–75. www.ijnrd.org/papers/IJNRD2301171.pdf. 

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

Bhav Gunjan Youth Festival 2025

This blog is an academic assignment prepared under the supervision of Dr. and Prof. Dilip Barad. It highlights the 33rd Inter-College Youth Festival, Bhav Gunjan, organized by Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University. The festival, hosted by the Department of Physical Education and Cultural Activities, was held from October 8 to 11, 2025.

The Youth Festival, affectionately named “Bhav Gunjan”—meaning “The Resonance of Emotion”—was much more than a regular university event. Organized by The Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University (MKBU) from October 8 to 11, 2025, it emerged as a grand cultural and social celebration that brought together creativity, art, and intellect. Over four lively days, the university campus transformed into a vibrant space reflecting the true spirit of Yuvaani ka Mahotsav—a festival dedicated to the energy and imagination of youth.

Kala-yatra  :

   

The Youth Festival began with great enthusiasm through the Kala-Yatra (Art Procession) on October 8, which traveled from Shamaldas Arts College to J.K. Sarvaiya College. More than just a parade, it served as a powerful expression of social consciousness, with each participating college delivering impactful performances that highlighted significant contemporary issues.

Participants courageously addressed issues such as the growing problem of gender-based violence, calling for justice and social reform. They also critiqued the shortcomings of the education system, condemning its rigidity and commercialization, and shed light on the psychological effects of social media, revealing how the virtual world weakens real human relationships. Alongside these critical themes, several groups celebrated Gujarat’s rich cultural heritage, showcasing pride in its traditions, language, and identity—creating a thoughtful balance between social critique and cultural appreciation.

My Journey as a Volunteer at Bhav Gunjan

As a volunteer in the Youth Festival “Bhav Gunjan,” I had the opportunity to witness the event’s vibrant energy and teamwork from behind the scenes. Being part of the organizing team taught me the importance of coordination, time management, and collective effort. From helping participants during performances to managing stage schedules and assisting the cultural committee, every moment was filled with excitement and learning. The experience not only enhanced my confidence and communication skills but also gave me immense pride in contributing to such a grand celebration of youth, creativity, and culture.

Assignment Paper No. 205 : Power and Ideology in Popular Cinema

Power and Ideology in Popular Cinema

This blog is a part of the assignment of Paper 203: Literary Theory & Criticism and Indian Aesthetics 

Academic Details:

Name : Jay P. Vaghani

Roll No.        : 06

Sem. : 3

Batch : 2024-26

E-mail : vaghanijay77@gmail.com   

Assignment Details:

Paper Name :Cultural Studies

Paper No. : 205A

Paper Code :  22410

Topic :Power and Ideology in Popular Cinema

Submitted To : Smt. Sujata Binoy Gardi, Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University

Submitted Date : November 8, 2025

The following information—numbers are counted using QuillBot:

Words         : 1944

Characters         : 14294

Characters without spaces : 12412

Paragraphs         :78

Sentences         : 142

Reading time         :7 m 47 s

Table of Contents

Personal Information

Assignment Details

Abstract

Introduction

Theoretical Framework: Althusser, Stuart Hall, and Laura Mulvey

Cinema as Ideological Apparatus: Power, Nation, and Narrative

Spectacle and the Politics of Representation in Baahubali

Audience Reception and Resistance

Conclusion

Abstract

This paper explores how popular cinema functions as a cultural site where ideologies of power, class, gender, and nation are reproduced and challenged. Drawing upon Louis Althusser’s theory of Ideological State Apparatuses, Stuart Hall’s model of encoding and decoding, and Laura Mulvey’s notion of the “male gaze,” this study analyzes Indian popular cinema, with special reference to Baahubali (2015). The paper argues that cinema operates as a medium of ideological negotiation—while it reinforces dominant narratives of nationalism and masculinity, it also leaves room for audience reinterpretation and resistance.

Introduction

Cinema, as one of the most influential forms of mass culture, shapes public imagination by constructing social and political meanings. Cultural Studies regards cinema not merely as entertainment but as a site of ideological production. Stuart Hall defines ideology as “the framework of meaning through which we interpret the world,” while Althusser sees media as part of the Ideological State Apparatus that sustains dominant class power.

In India, popular films have long reflected and reinforced state ideologies, from Nehruvian modernism in the 1950s to the cultural nationalism of contemporary cinema. Baahubali: The Beginning (2015), directed by S. S. Rajamouli, epitomizes this blend of myth, masculinity, and national identity—presenting heroism as divine destiny and the ruler as the embodiment of moral order.

Hypothesis

This study hypothesizes that popular Indian cinema, exemplified by S. S. Rajamouli’s Baahubali, functions as an Ideological State Apparatus that naturalizes hierarchies of power, gender, and nationhood through visual spectacle and mythic narrative, while simultaneously allowing space for oppositional audience interpretations.

Research Questions

How does Baahubali function as an Ideological State Apparatus in the Althusserian sense, reinforcing dominant socio-political and cultural ideologies?

In what ways does Stuart Hall’s Encoding/Decoding model explain the varied audience receptions and interpretations of Baahubali?

How does Laura Mulvey’s concept of the “male gaze” operate within Baahubali, particularly in its portrayal of women like Devasena and Sivagami?

How does Baahubali use visual spectacle and mythic narrative to legitimize power structures such as monarchy, patriarchy, and cultural nationalism?

Can popular cinema like Baahubali serve as a site of ideological resistance, or does its aesthetic and emotional appeal ultimately reinforce dominant values?

Theoretical Framework: Althusser, Stuart Hall, and Laura Mulvey

Louis Althusser (1971), in his seminal essay “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,” proposed that ideology functions not through coercion but through subtle social institutions such as education, religion, and media. These Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs) operate by shaping individuals’ consciousness, making them internalize the dominant values of the ruling class as “common sense.” Cinema, as one of these powerful apparatuses, does not simply entertain—it constructs ideological meanings that naturalize existing social hierarchies. Through narrative, camera techniques, and characterization, films interpellate individuals into specific subject positions, making them identify with certain worldviews. The spectator thus becomes a subject who unconsciously accepts the film’s ideological message while experiencing the illusion of freedom and pleasure.

Within this Marxist framework, cinema becomes an instrument that both reflects and reproduces the conditions of power. The pleasure of watching a film—its drama, beauty, and emotional satisfaction—is not ideologically neutral. As Althusser would argue, it conceals the processes by which spectators are “hailed” into ideological conformity. In this sense, popular cinema is a site where political, social, and cultural norms are both reinforced and contested.

Stuart Hall (1973), in his Encoding/Decoding model, extends Althusser’s ideas by emphasizing the agency of the audience. Hall argued that media messages are “encoded” by producers with certain preferred meanings aligned with dominant ideology, but audiences “decode” them according to their own social positions and experiences. Thus, audiences are not passive consumers—they can interpret messages in dominant, negotiated, or oppositional ways. This model opens up the possibility of resistance and reinterpretation within media consumption.

Applied to cinema, Hall’s theory suggests that viewers may accept the film’s ideological stance (dominant reading), partially agree while questioning certain aspects (negotiated reading), or completely reject its values (oppositional reading). Hence, cinema becomes a dynamic space of ideological exchange rather than a one-way channel of control.

Laura Mulvey (1975), in her groundbreaking essay “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” brought a psychoanalytic and feminist perspective to film theory. She introduced the concept of the male gaze, revealing how classical Hollywood cinema constructs visual pleasure through patriarchal structures. Mulvey argues that film form—especially through camera angles, editing, and narrative focus—positions the spectator to identify with the male protagonist and to view the female character as an object of erotic display. Women in film are often presented as spectacles to be looked at, not as subjects of their own desire.

Together, Althusser, Hall, and Mulvey provide a comprehensive framework to analyze cinema as an ideological text: Althusser exposes its function as a mechanism of ideological reproduction, Hall restores the active role of the audience, and Mulvey critiques its gendered visual politics. This triad of theories helps us understand cinema as a site of negotiation between power, pleasure, and resistance.

Cinema as Ideological Apparatus: Power, Nation, and Narrative

Fredric Jameson, in The Political Unconscious (1981), declared that all narratives are “socially symbolic acts.” By this, he meant that stories, even those that appear apolitical, encode the social and political tensions of their historical moment. When applied to Indian popular cinema, this approach allows us to read films not merely as entertainment but as cultural texts that encode and circulate national ideologies.

In this context, Baahubali (2015–2017), directed by S. S. Rajamouli, becomes a rich site for ideological reading. The film’s grand mythic narrative constructs power as divine, hereditary, and morally justified. Its world is hierarchically structured, where the righteous king embodies truth, bravery, and virtue, and his rule is presented as natural and divinely ordained. Through spectacular visuals and heroic characterization, the film legitimizes the idea that authority and social hierarchy are sacred duties rather than political arrangements.

Rachel Dwyer (2021) notes that such mythic spectacles in Indian cinema “rework older national myths to align with the ideology of cultural nationalism.” The visual language of Baahubali—its palatial architecture, ritualistic ceremonies, and deified hero—mirrors the ideological motifs of Hindutva and masculine sovereignty. The hero’s moral strength and physical perfection symbolize a purified, dominant vision of the nation.

Richard Dyer (1979) reminds us that film stars themselves are ideological constructs: their images condense social aspirations, fears, and contradictions. In Baahubali, the titular hero operates as a fantasy figure who embodies moral integrity, physical dominance, and divine legitimacy. This idealized image conceals the realities of caste and class inequality by transforming political dominance into a narrative of moral righteousness. The film’s mythical grandeur thus serves as an ideological veil that disguises social contradictions within the language of spectacle.

Spectacle and the Politics of Representation in Baahubali

The power of visual spectacle in popular cinema lies in its ability to transform ideology into pleasure. Stephen Heath (1981) argued that film form—particularly through techniques such as continuity editing and point-of-view shots—structures the spectator’s gaze to align ideologically with the protagonist. The viewer experiences a seamless identification with the hero’s perspective, and through that identification, internalizes the ideological meanings embedded in the narrative.

In Baahubali, Rajamouli’s visual techniques—slow-motion battle sequences, symmetrical framing, and divine iconography—elevate the protagonist’s authority to god-like status. The mise-en-scène is carefully designed to glorify the hero’s body as both aesthetic and sacred. The temple-like set designs and dramatic lighting blur the boundaries between the religious and the political, producing what Anurag Thapa (2021) terms “techno-religious realism”—a fusion of digital spectacle and devotional symbolism that sanctifies power itself.

The portrayal of Queen Mother Sivagami further complicates the film’s gender politics. She embodies the paradox of female strength within patriarchal limits—authoritative yet nurturing, powerful yet ultimately defined by her loyalty to male lineage. This duality aligns with traditional patriarchal ideals of womanhood, where female virtue is celebrated only when it serves male heroism and dynastic continuity.

However, such cinematic representation is not universally accepted. Scholars and critics have pointed out that beneath the grandeur lies a reinforcement of caste hierarchy and gender subordination. The South Asia Journal (2017) review highlights that the film’s mythological framework masks systemic inequalities by presenting them as divine order. By merging political dominance with spiritual symbolism, Baahubali naturalizes social hierarchy as destiny.

Audience Reception and Resistance

Despite its ideological density, Baahubali has not been received uniformly. Audience reception studies reveal that viewers interpret the film through varied cultural and political lenses. While dominant readings celebrate it as a patriotic epic and a visual triumph of Indian cinema, others adopt negotiated or oppositional positions.

Some feminist viewers interpret Devasena’s assertive personality and martial skill as a sign of female empowerment, reading her as a subversive figure within a patriarchal narrative. In contrast, Dalit scholars and leftist critics perceive the film as a glorification of feudalism and Brahmanical hierarchy, arguing that its representation of loyalty and servitude reinforces casteist values.

Stuart Hall’s audience theory allows us to understand these divergent readings as active cultural negotiations rather than deviations. Each viewer decodes the film according to their social position, cultural identity, and ideological awareness. The same spectacle that produces national pride for some may provoke discomfort and critique for others. In this sense, Baahubali becomes a contested site where ideological meanings are produced, resisted, and reimagined through audience interaction.

Conclusion

Popular cinema, as this analysis demonstrates, is far more than an instrument of entertainment—it is a complex ideological apparatus that shapes and reshapes collective consciousness. Through Althusser’s concept of Ideological State Apparatuses, we recognize cinema’s power to reproduce dominant ideologies; through Hall’s model of encoding and decoding, we understand how audiences participate in the process of meaning-making; and through Mulvey’s theory of the male gaze, we see how cinematic pleasure is structured by gendered hierarchies.

Baahubali exemplifies how national cinema fuses mythology, politics, and spectacle to construct fantasies of divine authority and moral purity. Its aesthetic grandeur masks ideological contradictions, turning domination into visual pleasure. Yet, the possibility of oppositional reading—enabled by critical spectatorship—keeps cinema alive as a field of cultural struggle.

Ultimately, every cinematic frame is a battlefield where meaning is negotiated between ideology and interpretation, between the power of the image and the freedom of the gaze.

References 

Althusser, L. (n.d.). Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses by Louis Althusser 1969-70. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1970/ideology.htm?utm

 

Dwyer, Rachel. “9 New Myths for an Old Nation: Bollywood, Soft Power and Hindu Nationalism.” Cinema and Soft Power: Configuring the National and Transnational in Geo-Politics, edited collection, Edinburgh University Press, 2021, pp. 190–209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474456296-013 

Dyer, Richard. Stars. 1st ed., British Film Institute / Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019. 

Hall, Stuart. “Encoding/Decoding in the Television Discourse.” Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, University of Birmingham, 1973. PDF available at: https://ia801304.us.archive.org/6/items/ktoub2/02CHallEncodingDecoding.pdf

Heath, Stephen. Questions of Cinema. Communications and Culture Series, Macmillan/Indiana University Press, 1981.  

Jameson, Fredric. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Cornell University Press, 1981. 

Laura Mulvey, Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, Screen, Volume 16, Issue 3, Autumn 1975, Pages 6–18, https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/16.3.6 

Assignment Paper No. 204 : From Wilderness to Captivity: Eco-critical Reflections on Animal Ethics, Conservation, and Representation in Contemporary Media

From Wilderness to Captivity: Eco-critical Reflections on Animal Ethics, Conservation, and Representation in Contemporary Media

This blog is a part of the assignment of Paper 203: Literary Theory & Criticism and Indian Aesthetics 

Academic Details:

Name : Jay P. Vaghani

Roll No.        : 06

Sem. : 3

Batch : 2024-26

E-mail : vaghanijay77@gmail.com   

Assignment Details:

Paper Name : Contemporary Western Theories and Film Studies

Paper No. : 204

Paper Code : 22409 

Topic :From Wilderness to Captivity: Eco-critical Reflections on Animal Ethics, Conservation, and Representation in Contemporary Media

Submitted To : Smt. Sujata Binoy Gardi, Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University

Submitted Date : November 8, 2025

The following information—numbers are counted using QuillBot:

Words         : 1897

Characters         : 14672

Characters without spaces : 12844

Paragraphs         :86

Sentences         : 144

Reading time         :7 m 35 s

Table of Contents

Personal Information

Assignment Details

Abstract

Introduction

Theoretical Framework: Eco-criticism, Zoocriticism, and Postcolonialism

The Human–Animal Divide: Ethics and Representation

Wilderness, Exploitation, and the Politics of Conservation

Captivity and Spectacle: Zoos, Media, and the Illusion of Care

Eco-feminist and Moral Perspectives on Animal Welfare

Conclusion

Abstract

This paper explores the shifting relationship between humans and animals through an eco-critical and zoocritical lens, using real-world examples from environmental reports, journalism, and visual media. Drawing on the theoretical insights of Graham Huggan and Helen Tiffin’s Postcolonial Ecocriticism and Aarthi Vadde’s work on cross-pollination between ecocriticism and postcolonialism, the paper examines how concepts like “animal welfare,” “conservation,” and “rights” are framed in modern culture. Through case studies such as the film Sherni (2021), viral media on animal captivity, and journalistic accounts of deforestation and tiger hunts, this study argues that ecological narratives often conceal systems of exploitation beneath the guise of protection.

Introduction

Eco-criticism, as a field, studies the relationship between literature, culture, and the environment. However, in recent decades, the focus has expanded to include zoocriticism—a sub-branch that interrogates how animals are represented and treated in human discourse. Graham Huggan and Helen Tiffin (2010) define postcolonial ecocriticism as the intersection of environmental justice and cultural identity, revealing how colonial histories of land exploitation extend to the exploitation of animals.

In India, debates over animal rights and conservation have intensified with the rise of viral media coverage, government actions, and public outrage over human–wildlife conflict. The killing of the tigress Avni (Shantha, 2018) and the illegal lion shows in Gir (DeshGujaratHD, 2019) illustrate the paradox of a nation that worships animals symbolically while exploiting them physically.

Hypothesis

This research hypothesizes that modern ecological and animal welfare discourses—though framed as protective and ethical—often perpetuate hidden systems of domination rooted in colonial, capitalist, and patriarchal ideologies. By analyzing films, media, and journalism through eco-critical and zoocritical lenses, the study argues that the language of conservation and care frequently masks exploitation and reinforces the human–animal divide.

Research Questions

How do eco-criticism and zoocriticism intersect in analyzing the ethical and cultural representation of animals in postcolonial contexts?

In what ways do media, films (such as Sherni), and journalism reveal the contradiction between animal protection and exploitation?

How does postcolonial ecocriticism expose the continuation of colonial hierarchies in contemporary conservation practices?

What role does eco-feminism play in connecting the exploitation of women and animals under systems of patriarchy and capitalism?

Can recognizing animals as moral and sentient beings challenge anthropocentrism and reshape ecological ethics in the modern world?

Theoretical Framework: Eco-criticism, Zoocriticism, and Postcolonialism

Aarthi Vadde (2011) argues that ecocriticism, zoocriticism, and postcolonialism intersect through their shared ethical focus on cross-species relationships and environmental representation. These critical frameworks collectively question anthropocentrism—the belief that human beings are the central and most important entities in the universe. Postcolonial nations, shaped by histories of exploitation, often inherit and reproduce colonial patterns of domination over both land and life forms. The exploitation of the earth, its resources, and its creatures reflects not only ecological destruction but also ideological continuities between colonialism and capitalism.

Huggan and Tiffin (2010) further emphasize that environmental degradation in postcolonial contexts is deeply entwined with the legacies of imperialism, where resource extraction and deforestation mirror earlier colonial economic systems. For instance, plantation economies that once relied on enslaved labor have evolved into industrialized systems of ecological exploitation, where both human and non-human lives are commodified.

In this theoretical framework, animals are redefined as active participants in ecological and moral systems rather than passive symbols in human-centered narratives. The Book of Genesis (King James Version, 2017) famously grants humans “dominion” over all living creatures—a theological root of species hierarchy that justifies human supremacy. Ecocriticism challenges this narrative by promoting ideas of coexistence, kinship, and moral reciprocity between species. Zoocriticism builds upon this by examining how literature, film, and culture represent animal subjectivity and suffering, urging scholars to move beyond symbolic readings toward an acknowledgment of animals as beings with intrinsic value and agency.

The Human–Animal Divide: Ethics and Representation

The ethical debate concerning animals often oscillates between animal welfare and animal rights, as framed by organizations such as PETA and the American Veterinary Medical Association. Welfare advocates emphasize humane treatment and minimization of suffering within systems of use, whereas rights theorists—like Tom Regan and Peter Singer—argue for the abolition of animal exploitation altogether, asserting that animals possess intrinsic autonomy independent of human utility.

Susana Monsó (2018), in her groundbreaking work Animal Morality, challenges the long-held belief that moral reasoning and empathy are exclusive to humans. Drawing from ethological studies, Monsó presents compelling evidence of emotional complexity and fairness in species such as elephants, dolphins, and primates. This evidence dissolves the rigid line separating human from animal and compels scholars to re-evaluate how literature, film, and popular media construct animal subjectivity.

From this perspective, the representation of animals in postcolonial literature and cinema becomes an ethical act. Works like Yann Martel’s Life of Pi or Amit Masurkar’s Sherni depict animals not merely as metaphors for human suffering but as autonomous beings with their own existential struggles. These narratives challenge the instrumentalization of animals in culture, urging readers and viewers to acknowledge their emotional and moral presence.

Wilderness, Exploitation, and the Politics of Conservation

Environmental journalism frequently exposes how economic development and state interests often override ecological protection. For example, Ramu Bhagwat’s Times of India report (2018) details how 467 hectares of forest land in Yavatmal were transferred to Reliance Industries—illustrating how environmental conservation is routinely sacrificed at the altar of corporate gain. Such acts of “green colonialism” replicate imperial practices where natural resources are controlled and commodified under the guise of modernization.

In Amit Masurkar’s Sherni (2021), this tension between development and ecology becomes the central conflict. The film’s protagonist, Vidya Vincent, an honest forest officer, confronts bureaucratic corruption and patriarchal power structures as she strives to protect a tigress threatened by human encroachment. The tigress “T12” becomes an allegory for all silenced and hunted beings—both human and animal—who resist domination. The film’s feminist subtext aligns with eco-feminism, which identifies a parallel between the exploitation of women and the exploitation of nature.

Through such representations, both journalism and cinema expose the political dimension of conservation: who gets to define “protection,” and who benefits from it. True environmentalism, as Huggan and Tiffin (2010) argue, must acknowledge the socio-political histories of land and life, moving beyond surface-level preservation toward genuine ecological justice.

Captivity and Spectacle: Zoos, Media, and the Illusion of Care

Modern zoos have long been framed as centers for education, entertainment, and conservation, yet critical scholarship exposes them as spaces of captivity and control. As Loy Norrix (2023) and Esther Suson’s History of Zoos suggest, these institutions serve as microcosms of colonial power, where non-human bodies are displayed for human pleasure and profit. Animals are stripped of autonomy, confined within artificial habitats, and presented as exotic curiosities—mirroring the ethnographic exhibitions of the colonial era.

The Daily Mail (2019) video “Zoos Drive Animals Insane” vividly documents the psychological trauma of caged animals, showing repetitive pacing, self-harm, and signs of deep distress. Such images challenge the comforting narrative of zoos as benevolent caretakers and reveal instead a spectacle of suffering masked as conservation.

Through a postcolonial lens, zoos function as continuations of imperial ideology. They display “exotic” species from former colonies, reinforcing the human desire to dominate and classify the natural world. Even in digital media, this mindset persists: viral videos of illegal lion shows in Gir or elephant rides in Jaipur exemplify how tourism, capitalism, and cultural pride intersect to commodify wildlife. Thus, captivity—whether in cages or in images—becomes a mechanism of control disguised as admiration.

Eco-feminist and Moral Perspectives on Animal Welfare

Eco-feminism, rooted in thinkers like Vandana Shiva and Carolyn Merchant, links the oppression of women and the exploitation of nature to patriarchal ideologies of domination and hierarchy. In Sherni, Vidya Balan’s character embodies an ethic of care grounded in empathy, cooperation, and coexistence—traits historically coded as “feminine” but reimagined here as strengths. She navigates a system that seeks control, asserting that both women and wildlife deserve freedom and dignity.

Huggan and Tiffin argue that ecological justice cannot exist without social justice. The oppression of women, indigenous communities, and animals all emerge from the same hierarchical worldview that privileges power and possession. Eco-feminism calls for a transformative ethics of care, one that dismantles anthropocentrism and redefines humanity’s relationship with the non-human world.

Susana Monsó’s (2018) discussion of animal moral cognition complements this feminist perspective. By recognizing that animals possess emotional intelligence and moral capacities, eco-feminism moves the conversation from mere compassion to ethical responsibility. It demands not just humane treatment but structural change—a shift from management to coexistence, from control to connection.

Conclusion

From religious scripture to modern cinema, human relationships with animals reveal enduring patterns of domination, representation, and moral conflict. Through the combined perspectives of ecocriticism, zoocriticism, and postcolonialism, this study uncovers how narratives of “protection” often mask systems of control and exploitation. Films like Sherni, alongside real-world examples of forest encroachment and animal captivity, illustrate how colonial hierarchies continue to shape human attitudes toward the natural world.

Ultimately, true ecological consciousness begins where anthropocentrism ends. It requires reimagining animals not as symbols, resources, or spectacles, but as co-inhabitants of a shared planet. Huggan and Tiffin remind us that environmental ethics is not a matter of pity but of justice—a call to dismantle hierarchies that divide humans from the rest of creation. Only through such an ethical reawakening can both nature and humanity hope to survive in harmony.

References

“Animal welfare: What is it?” American Veterinary Medical Association, https://www.avma.org/resources/animal-health-welfare/animal-welfare-what-it.

Bhagwat, Ramu. “467 hectares of Yavatmal forest land given to Reliance | Nagpur News - Times of India.” The Times of India, 23 January 2018, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/467-hectares-of-yavatmal-forest-land-given-to-reliance/articleshow/62610513.cms.

DeshGujaratHD. “Another video of illegal lion show in Gir goes viral.” YouTube, DeshGujratHD, 9 March 2019, https://youtu.be/BvAkJAuqLn0?si=rLi_8yKpO0Jeb1Xq.

Huggan, Graham, and Helen Tiffin. Postcolonial Ecocriticism: Literature, Animals, Environment. Routledge, 2010.

James, King. The Book of Genesis. Independently Published, 2017.

Masurkar, Amit V., director. Sherni. T-Series Abundantia Entertainment, 18 June 2021.

Monsó, Susana. “Animal Morality: What It Means and Why It Matters.” Springer, no. December 2018, 27 September 2018. Springer, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10892-018-9275-3#citeas.

Norrix, Loy. “Zoo.” National Geographic Society, 8 August 2023, https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/zoo/.

Shantha, Sukanya. “Activists Suspect Maharashtra's Motives to Kill Tigress Avni.” The Wire, 3 November 2018,

https://thewire.in/environment/maharashtra-prepares-to-kill-alleged-man-eater-activists-and-experts-protest.

"Suson, Esther Elizabeth, and James Donaldson. “The History of Zoos.” Hankering for History,

https://hankeringforhistory.com/history-of-zoos/.

VADDE, AARTHI. “Cross-Pollination: Ecocriticism, Zoocriticism, Postcolonialism.” Contemporary Literature, vol. 52, no.

3, 2011, pp. 565–73. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41472508.

“What is the difference between “animal rights” and “animal welfare”?” PETA,https://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/what-is-the-difference-between-animal-rights-and-animal-welfare/.

“Zoos drive animals insane.” YouTube, Daily Mail, 9 March 2019, https://youtube.com/watch?v=8-HpJdqiZfU&si=P8uvlnzobSj0TyYf.

Assignment Paper No. 203 : Fragmented Voices and Colonial Madness: Feminist and Postcolonial Perspectives in Jean Rhys’s Wide Sargasso Sea

Fragmented Voices and Colonial Madness: Feminist and Postcolonial Perspectives in Jean Rhys’s Wide Sargasso Sea

This blog is a part of the assignment of Paper 203: Literary Theory & Criticism and Indian Aesthetics 

Academic Details:

Name : Jay P. Vaghani

Roll No.         : 06

Sem. : 3

Batch : 2024-26

E-mail : vaghanijay77@gmail.com   

Assignment Details:

Paper Name : The Postcolonial Studies

Paper No. : 203

Paper Code : 20408

Unit : 3 - Jean Rhys's Wide Sargasso Sea 

Topic :Fragmented Voices and Colonial Madness: Feminist and Postcolonial Perspectives in Jean Rhys’s 'Wide Sargasso Sea'

Submitted To : Smt. Sujata Binoy Gardi, Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University

Submitted Date : November 8, 2025

The following information—numbers are counted using QuillBot:

Words         : 1793

Characters         : 13187

Characters without spaces : 11450

Paragraphs         :74

Sentences         : 146

Reading time         :7 m 10 s

Table of Contents

Personal Information

Assignment Details

Abstract

Introduction

The Silenced Woman: Feminist Reclamation in Rhys’s Narrative

The Postcolonial Lens: Creole Identity and Otherness

Madness and Isolation: The Psychological Landscape of Antoinette

Narrative Technique and Multiplicity of Voice

Conclusion

Abstract

Jean Rhys’s Wide Sargasso Sea (1966) reimagines the life of Bertha Mason—the “madwoman in the attic” from Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre—giving voice to a silenced Creole woman trapped between race, class, and gender hierarchies. This paper examines the novel through feminist and postcolonial perspectives, exploring how Rhys exposes the mechanisms of “othering” and cultural displacement. Drawing on Mahmut Akar’s theory of “the othering of women by the otherised,” Silvia Cappello’s postcolonial discourse analysis, and Ainaab Tariq’s psychological reading of Antoinette’s madness, the assignment interprets Wide Sargasso Sea as a layered narrative of identity, alienation, and resistance. Through narrative fragmentation and dual perspectives, Rhys transforms silence into storytelling, madness into meaning, and colonial trauma into a voice of defiance.

Introduction

Jean Rhys’s Wide Sargasso Sea stands as one of the most important postcolonial and feminist reinterpretations of English literary history. By rewriting Jane Eyre from the perspective of the colonized Creole woman, Rhys challenges the imperial gaze that once rendered her invisible. As Britannica notes, Rhys’s novel “illuminates the intersection of race, gender, and power in the post-Emancipation Caribbean.”

Set in Jamaica and Dominica shortly after the abolition of slavery, the novel traces Antoinette Cosway’s descent into madness and her gradual transformation into the voiceless figure known as Bertha Mason. This descent, however, is not purely psychological—it is the product of social, racial, and patriarchal othering. As Mahmut Akar (2022) argues, Rhys “gives voice to the voiceless” by allowing Antoinette to narrate her fragmented consciousness. The result is a deeply unsettling portrait of colonial madness where personal trauma mirrors collective dislocation.

Hypothesis

This paper hypothesizes that Jean Rhys’s Wide Sargasso Sea reclaims the silenced voice of the colonial “madwoman” by rewriting Jane Eyre through a feminist and postcolonial lens. Rhys transforms Antoinette Cosway from a marginal figure of insanity into a symbol of resistance, exposing how gender, race, and colonial power intersect to construct madness as a form of otherness. The novel suggests that Antoinette’s psychological fragmentation is not innate but socially and culturally produced through patriarchal domination and colonial displacement. By giving Antoinette her own narrative voice, Rhys subverts the imperial authority of English literature and redefines madness as an act of both survival and rebellion.

Research Questions

How does Jean Rhys use Wide Sargasso Sea to challenge the colonial and patriarchal ideologies embedded in Jane Eyre?

In what ways does the novel reinterpret the figure of the “madwoman in the attic” as a feminist symbol of resistance rather than insanity?

How does Rhys represent Creole identity and racial hybridity as sources of both empowerment and alienation?

What role does narrative structure—shifting perspectives, fragmented chronology, and linguistic hybridity—play in expressing themes of dislocation and silencing?

How does Rhys transform madness into a metaphor for postcolonial trauma and the search for selfhood?

The Silenced Woman: Feminist Reclamation in Rhys’s Narrative

Valerie Roper (1988) identifies Wide Sargasso Sea as a radical act of storytelling where women reclaim narrative authority from patriarchal control. In the Victorian imagination, the “madwoman” symbolized suppressed female desire and disorder. Rhys reverses this trope—madness becomes a metaphor for the oppression and silencing of women.

Through Antoinette’s first-person narration, the reader gains access to her emotions, fears, and fragmented memories. The alternating voices of Antoinette and Rochester create a tension between male authority and female resistance. Rochester’s refusal to use her real name (“Bertha”) exemplifies linguistic colonization, as language itself becomes a weapon of control. Thus, Rhys’s narrative transforms the silenced woman into the storyteller—reclaiming not only her identity but also her humanity.

The Postcolonial Lens: Creole Identity and Otherness

Silvia Cappello (2009) explores Wide Sargasso Sea as a confrontation between “Creole discourse” and “European discourse.” The novel stages an ongoing conflict between center and periphery, civilization and wilderness, white supremacy and marginalized identity. Antoinette, as a white Creole woman, exists in an unstable position—she is neither completely European nor authentically Caribbean. This liminal status situates her in a constant state of cultural and psychological displacement. She becomes a living embodiment of hybridity—caught between two incompatible worlds that both reject her. Her mother’s madness and her own alienation mirror the trauma of those who belong to no fixed identity or homeland.

Mahmut Akar (2022) describes this as “the othering of women by the otherised,” where the colonized man, represented by Rochester, reproduces the very structures of oppression once imposed upon him. Rochester’s attempt to rename Antoinette as “Bertha” symbolizes the act of silencing and redefinition that colonial discourse performs upon the colonized subject. Through this act, he enforces patriarchal and imperial control over her body, voice, and identity. Rhys, therefore, exposes a hierarchy within the hierarchy—demonstrating that even within systems of subjugation, domination continues to replicate itself along lines of gender and race.

Furthermore, the Caribbean landscape plays a crucial symbolic role. Its lush, tropical beauty contrasts with its dark history of slavery and violence. The natural environment seems alive, shifting between comfort and threat, mirroring Antoinette’s mental disintegration. The landscape functions almost as a psychological extension of her divided self—a space of both desire and danger. In this way, Rhys transforms the Caribbean setting into a metaphor for Antoinette’s fragmented consciousness, a paradise tainted by historical trauma and cultural displacement. Ultimately, Wide Sargasso Sea becomes not only a story of an individual woman’s breakdown but also a profound exploration of how colonial history fractures identity, voice, and belonging.

Ainaab Tariq (2024) interprets Antoinette’s mental collapse as a result of profound social isolation, racial displacement, and emotional betrayal. Growing up in a post-emancipation Caribbean society, she inherits her mother Annette’s loneliness and insecurity, both of which are intensified by the hostility of the black community and the indifference of the white colonizers. Torn between her Creole heritage and her English husband’s rejection, Antoinette struggles to locate a stable sense of self. Her identity gradually disintegrates under the weight of colonial duality—she is simultaneously privileged and powerless, desired and despised.

Madness, in this sense, becomes both a symptom of oppression and a form of resistance. It represents not only psychological breakdown but also a rebellion against the social and patriarchal categories that seek to confine her. Martina Tucci (2024) defines this state as a “fragmented identity”—a consciousness split between multiple worlds, reflecting the internal consequences of colonial hybridity. The forces that silence and define her—race, gender, and imperial power—are turned inward, resulting in her mental fragmentation.

The locked attic in Jane Eyre, which Rhys reimagines in Wide Sargasso Sea, becomes an architectural metaphor for colonial and patriarchal imprisonment. In that confined space, Antoinette’s madness becomes the only means through which she can express herself—a silent scream that echoes the historical silencing of colonized women. Her final act of setting fire to Thornfield Hall can therefore be read as an assertion of agency through destruction. The flames that consume the house also consume her suffering, transforming her madness into a moment of liberation. Through this act, Antoinette reclaims her narrative, challenging both patriarchal domination and colonial authorship.

Rhys thus transforms madness from a mark of weakness into a symbol of empowerment. It becomes the language through which Antoinette resists erasure and asserts her fragmented yet unyielding identity. In this way, Wide Sargasso Sea turns psychological trauma into political commentary, revealing how colonialism and patriarchy together construct—and confine—the female mind.

Narrative Technique and Multiplicity of Voice

Teresa Winterhalter (1994) emphasizes that Rhys’s narrative structure—the shifting points of view, fragmented chronology, and unreliable narration—reflects the novel’s central theme of dislocation. The dual perspectives of Antoinette and Rochester expose how truth is mediated through power. The reader witnesses the colonial act of silencing as it unfolds in language itself.

This narrative “rage for order,” as Winterhalter terms it, mirrors Rochester’s desperate attempt to categorize and control what he cannot understand. Yet Rhys’s prose resists such control through its lyrical, dreamlike quality. By weaving Creole rhythms and Caribbean imagery into English syntax, Rhys enacts what postcolonial theorists call “linguistic creolization”—a subversion of the colonizer’s language from within.

Conclusion

Wide Sargasso Sea dismantles the imperial binaries of sanity/madness, center/periphery, and colonizer/colonized. Through Antoinette’s fragmented voice, Jean Rhys reclaims the silenced narratives buried beneath the English canon. The novel becomes not merely a prequel to Jane Eyre but a critique of the entire colonial ideology that produced it.

By combining feminist reclamation with postcolonial resistance, Rhys exposes how madness can become a form of truth-telling—a language born from trauma yet capable of transcending it. In giving Antoinette her story, Rhys gives history its missing voice.

References

AKAR, Mahmut. “The Othering of Women by the Otherised: Jean Rhys’s Wide Sargasso Sea as the Voice of the Voiceless.” Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Anemon Mus Alparslan Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3 Dec. 2022, www.academia.edu/99254579/The_Othering_of_Women_by_the_Otherised_Jean_Rhys_s_Wide_Sargasso_Sea_as_the_Voice_of_the_Voiceless. Accessed 30 Oct. 2025.

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Wide Sargasso Sea". Encyclopedia Britannica, 8 Nov. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Wide-Sargasso-Sea. Accessed 30 Oct. 2025.

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Jean Rhys". Encyclopedia Britannica, 10 May. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jean-Rhys. Accessed 30 Oct. 2025.

Cappello, Silvia. “Postcolonial Discourse in ‘Wide Sargasso Sea’: Creole Discourse vs. European Discourse, Periphery vs. Center, and Marginalized People vs. White Supremacy.” Journal of Caribbean Literatures, vol. 6, no. 1, 2009, pp. 47–54. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40986298. Accessed 30 Oct. 2025.

ROPER, VALERIE P. “WOMEN AS STORYTELLER IN ‘WIDE SARGASSO SEA.’” Caribbean Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 1/2, 1988, pp. 19–36. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23210989. Accessed 30 Oct. 2025.

Tucci, Martina. “Wide Sargasso Sea: Examining Antoinette’s Fragmented Identity.” Arcadia, 19 May 2024, www.byarcadia.org/post/wide-sargasso-sea-examining-antoinette-s-fragmented-identity

. Accessed 30 Oct. 2025.

TARIQ, AINAAB. “(PDF) Madness and Isolation in ‘Wide Sargasso Sea’: A Psychological Exploration of Antoinette’s Mental State.” International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, Apr. 2024,

www.researchgate.net/publication/379885378_Madness_and_Isolation_in_Wide_Sargasso_Sea_A_Psychological_Exploration_of_Antoinette’s_Mental_State. Accessed 30 Oct. 2025.

Winterhalter, Teresa. “Narrative Technique and the Rage for Order in ‘Wide Sargasso Sea.’” Narrative, vol. 2, no. 3, 1994, pp. 214–29. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20079640. Accessed 30 Oct. 2025