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. : 2

Batch : 2024-26

E-mail : vaghanijay77@gmail.com   

Assignment Details:

Paper Name : Literary Theory & Criticism and Indian Aesthetics 

Paper No. : 109

Paper Code : 22402

Unit : 2- Northrop Frye's The Archetypal Criticism

Topic :“The Archetypal Feminine: The Mother and Virgin Archetypes in Literature and Their Subversions”

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

Submitted Date : April 17, 2025

The following information—numbers are counted using QuillBot:

Words         : 1784

Characters         : 13212

Characters without spaces : 11502

Paragraphs         :98

Sentences         : 162

Reading time         :7 m 8 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

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.

Theoretical Framework: Althusser, Stuart Hall, and Laura Mulvey

Louis Althusser (1971) argued that ideology works through Ideological State Apparatuses such as education, religion, and media, which function to maintain the power of the ruling class by shaping individuals’ beliefs. Cinema, as one of these apparatuses, offers pleasure and identification while normalizing certain values.

Stuart Hall’s (1973) Encoding/Decoding model adds nuance by suggesting that audiences are not passive recipients of ideology—they can interpret media messages in dominant, negotiated, or oppositional ways.

Laura Mulvey (1975), in Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, introduced the concept of the male gaze, revealing how classical film form constructs women as objects of visual pleasure and men as bearers of the look. Together, these theories explain how cinematic language, representation, and reception become sites of ideological struggle.

Cinema as Ideological Apparatus: Power, Nation, and Narrative

Fredric Jameson’s The Political Unconscious (1981) proposes that all narratives are “socially symbolic acts.” Following this, Indian popular cinema can be read as a cultural text that encodes national and political ideologies within narrative form.

In Baahubali, power is portrayed as both divine and hereditary. The film constructs a hierarchical social order where loyalty, sacrifice, and martial valor are glorified. Rachel Dwyer (2021) observes that such mythic spectacles “rework older national myths to align with the ideology of cultural nationalism.” Similarly, Baahubali’s depiction of monarchy and heroism reflects dominant narratives of Hindutva and masculine sovereignty.

However, as Richard Dyer (1979) reminds us, stars and spectacle themselves are ideological constructs—idealized figures that embody social desires and contradictions. The heroic image of Baahubali operates as a fantasy of power and moral purity, concealing internal social inequalities.

Spectacle and the Politics of Representation in Baahubali

Visual spectacle in popular cinema often disguises ideology through aesthetic pleasure. Stephen Heath (1981) argues that film form—through continuity editing and point-of-view—positions spectators in ideological alignment with the protagonist. In Baahubali, visual grandeur, slow-motion battles, and deified imagery elevate the hero’s authority to divine status.

As Anurag Thapa (2021) explains in his study of techno-religious realism, such films merge technological spectacle with religious symbolism to “sacralize” political power. The portrayal of the queen mother, Sivagami, as both maternal and authoritarian also aligns with patriarchal ideals of female virtue subordinated to male heroism.

At the same time, critical reception of Baahubali reveals contested readings. Online discourse and academic reviews (South Asia Journal, 2017) expose how the film’s treatment of caste, gender, and violence reinforces social hierarchies under the guise of mythological universality.

Audience Reception and Resistance

While dominant readings often celebrate Baahubali as a national epic, audience reception studies suggest that viewers also engage in negotiated or oppositional decoding. Some feminist critics view the film’s portrayal of female strength as empowering, while Dalit scholars criticize its glorification of feudalism.

Hall’s audience theory helps interpret these differing responses—not as misreadings but as active cultural negotiations. In this way, popular cinema becomes a dynamic space where ideology is not fixed but continually produced and contested.

Conclusion

Popular cinema, as this paper demonstrates, is neither a mere reflection of society nor a neutral form of entertainment. It is a powerful ideological apparatus that shapes and reshapes public consciousness. Through Althusser’s concept of ideological control, Mulvey’s gendered spectatorship, and Hall’s encoding/decoding model, we understand that every cinematic frame is a battleground of meaning.

Films like Baahubali dramatize the spectacle of power—turning political dominance into visual pleasure. Yet, through audience reinterpretation and critical awareness, cinema also holds the potential to question and transform the very ideologies it once reinforced.

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. : 2

Batch : 2024-26

E-mail : vaghanijay77@gmail.com   

Assignment Details:

Paper Name : Literary Theory & Criticism and Indian Aesthetics 

Paper No. : 109

Paper Code : 22402

Unit : 2- Northrop Frye's The Archetypal Criticism

Topic :“The Archetypal Feminine: The Mother and Virgin Archetypes in Literature and Their Subversions”

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

Submitted Date : April 17, 2025

The following information—numbers are counted using QuillBot:

Words         : 1784

Characters         : 13212

Characters without spaces : 11502

Paragraphs         :98

Sentences         : 162

Reading time         :7 m 8 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

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.

Theoretical Framework: Eco-criticism, Zoocriticism, and Postcolonialism

Aarthi Vadde (2011) argues that ecocriticism, zoocriticism, and postcolonialism intersect through a shared concern for “cross-species ethics” and “environmental representation.” Postcolonial nations, shaped by histories of exploitation, often replicate colonial attitudes toward land and animal life. Huggan and Tiffin similarly note that environmental degradation in postcolonial contexts is inseparable from questions of power, globalization, and cultural hierarchy.

In this framework, animals are not merely background figures in human narratives but agents within ecological and moral systems. The Book of Genesis (King James Version, 2017) reflects early anthropocentrism, granting humans dominion over animals—a theological foundation for centuries of species hierarchy. Eco-critical thought challenges this view by emphasizing coexistence and moral reciprocity.

The Human–Animal Divide: Ethics and Representation

The debate between animal rights and animal welfare—as defined by PETA and the American Veterinary Medical Association—illustrates the complexity of ethical discourse. While welfare advocates focus on humane treatment, rights theorists argue for intrinsic animal autonomy.

Susana Monsó (2018) in Animal Morality challenges the notion that moral reasoning is uniquely human, presenting evidence of empathy and fairness in non-human species. This recognition blurs the traditional boundary between man and animal, demanding a re-evaluation of how literature and media portray animal subjectivity.

Wilderness, Exploitation, and the Politics of Conservation

Environmental journalism reveals the political underpinnings of conservation policies. For example, Ramu Bhagwat’s Times of India report (2018) on forest land in Yavatmal being allocated to Reliance exposes how economic development overrides ecological protection.

Similarly, in Amit Masurkar’s film Sherni (2021), the protagonist Vidya Vincent struggles against bureaucratic corruption and patriarchal power structures while trying to protect a tigress. The film becomes an allegory for eco-feminism, illustrating how both women and wildlife suffer under systems of domination.

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

Modern zoos, as described by Loy Norrix (2023) and Esther Suson’s History of Zoos, are often framed as centers for education and conservation. However, critics argue that they perpetuate captivity and species hierarchy. The Daily Mail (2019) video “Zoos Drive Animals Insane” visualizes the psychological trauma inflicted on caged animals, reinforcing the argument that zoos serve human entertainment more than ecological preservation.

Through a postcolonial lens, these institutions replicate imperial ideologies—displaying “exotic” creatures from formerly colonized regions, symbolizing control over nature. Viral videos of illegal lion shows in Gir further expose how tourism and capitalism commodify wildlife under the guise of cultural pride.

Eco-feminist and Moral Perspectives on Animal Welfare

Eco-feminism links the exploitation of nature and women to patriarchal systems. In Sherni, Vidya Balan’s character embodies an ethic of care that contrasts with the masculine drive for control and conquest. This aligns with Huggan and Tiffin’s observation that ecological justice requires a recognition of interconnected oppressions—of gender, race, and species.

The moral turn in animal studies, as discussed by Monsó (2018), insists on recognizing animals as moral beings with social emotions. Such perspectives urge a shift from management to coexistence—a transformation of both policy and consciousness.

Conclusion

From religious texts to viral videos, human relationships with animals reflect deeper cultural and ethical conflicts. Through eco-critical and zoocritical perspectives, this paper reveals that so-called “protection” often masks domination. Films like Sherni and real-world cases of animal captivity demonstrate the persistence of colonial hierarchies in the treatment of nature.

True ecological consciousness demands that humans see animals not as symbols or spectacles but as co-inhabitants of a shared world. As Huggan and Tiffin remind us, environmental ethics begins where anthropocentrism ends.

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.