Wednesday, 23 September 2026

Between Worlds and Voices: A Postcolonial Reading of Jean Rhys’s Wide Sargasso Sea

🚀

⚡ COMING SOON ⚡

📖 This Blog Is on Its Way!

Something exciting is being written. Stay tuned for a new blog post full of critical insights, close readings, and thoughtful analysis.

✍️ Being Written

🔍 Being Researched

🎯 Coming Very Soon

● ● ●

Rewriting the Canon: A Comparative and Critical Reading of Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe and J. M. Coetzee’s Foe

🚀

⚡ COMING SOON ⚡

📖 This Blog Is on Its Way!

Something exciting is being written. Stay tuned for a new blog post full of critical insights, close readings, and thoughtful analysis.

✍️ Being Written

🔍 Being Researched

🎯 Coming Very Soon

● ● ●

Colonial Violence and the Divided World: Understanding Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth

🚀

⚡ COMING SOON ⚡

📖 This Blog Is on Its Way!

Something exciting is being written. Stay tuned for a new blog post full of critical insights, close readings, and thoughtful analysis.

✍️ Being Written

🔍 Being Researched

🎯 Coming Very Soon

● ● ●

Tuesday, 22 September 2026

Marxist, Gender and Ecocritical Criticism

Four Critical Lenses on The Handmaid's Tale: Marxist, Feminist, Ecocritical and Queer Criticism

This blog is written as a task assigned by the Head of the Department of English (MKBU), Prof. and Dr. Dilip Barad Sir. Here is the link to the professor's worksheet for background reading: Click here.

📖 BLOG OVERVIEW — FOUR LENSES, ONE TEXT

⚙️

Marxist
Class, labour, ideology, power

♀️

Feminist/Gender
Patriarchy, body, agency

🌿

Ecocritical
Environment, nature, ecology

🏳️‍🌈

Queer
Heteronormativity, sexuality

🤖

GenAI Verification
Human checking of AI output

Introduction

Literary criticism helps us read a literary text from different perspectives and understand meanings that may not be visible through ordinary reading. In this activity, I explored four critical approaches: Marxist, Feminist/Gender, Ecocritical, and Queer Criticism and applied them to Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. Using Dilip Barad Sir's critical framework and GenAI, I examined how each lens focuses on different aspects such as class, power, gender, environment, sexuality, and social structures. The activity also helped me understand that knowing a theory is different from applying it to textual evidence.

The following response was generated using the prompt provided in Step 1 of the worksheet.

Literary Criticism: Four Critical Lenses and Their Methods

The following explanation uses Dilip Barad Sir's "On Marxist, Feminist, Ecocritical, and Queer Criticism" as the primary source. The source presents these approaches as ways of examining literature in relation to power, ideology, class, gender, environment, sexuality, and social structures, rather than merely as definitions.

Comparative Table: What Does Each Critic Actually Do?

📊 WHAT DOES EACH CRITIC ACTUALLY DO?

Critical Lens	What does the critic look for?	What does the critic DO?	Illustration	Key Question
⚙️ Marxist	Class struggle, economic inequality, ideology, material conditions, social class, power relations, hegemony, and cultural forces	Examines how economic and historical structures shape characters; identifies class conflicts; questions dominant ideologies; investigates whether the text reinforces or challenges existing power structures	In Dickens's Hard Times, the condition of factory workers reveals how industrial capitalism creates unequal power relations	How does the economic and class structure shape the lives, choices, and relationships of its characters?
♀️ Feminist/Gender	Patriarchy, gender inequality, representation of women, male dominance, gender roles, marginalization, and the social construction of femininity and masculinity	Examines representations of gender; identifies patriarchal assumptions; questions unequal power between men and women; challenges conventional ideas of femininity and masculinity	In Gilman's The Yellow Wallpaper, the narrator's confinement illustrates patriarchal restrictions on women's autonomy	How does the text reinforce or challenge patriarchal ideas about women's roles, freedom, identity, and agency?
🌿 Ecocritical	Representations of nature, human–nature relationships, anthropocentrism, ecological ethics, environmental exploitation, sustainability, and the relationship between culture and the natural world	Examines how nature is represented; questions human-centered assumptions; identifies relationships between human actions and environmental consequences; challenges the idea that nature exists only for human use	In Shelley's Frankenstein, Victor's attempt to control nature raises questions about ethical limits of human ambition	How does the text represent the relationship between human beings and the natural world, and does it question or reinforce anthropocentric attitudes?
🏳️‍🌈 Queer	Heteronormativity, sexual identity, gender fluidity, homoerotic subtexts, representations of queer identities, rigid boundaries between gender and sexuality, and gender performativity	Questions assumptions that heterosexuality and fixed gender identities are normal or universal; identifies queer representation; interrogates rigid gender and sexual categories; reinterprets relationships and identities overlooked by conventional readings	In Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray, homoerotic undertones between Dorian and Basil challenge Victorian sexual norms	How does the text reinforce or challenge assumptions about heterosexuality, gender identity, and acceptable forms of desire?

An important distinction

These lenses do not mean that every Marxist reading must reach the same conclusion, every feminist reading must focus only on women, every ecocritical reading must simply describe nature, or every queer reading must assume that a text contains queer identities. The worksheet specifically asks the student to distinguish between what a theory generally investigates and what a particular interpretation concludes.

What is the difference between knowing a critical theory and actually using a critical theory?

Knowing a critical theory means understanding its concepts, vocabulary, major thinkers, and general concerns. For example, a student may know that Marxist criticism deals with class and ideology, Feminist criticism examines patriarchy and gender, Ecocriticism considers human–nature relationships, and Queer criticism questions heteronormativity. However, using a critical theory means applying these concepts to specific textual evidence. A critic does not simply label a text "Marxist" or "feminist"; instead, the critic examines characters, events, language, relationships, settings, and conflicts and explains how they connect with the chosen critical concept. The process involves asking questions, identifying evidence, interpreting that evidence, and considering what becomes visible through the particular lens. The worksheet therefore emphasizes that students should understand the method of criticism, not merely memorize definitions.

Knowing a theory gives you the lens; using the theory means actually looking through that lens at textual evidence and explaining what it reveals.

What Comes Directly from the Source and What Is Synthesis?

Directly supported by Dilip Barad Sir's source

The following major ideas are directly presented in the supplied source:

📚 CONCEPTS DIRECTLY FROM THE SOURCE

⚙️ Marxist Criticism: class struggle, ideology, economic inequality, author's social class, historical context, hegemony, cultural materialism, and material conditions

♀️ Feminist Criticism: patriarchy, representation of women, marginalization, gender construction, women's agency, and challenging male dominance

🌿 Ecocriticism: environmental representation, anthropocentrism, human–nature relationships, ecological sustainability, environmental ethics, and the social effects of ecological harm

🏳️‍🌈 Queer Criticism: heteronormativity, queer identities, homoerotic subtexts, gender fluidity, gender performativity, and challenges to fixed gender and sexual categories

📖 Literary Examples: Hard Times, The Yellow Wallpaper, Frankenstein, and The Picture of Dorian Gray are explicitly used in Barad Sir's source

My synthesis/additional explanation

The organization into the five-column comparative table, the wording of the student-friendly analytical questions, and the distinction between "looking for" and "doing" are my synthesis of the source material in order to follow the worksheet's requested method. The source gives the concepts and applications, while the table reorganizes them into the exact analytical workflow requested by the worksheet. The worksheet itself specifically asks GenAI to explain the critic's method using analytical verbs such as examines, questions, identifies, compares, exposes, interrogates, challenges, uncovers, and reinterprets.

Applying Four Critical Lenses to Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale

Following the worksheet, the readings below do not give four general summaries. Each one asks what a particular critic might notice in the novel, identifies textual evidence, names the critical concept, and then explains how that concept changes or deepens the interpretation. The worksheet specifically requires textual evidence to be distinguished from interpretation and warns against inventing evidence.

Note: Chapter references can vary slightly by edition, so I refer mainly to scenes and episodes in the novel rather than page numbers.

1. Marxist Critic

What might a Marxist critic notice that another reader might overlook?

A Marxist critic would look beyond Gilead's religious ideology and ask how labour, resources, property, social position, and systems of power are organized. Dilip Barad Sir's explanation of Marxist criticism emphasizes class structures, material conditions, ideology, historical context, and the way dominant cultural forces maintain power.

1. Textual evidence

Several parts of the novel show a highly organized hierarchy of social roles:

⚙️ GILEAD'S CLASS HIERARCHY — MARXIST READING

👑 Commanders — Occupy the political and social elite

👒 Wives — Have status because of their relationship to elite men

🔴 Handmaids — Valued primarily for reproductive capacity

🧹 Marthas — Perform domestic labour

👗 Econowives — Belong to poorer households; combine domestic, marital, and reproductive functions

⛔ Unwomen — Sent to the Colonies; associated with forced labour and environmental danger as punishment

The distinction between Econowives and elite women is particularly useful. The Econowives are described as women of poorer men who must perform multiple domestic and reproductive functions, while women in elite households have more specialized roles. The Commander also has access to privileges that ordinary women do not. His private study, books, and secret Scrabble games with Offred reveal that access to language, literacy, and leisure is unevenly distributed.

2. Critical concept: Class, ideology, and material power

A Marxist critic would examine how social hierarchy is made to appear natural or necessary. Gilead's religious language does ideological work: the unequal distribution of power is presented as part of a supposedly divinely ordered society. The critic therefore asks not only who has power? but also what beliefs make that power appear legitimate?

3. How does this deepen the interpretation?

A purely political reading might see Gilead simply as a dictatorship. A Marxist reading adds another dimension: Gilead organizes human beings according to their social usefulness and assigns different forms of labour to different groups. Offred's body itself becomes a socially valuable resource because fertility has become scarce. Her reproductive capacity gives her a particular economic and political value within Gilead. The Handmaid is therefore not simply controlled as an individual woman; she occupies a position within a larger system for managing labour, reproduction, resources, and social hierarchy. This also complicates a simple "men versus women" interpretation. Class distinctions exist among women themselves: a Commander's Wife, Handmaid, Martha, Econowife, and Unwoman do not experience Gilead in exactly the same way.

4. Question a Marxist critic would ask

How does Gilead distribute labour, resources, reproductive capacity, and social privilege among different classes, and how does its ideology justify that distribution?

2. Feminist/Gender Critic

What might a Feminist/Gender critic notice that another reader might overlook?

A Feminist/Gender critic would focus particularly on patriarchy, control of women's bodies, gender roles, representation, agency, and the social construction of femininity. These are central concerns identified in Dilip Barad Sir's explanation of Feminist criticism.

1. Textual evidence

The most obvious evidence is the transformation of women's reproductive capacity into a state-controlled function. Offred is separated from her husband and daughter and becomes a Handmaid whose principal social purpose is reproduction. Her name itself becomes associated with the Commander to whom she is assigned: "Offred." The Ceremony is another crucial piece of evidence. The sexual act is organized according to Gilead's religious interpretation of the biblical story of Rachel and Bilhah. Offred's body is therefore placed inside a ritual designed and controlled by the state and household hierarchy. The novel also shows different categories of women — Wives, Handmaids, Marthas, Aunts, Econowives and Unwomen — whose identities are defined largely by gendered social functions. Serena Joy provides another important example. Although she is a woman, she participates in the system that restricts other women. This prevents the feminist reading from becoming simply "all women resist and all men oppress."

2. Critical concept: Patriarchy, gender construction, and bodily control

The feminist critic asks how society constructs ideas about what women should be. In Gilead, women are divided into predetermined roles: wife, mother, servant, reproductive vessel, educator, or outcast. These roles are presented as if they are natural and divinely sanctioned, but a feminist critic examines how they are socially produced and enforced.

3. How does this deepen the interpretation?

The feminist reading shows that Gilead does not merely take away political freedom. It attempts to reorganize female identity itself. Offred's identity before Gilead — daughter, mother, wife, worker, friend — is replaced by a role determined by her fertility. Her body becomes the basis on which society defines her value. The novel therefore raises a larger question: Who has the authority to define a woman's identity — the woman herself or the social system surrounding her? The narrator's memories of her earlier life are important because they preserve an identity that Gilead attempts to erase. Her storytelling itself becomes a way of maintaining a sense of self. The feminist reading can therefore move from "women are oppressed" to a more precise question about how institutions construct gender roles and regulate women's bodies, identities, relationships, and choices.

4. Question a Feminist/Gender critic would ask

How does Gilead construct the "proper" role of a woman, and how does Offred's experience reveal the conflict between imposed gender identity and individual agency?

3. Ecocritical Reading

What might an Ecocritic notice that another reader might overlook?

An Ecocritic would notice that the fertility crisis in The Handmaid's Tale is connected to a damaged environment. Dilip Barad Sir's source defines Ecocriticism through environmental representation, anthropocentrism, human–nature relationships, ecological ethics, and the consequences of human treatment of nature.

1. Textual evidence

The novel contains important memories about environmental contamination. Offred recalls a world in which the air had become contaminated by chemicals, radiation and other pollutants, while water had been affected by toxic substances. The novel connects this environmental damage with infertility and problems affecting unborn children. The Historical Notes at the end of the novel also provide further information about pollution, radiation, toxic waste, and declining birth rates. Another significant piece of evidence is the Colonies. People sent there are forced to clean up toxic waste, making environmental destruction part of the system of punishment and labour.

2. Critical concept: Anthropocentrism and human–nature relations

The ecocritic asks whether human beings have treated nature as something available for unlimited use. The novel's environmental background suggests that human technological and industrial activities have consequences that eventually return to the human body. Environmental damage is therefore not separate from human society; it becomes a problem of health, reproduction, survival, and social organization.

3. How does this deepen the interpretation?

A reader may initially see infertility mainly as the reason why Gilead controls women's reproductive bodies. The ecocritical lens asks a prior question:

What happened to the environment that made fertility so scarce in the first place?

This changes the causal chain of the novel: Environmental damage → fertility crisis → social anxiety → political control of reproduction. The important point is that the novel does not provide a single simple scientific explanation for the fertility crisis. Instead, it provides environmental clues and connects pollution and reproductive problems. The ecocritical reading therefore shows that the oppression of women is also connected to a broader crisis in the relationship between human society and the natural environment. At the same time, the reading should not turn the novel into simply an "environmental novel." Scholarship on the novel notes that its primary concern in 1985 was more strongly connected with sexist oppression, even though environmental degradation provides an important dimension of the dystopian world.

4. Question an Ecocritic would ask

How does environmental degradation contribute to Gilead's fertility crisis, and what does this relationship reveal about the consequences of treating nature as something humans can control and exploit?

4. Queer Critic

What might a Queer critic notice that another reader might overlook?

A Queer critic would examine heteronormativity, sexual identity, compulsory heterosexuality, gender boundaries, and the ways Gilead defines which forms of sexuality are considered legitimate. Dilip Barad Sir's source specifically identifies heteronormativity, queer identities, gender fluidity, homoerotic subtexts, and gender performativity as important areas of Queer criticism.

1. Textual evidence

One important example is Moira, Offred's friend, who is identified in the novel as a lesbian. Her sexuality is significant because Gilead organizes legitimate social life around heterosexual marriage and reproduction. The novel also refers to people labelled "gender traitors" whose bodies appear on the Wall. This shows that Gilead does not merely regulate reproduction; it also regulates acceptable forms of sexuality. Another important example is the Handmaids' reproductive role. Their assigned sexual activity is heterosexual and reproductive by definition. Sexuality is therefore separated from individual desire and reorganized around the state's reproductive goals. Importantly, Ofglen in the novel should not be confused with the television adaptation. The later TV series expands Ofglen's character and explicitly develops her as a lesbian; that particular storyline should not be transferred backward into the 1985 novel.

2. Critical concept: Heteronormativity and compulsory heterosexuality

A Queer critic would ask why Gilead treats heterosexual reproductive relationships as the legitimate model of human sexuality. The issue is not simply whether LGBTQ characters are present. The deeper question is how the entire social system defines which kinds of relationships, bodies, desires, and identities are considered normal.

3. How does this deepen the interpretation?

A conventional feminist reading might focus on women's reproductive oppression. A queer reading adds another question:

Why must reproduction take place within a particular heterosexual and gendered structure?

Gilead does not permit sexuality to function primarily as individual expression or personal intimacy. Instead, sexuality is reorganized around reproduction, marriage, social hierarchy, and religious ideology. Moira becomes particularly significant because her lesbian identity exists outside the heterosexual reproductive system that Gilead attempts to establish. The Wall also demonstrates how the regime makes nonconforming sexuality visible as a punishable category. Thus, a queer reading reveals that Gilead seeks not only to control women's bodies, but also to regulate the boundaries of sexual identity and acceptable desire.

4. Question a Queer critic would ask

How does Gilead construct heterosexual reproductive sexuality as the social norm, and what happens to identities or forms of desire that fall outside that norm?

What Becomes Visible Through the Four Lenses?

When the same literary text is viewed through four different critical lenses, different structures within the same story become visible.

🔍 WHAT BECOMES VISIBLE THROUGH EACH LENS?

Critical Lens	What becomes especially visible?
⚙️ Marxist	The organization of class, labour, resources, privilege, and ideology in Gilead
♀️ Feminist/Gender	The construction of gender roles, patriarchy, bodily control, reproductive power, and women's agency
🌿 Ecocritical	The relationship between environmental degradation, fertility, human survival, and the consequences of exploiting nature
🏳️‍🌈 Queer	The regulation of sexual identity, heterosexual norms, gender boundaries, and non-normative desire

The important point is that these readings are not necessarily competing explanations. They can overlap. For example, reproductive control can be examined simultaneously as a gender issue, a class/material issue, an ecological consequence, and a sexual-normativity issue. This is exactly what the worksheet means by applying a theory rather than simply knowing its definition: the critic begins with textual evidence, identifies a critical concept, and then explains what that concept makes visible in the text.

Final takeaway

What becomes visible when the same literary text is viewed through four different critical lenses?

The same event in The Handmaid's Tale can reveal different dimensions depending on the questions we ask. The Marxist critic sees structures of class and material power; the Feminist/Gender critic sees the construction and regulation of gender and women's bodies; the Ecocritic sees the relationship between environmental destruction and reproductive crisis; and the Queer critic sees the enforcement of heteronormative sexuality and acceptable identity. Reading through these four lenses therefore changes the text from a story about one woman's experience into a complex study of the interconnected structures that organize society, bodies, labour, nature, gender, and sexuality.

Step 3: Human Verification of the Two AI Responses

🤖 HUMAN VERIFICATION CHECKLIST

Verification Question	My Check
Is the explanation consistent with Barad Sir's source?	Yes. Marxism is connected with class, ideology, material conditions, historical context and hegemony; Feminist/Gender criticism with patriarchy, representation and gender construction; Ecocriticism with anthropocentrism and human–nature relations; Queer Criticism with heteronormativity, gender fluidity and gender performativity.
Has Marxism become only "rich vs poor"?	No. It discusses class hierarchy, labour, ideology, material conditions, social privilege and the organization of power.
Has Feminism become only "women's problems"?	No. It discusses patriarchy, gender roles, bodily control, representation, agency and the social construction of gender. It also notices that Serena Joy participates in the system.
Has Ecocriticism become only nature description?	No. It connects environmental pollution with fertility, human survival, ecological consequences and human control over nature.
Has the AI forced a queer interpretation?	Mostly no. The response has textual reasons: Moira's lesbian identity, "gender traitors," and Gilead's regulation of sexuality. However, care is needed not to assume every aspect of the novel has a queer meaning.
Does it use actual textual evidence?	Yes, generally. It refers to the Handmaid system, the Ceremony, Moira, the Econowives, the Colonies, environmental pollution, and the Wall.
Did it invent any quotation?	No major invented quotation was used. The responses mostly paraphrase events and ideas rather than presenting long quotations as exact words.
Did it invent any event or character?	No major invented event or character is apparent. All characters and situations mentioned belong to the novel.
Which interpretation do I agree with most?	I agree most with the Feminist/Gender interpretation. The novel directly focuses on the control of women's bodies, reproductive roles, identity, freedom and agency.
Which claim do I question or correct?	I would question the Ecocritical claim that environmental destruction directly causes Gilead's fertility crisis. Environmental degradation is an important contextual factor represented in the novel, not a simple scientific cause-and-effect explanation.

My Manual Verification in Detail

1. Marxist Reading — My Check

The Marxist response is not reduced to "rich versus poor." The first AI response identifies: Commanders as the ruling elite; Handmaids as a controlled reproductive class; Marthas as domestic labourers; Econowives as women with multiple domestic and reproductive responsibilities; Unwomen as people sent to the Colonies; and ideology as a mechanism that helps justify the social structure. This is important because Dilip Barad Sir explains that Marxist criticism examines economic systems, class structures, material conditions, ideology, historical context and hegemony, rather than simply comparing rich and poor people.

My conclusion: The Marxist reading is methodologically appropriate.

2. Feminist/Gender Reading — My Check

The Feminist/Gender response also goes beyond simply saying "women are oppressed." It examines: control over women's bodies; reproductive roles; patriarchy; gendered social categories; loss of agency; imposed identities; and the relationship between women themselves. This is particularly important because Dilip Barad Sir says Feminist criticism examines patriarchal structures, representation of women, marginalization, and the social construction of gender. The response's discussion of Serena Joy is also useful because it shows that women can occupy different positions within a patriarchal structure. Therefore, the analysis does not simply divide the novel into "men = oppressors" and "women = victims."

My conclusion: This reading is consistent with the source and provides a genuine feminist method.

3. Ecocritical Reading — My Check

The Ecocritical reading is more complicated, so I would verify it carefully. The AI identifies: pollution; environmental contamination; declining fertility; reproductive problems; the Colonies; toxic waste; and the relationship between environmental damage and human society. This corresponds to Dilip Barad Sir's description of Ecocriticism, which asks critics to examine environmental representation, anthropocentrism, human–nature relationships, ecological sustainability, and the social consequences of ecological damage. However, I would not write that pollution definitely and scientifically causes every fertility problem in Gilead. That goes beyond what the literary evidence can safely establish.

My correction:

The novel presents environmental degradation as an important background to the fertility crisis, but I should distinguish this textual connection from a definite scientific explanation of infertility. This makes my response more careful and academically responsible.

4. Queer Reading — My Check

The Queer reading is supported by identifiable material in the novel. The response discusses Moira's lesbian identity, the treatment of people labelled "gender traitors," and Gilead's regulation of sexuality. This fits Dilip Barad Sir's explanation that Queer criticism questions: heteronormativity; fixed sexual categories; gender boundaries; representations of queer identities; and gender performativity. However, I need to make one important distinction. The novel and the television adaptation should not be treated as exactly the same text. Therefore, I should not use developments created specifically for the television adaptation as evidence for Atwood's 1985 novel.

My conclusion: The queer interpretation is possible and supported by textual material, but it should remain evidence-based rather than being forced onto every part of the novel.

Did the AI Actually Help Me?

After checking both responses, I can see that the AI was useful, but I should not accept everything automatically. The first response helped me understand the method of the four theories, while the second response showed me how those theories can be applied to one literary text. The most important thing I learned is that a critical theory is not just a definition. A Marxist critic does not simply search for rich and poor characters; a Feminist critic does not simply discuss women; an Ecocritic does not simply describe nature; and a Queer critic does not simply search for LGBTQ characters. Instead, each critic asks particular questions about power, ideology, gender, environment, sexuality and social structures. This matches the purpose of the worksheet, which asks students to distinguish between knowing a theory and actually applying it.

My final verification statement

After manually checking the two AI responses, I find that they are generally consistent with Dilip Barad Sir's source and the requirements of the worksheet. The strongest part is the attempt to connect each theory with specific textual evidence rather than giving only definitions. I agree most with the Feminist/Gender reading because the control of women's bodies, reproduction, identity and agency is central to the novel. I also found the Ecocritical reading interesting, but I would correct the claim that environmental damage should be treated as a simple proven cause of the fertility crisis. This verification helped me understand that AI can suggest interpretations, but I must check the textual evidence and distinguish what the text actually says from what the critic interprets.

My Agreement with One Interpretation

I agree with the Feminist/Gender reading because the AI response helped me understand that Gilead's control of women is not limited to direct control by men. It creates a complete gender-based system in which women are divided into roles such as Wives, Handmaids, Marthas, Econowives, Aunts, and Unwomen. The response particularly helped me notice that these roles define women's social value and restrict their freedom in different ways. I found the discussion of Offred's reproductive role especially convincing because her identity and value in Gilead are largely determined by her ability to reproduce. This connects with Dilip Barad Sir's explanation of Feminist/Gender criticism, which examines patriarchy, gender roles, representation, and the social construction of gender.

My Critical Response

What I found most useful in the AI interpretation was that it moved beyond the simple statement that "women are oppressed." It showed me how oppression can become part of the social structure itself, with women placed into different categories and given different functions. Therefore, the Feminist/Gender lens helped me understand Gilead not only as a society where women lose freedom, but as a system that constructs and regulates what it means to be a woman.

My Claim to Question, Verify, or Correct

I would question the Ecocritical interpretation concerning the fertility crisis. The AI response connected environmental pollution, toxic substances, declining fertility, and the reproductive crisis in Gilead. This connection is supported by the novel's environmental details and is relevant to an Ecocritical reading. However, I think the interpretation needs to be stated carefully. I should not treat environmental degradation as a single, scientifically proven cause of Gilead's fertility crisis. After checking the response against Dilip Barad Sir's discussion of Ecocriticism, I understand that the stronger approach is to examine the relationship between environmental damage, human–nature relations, anthropocentrism, and the social consequences of ecological crisis.

Why I Question This Claim

I am not saying that the AI was completely wrong. Rather, I am refining its interpretation. The AI correctly noticed the connection between environmental damage and fertility, but I need to distinguish between what the novel represents and what I conclude from that representation. This verification helped me understand that literary criticism requires evidence-based interpretation rather than accepting an interesting interpretation automatically. The worksheet specifically asks students to identify claims that they verify, question, or correct after receiving the AI response.

My Reflection on GenAI and Literary Criticism

Before doing this activity, I understood literary theories mainly through their definitions. I knew that Marxism deals with class and ideology, Feminism with patriarchy and gender, Ecocriticism with human–nature relations, and Queer Criticism with sexuality and heteronormativity. However, applying these four lenses to The Handmaid's Tale helped me understand that knowing a theory and practising criticism are different. A critic must ask specific questions, examine textual evidence, and interpret it through a particular theoretical concept.

One useful insight I received from GenAI was the Feminist/Gender reading of Gilead's different roles for women, such as Wives, Handmaids, Marthas, Econowives, Aunts, and Unwomen. This helped me understand that patriarchy is not only direct male control but can become a wider social system that defines women's identities, functions, and value. At the same time, I questioned the AI's Ecocritical interpretation of the fertility crisis. I checked whether environmental damage should be treated as a definite scientific cause of infertility or as a literary connection represented in the novel. This taught me that GenAI can suggest useful interpretations, but I must verify evidence, question claims, and use my own critical judgement.

Conclusion

This activity helped me understand that a single literary text can reveal different meanings when approached through different critical lenses. Marxist criticism highlights class and material power, Feminist/Gender criticism examines gender, patriarchy, and bodily control, Ecocriticism explores environmental crisis and human–nature relationships, while Queer criticism questions heteronormativity and sexual identity. Applying these approaches to The Handmaid's Tale also taught me to verify AI-generated interpretations rather than accepting them automatically. GenAI can support literary analysis, but textual evidence, critical thinking, and human judgement remain essential.

📚 Works Cited

Atwood, Margaret. The Handmaid's Tale. McClelland and Stewart, 1985.

Barad, Dilip. "On Marxist, Feminist, Ecocritical, and Queer Criticism." ResearchGate, 2024, www.researchgate.net/publication/385739537_On_Marxist_Feminist_Ecocritical_and_Queer_Criticism.

Barad, Dilip. "Literary Criticism and Gen AI." ResearchGate, 2025, www.researchgate.net/publication/414530437_Literary_Criticism_and_Gen_AI.

This blog applies four critical lenses to Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale | Task assigned by Prof. and Dr. Dilip Barad Sir | MKBU Department of English

CS and Frankenstein

This blog is written as a task assigned by the head of the Department of English (MKBU), Prof. and Dr. Dilip Barad Sir. Here is the link to the professor's worksheet for background reading: Click here.

The Monster We Create: Power, Society, and Responsibility in Frankenstein

A Cultural Studies Exploration of Class, Otherness, Science, Technology and Popular Culture

Introduction

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, first published in 1818, is one of the most influential novels in English literature. At first glance, it appears to be a Gothic story about a scientist who creates a frightening creature. However, when I read the novel through the perspective of Cultural Studies, it becomes much more than a story of horror, science and supernatural fear.

Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein during a period of major political, social, scientific and intellectual change. Europe was still experiencing the consequences of the French Revolution. Ideas about liberty, equality, authority and social hierarchy were being debated. At the same time, the Industrial Revolution was transforming labour, production and economic relationships. Scientific discoveries were also challenging traditional ideas about nature and the limits of human knowledge.

The Romantic period in which Shelley wrote was particularly interested in imagination, emotion, nature, individual freedom and the limits of rational knowledge. Frankenstein brings many of these concerns together. Victor Frankenstein represents an intense desire for knowledge. His ambition is not simply to understand nature but to cross the boundary between life and death.

However, the novel also asks what happens after such a boundary has been crossed. Victor creates life, but he does not accept responsibility for his creation. The Creature is then rejected because of his appearance. He learns language, literature and human emotions, yet society refuses to accept him.

This makes the Creature particularly important from a Cultural Studies perspective. He can be examined through ideas of class, marginalization, Othering, race, empire, privilege, science, technology and identity.

The influence of Frankenstein has also moved far beyond the original novel. Films, television, cartoons, advertisements, science-fiction stories, artificial intelligence narratives and everyday language have repeatedly transformed the Frankenstein image.

Central Argument

Frankenstein remains culturally powerful because the Creature can be understood not simply as a monster but as a figure through which society expresses its fears about revolution, oppressed people, difference, scientific progress, technology and the “Other.”

1. Revolutionary Births: Frankenstein and the Politics of Its Time

Frankenstein emerges from a world in which old political, social and intellectual structures were being questioned. The French Revolution had created powerful debates about liberty, equality and authority. The Industrial Revolution was changing the relationship between labour and economic power. Scientific development was also creating new possibilities and new fears.

Shelley does not directly write a political history of these events. Instead, their anxieties can be seen indirectly in the structure of the novel. Victor's ambition, the Creature's exclusion and the repeated struggle between power and powerlessness can all be connected with the larger questions of the period.

1.1 The Creature as Proletarian

The word proletarian can be explained simply as a person belonging to the working or economically oppressed class. From a Cultural Studies perspective, the Creature can be connected with people who exist outside structures of privilege and have very little access to social power.

The Creature begins his existence with almost nothing. He does not have wealth, property, social status or education. More importantly, he does not have recognition. Society does not initially ask who he is or what he wants. People react to his appearance.

This is significant because the Creature does not begin as an evil character. His first experiences are connected with curiosity and a desire to understand the world.

“I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend.”

This quotation is important because the Creature himself connects his later violence with his experience of suffering. This does not mean that Shelley asks us to excuse his crimes. Instead, she encourages us to examine the social conditions that surround his transformation.

“Am I not shunned and hated by all mankind?”

The question shows that his greatest desire is not simply physical survival. He wants recognition and belonging. He wants to participate in human society, but society repeatedly refuses him.

His story therefore contains a powerful contradiction. He is both victim and aggressor. He is initially sympathetic, but he later becomes violent. He experiences injustice, but he also commits injustice.

This complexity makes the Creature culturally interesting. We cannot simply describe him as either good or evil. His character forces us to examine how identity can be shaped by social relationships.

1.2 The Creature as the “Other”: Race, Empire and Privilege

The idea of the Other is central to Cultural Studies. Othering occurs when one group defines another group as strange, inferior, dangerous or outside the accepted community.

The Creature experiences Othering because people judge him according to his physical appearance. Before they hear his story, they see his body and respond with fear.

“I was not even of the same nature as man.”

His statement expresses his painful awareness that society does not recognize him as belonging to the human community.

This can be connected with questions of race, empire, colonialism and privilege. However, it would be too simple to say that the Creature represents one particular racial group. Instead, the novel can be read through the broader cultural process by which societies construct outsiders.

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s essay “Three Women’s Texts and a Critique of Imperialism” is useful for thinking about the relationship between literature and imperial structures.

Victor himself occupies a privileged position. He has education, family support, scientific knowledge, social mobility and access to intellectual resources. The Creature begins with none of these advantages.

Therefore, the relationship between Victor and the Creature can also be understood as a relationship between privilege and exclusion.

This issue remains relevant today. Migrants, refugees and minority communities can sometimes experience forms of social exclusion in which appearance, nationality, language or cultural background becomes a reason for being treated as an outsider.

1.3 From Natural Philosophy to Cyborg: Science, Technology and the Modern Prometheus

Victor Frankenstein represents the desire to gain knowledge beyond ordinary human limits. His interest in science develops into an ambition to discover the secret of life itself.

“Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds.”

The subtitle The Modern Prometheus is important here. In Greek mythology, Prometheus steals fire from the gods and gives it to humanity. Victor similarly seeks knowledge that appears to cross traditional boundaries.

But Shelley does not simply suggest that science is evil. The deeper issue is the relationship between knowledge and responsibility.

Victor succeeds in creating life, but he fails to accept responsibility for the life he has created. His immediate rejection of the Creature becomes one of the most important ethical failures in the novel.

This makes Frankenstein relevant to contemporary technologies such as:

Genetic engineering
Cloning
Artificial reproduction
Biotechnology
Artificial intelligence
Robotics
Cyborg technologies
Genetically modified organisms

Key Question

Just because humans can create something, does it mean they are ethically prepared to take responsibility for it?

The lesson of Frankenstein is therefore not simply “do not create.” A more useful interpretation is that creation must be accompanied by responsibility..

2. The Frankenpheme: From Mary Shelley’s Novel to Popular Culture

One of the most interesting Cultural Studies concepts connected with Frankenstein is Timothy Morton's idea of “Frankenphemes.”

In simple language, a Frankenpheme is an element of Frankenstein that is repeatedly taken from the original story, reproduced, changed and reused in later cultural forms.

This means that Frankenstein has become much larger than the original novel. The story now exists in films, television, cartoons, advertisements, science fiction, popular language and digital culture.

Today, Frankenstein may refer to a scientist, a monster, a laboratory, artificial creation, uncontrolled technology or something assembled from different parts.

There is also a famous misunderstanding about the name. People frequently call the Creature “Frankenstein,” although Frankenstein is actually the surname of Victor Frankenstein, the scientist.

This mistake is culturally interesting because it shows how popular culture can transform a literary text. Over time, the distinction between creator and creation has become less important in popular memory.

2.1 From Novel to Film

Cinema played a major role in transforming Frankenstein into a cultural icon.

The 1910 film Frankenstein represents one of the earliest cinematic adaptations. James Whale's Frankenstein (1931) became especially influential in shaping the familiar visual image of the Creature. Boris Karloff's performance helped establish the large, physically powerful monster that continues to appear in popular culture.

The 1935 film Bride of Frankenstein expands the story by introducing another important question: the Creature's desire for companionship.

The 1974 film Young Frankenstein changes the tone again. Mel Brooks transforms Frankenstein into comedy and parody. This demonstrates how popular culture can take a serious Gothic narrative and turn it into something humorous while keeping its recognizable symbols.

2.2 Popular Retellings and Cultural Transformation

Later science-fiction films have also developed themes that resemble Frankenstein even when they do not directly adapt Shelley's novel.

Blade Runner (1982), for example, explores questions about beings created by humans, identity, memory, mortality and the ethics of creation.

Contemporary AI stories also ask similar questions. Humans create systems that may behave in ways that are difficult to predict, control or understand.

What happens when our creation becomes different from what we expected?

2.3 Frankenstein and the Misunderstanding of the Monster

The popular image of Frankenstein is very different from Shelley's Creature.

In the novel, the Creature speaks, reads, thinks, remembers, argues and reflects. He is capable of philosophical thought. Popular culture, however, often reduces him to a silent monster.

When the Creature becomes only a monster, his questions about loneliness, education, social rejection and responsibility can disappear.

This transformation tells us something about popular culture itself. Complex literary ideas are often simplified into recognizable images. Yet even the simplified monster remains powerful because he represents fear of difference and uncontrolled creation.

3. Education, Language and the Making of the Creature

One of the most powerful sections of Frankenstein is the Creature's education.

He learns about human society by observing the De Lacey family. Through them he begins to understand language, family, labour, relationships and social behaviour.

He also discovers important books, including John Milton's Paradise Lost, Plutarch's Lives, and Goethe's The Sorrows of Young Werther.

“Of what a strange nature is knowledge!”

The quotation captures the double nature of education. Knowledge can empower a person, but it can also make painful realities clearer.

The Creature identifies himself with both Adam and Satan in Paradise Lost.

“I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel.”

Education gives the Creature a voice, but it does not give him belonging. This raises an important Cultural Studies question:

Who has access to education, language, literature and cultural belonging?

The Creature possesses knowledge but remains socially excluded. This suggests that education alone cannot completely remove marginalization. Recognition and social acceptance are also necessary.

4. Frankenstein and Contemporary Science and Technology

Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence provides one of the clearest contemporary comparisons with Frankenstein. Like Victor, modern researchers create technological systems whose behaviour may become increasingly complex.

However, the comparison should not be reduced to the idea that AI is simply a new monster. The more important connection concerns responsibility, accountability, human oversight and consequences.

Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering allows humans to alter biological characteristics. This raises questions about how far humans should intervene in biological processes and what responsibilities accompany such interventions.

Cloning and Biotechnology

Cloning and biotechnology remind us of the novel's concern with reproduction and creation. Shelley's fictional experiment imagines a scientist attempting to produce life through scientific knowledge.

Robotics and Cyborgs

Robots and cyborgs challenge traditional ideas about the boundary between human beings and machines. Frankenstein similarly asks what happens when the distinction between natural and artificial becomes uncertain.

Surveillance Technology

Modern surveillance technologies raise another related question. Human beings create systems that can later influence human behaviour.

Climate and Environmental Crisis

The novel can also be connected with environmental concerns. Victor's desire to control nature raises a wider question about the relationship between human ambition and the natural world.

None of these examples means that Shelley predicted modern technology exactly. The connection is interpretive. The novel gives us a cultural framework for thinking about creation without responsibility.

5. Frankenstein in Popular Culture Today

The influence of Frankenstein can be seen in everyday language and popular culture.

The word “Frankenstein” is often used to describe a creation that becomes difficult to control.

The term “Frankenfood”, for example, has appeared in debates about genetically modified food. The expression connects biotechnology with the frightening cultural image of artificial creation.

Frankenstein imagery can be found in:

advertisements
cartoons
Halloween culture
comic books
television
science-fiction
political metaphors
biotechnology debates
artificial intelligence discussions

Every reuse changes the meaning of the original novel. This is one of the reasons Cultural Studies is interested in popular culture. A literary text does not remain fixed inside its original historical period. It moves through different societies and receives new meanings.

6. Why Frankenstein Still Matters Today

The continuing relevance of Frankenstein comes from its ability to speak to new cultural anxieties.

For one generation, the Creature may represent scientific experimentation. For another, he may represent artificial intelligence. For another, he may represent social outsiders.

The novel therefore works like a cultural mirror.

Our contemporary world is experiencing rapid technological change. Generative AI, robotics, biotechnology, genetic engineering, digital identity and surveillance are changing relationships between humans and technology.

Social media has also created new forms of identity. People increasingly construct identities through profiles, photographs, usernames, posts and algorithmic systems.

The Creature's struggle with identity therefore remains meaningful. His experience can be connected to a broader question:

Who am I if society refuses to recognize me?

The important point is that Frankenstein does not simply tell us that technology is bad. Instead, it asks us to think about:

Responsibility
Ethics
Accountability
Care
Consequences
Power
Exclusion
Human relationships

7. What Does a Cultural Studies Reading Reveal?

A Cultural Studies reading does not replace other readings of Frankenstein. Instead, it adds another layer of interpretation.

The novel can simultaneously be understood as:

a Gothic novel because it uses horror, mystery, death and fear;
a Romantic novel because it explores nature, emotion, imagination and individuality;
a precursor to science fiction because it imagines scientific creation and its consequences;
a political text because it raises questions about power and inequality;
a text about social exclusion because the Creature is rejected by society;
a text about class and marginalization because the Creature exists outside structures of privilege;
a text concerned with race and Otherness because physical difference becomes a basis for exclusion;
a text connected with imperial power because it can be read through domination and the Other;
a text about scientific ethics because Victor creates without accepting responsibility;
a major source of popular culture because its images and ideas continue to be reproduced.

Timothy Morton helps us understand how elements of Frankenstein are repeatedly reproduced and transformed through culture.

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak helps open questions concerning imperialism, gender and literary representation.

George Levine and U. C. Knoepflmacher help us understand the continuing endurance of the novel and its ability to invite new interpretations.

Johanna M. Smith's discussion of domesticity and science reminds us that scientific ambition does not exist separately from social and gender structures.

Wilfred L. Guerin and his co-authors provide a broader critical framework for examining literature through different approaches.

What I find most interesting is that these approaches do not produce exactly the same Frankenstein. Each approach highlights a different part of the novel.

This is one of the strengths of Cultural Studies. It asks us to consider literature and society together.

Conclusion

After reading Frankenstein through Cultural Studies, I no longer see the Creature simply as a frightening monster.

He is a figure of difference.

He is a figure of exclusion.

He is also a figure of knowledge, anger, loneliness, ambition and responsibility.

Victor Frankenstein is not simply a scientist either. He represents the desire to cross boundaries without fully considering what happens after the boundary has been crossed.

The novel itself is not simply a Gothic horror story. It is a text that asks difficult questions about society and its relationship with the individual.

The Creature's tragedy begins not only with his creation but with his rejection. He wants companionship and recognition, but he is repeatedly judged by his appearance.

His statement, “misery made me a fiend,” does not excuse his violence. Instead, it encourages us to examine the social conditions surrounding his transformation.

Every generation finds a new anxiety in Frankenstein. Earlier readers could see questions of revolution, scientific discovery, social inequality and political transformation. Later generations found Frankenstein in cinema and popular culture. Today, we can connect Frankenstein-like questions with artificial intelligence, biotechnology, genetic engineering, robotics, digital identity and technological responsibility.

What responsibility do we have for what we create?

For me, this is the deepest cultural lesson of Shelley's novel. A creator cannot simply say, “I created it,” and then walk away.

Victor creates life but refuses responsibility. Society rejects the Creature and then fears the consequences of that rejection. The novel therefore connects creation with care and power with responsibility.

Perhaps that is why Frankenstein has survived for more than two hundred years.

Sometimes he is a monster.

Sometimes he is a revolutionary.

Sometimes he is an outsider.

Sometimes he is a machine.

Sometimes he is artificial intelligence.

But behind all these versions remains the same uncomfortable question:

If we have the power to create something, are we also ready to accept responsibility for what we create?

That question makes Frankenstein not merely a story from 1818, but a continuing cultural conversation about humanity itself.

Works Cited / References

Guerin, Wilfred L., et al. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. Pearson. Edition and year to be verified.

Levine, George, and U. C. Knoepflmacher, editors. The Endurance of Frankenstein: Essays on Mary Shelley's Novel. University of California Press, 1979.

Morton, Timothy. The Routledge Literary Sourcebook on Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Routledge, 2002.

Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. 1818.

Smith, Johanna M. “‘Cooped Up’ with ‘Sad Trash’: Domesticity and the Sciences in Frankenstein.” Feminist Studies, vol. 24, no. 2, 1998, pp. 243–269.

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

Academic Note: Bibliographic details should be checked against the editions actually consulted before academic submission.