From Witch Hunts to Ghost Stories: Misrepresenting Free-Thinking Women in Popular Cinema

The theme of horror comedies like Zamkudi (Gujarati) and Street 2 (Hindi) appears to grapple with the historical injustices faced by free-thinking, intellectual, or creative women who were labeled as witches to suppress their autonomy. This premise holds substantial potential for a critical re-examination of societal prejudices and gender dynamics. However, these films often falter by perpetuating the very superstitions they seek to critique, portraying these women as literal witches or ghosts. This narrative choice undermines their progressive intent and risks reinforcing the same patriarchal stereotypes they aim to deconstruct.

To serve the purpose of reclaiming these women’s narratives, the first step must be the rejection of the supernatural framing of witches or ghosts. Historically, the label of "witch" was a construct used to vilify and control women who defied societal norms. Rationalizing these accusations rather than validating them through fantastical elements is essential for reclaiming the dignity of such women. The presence of actual ghosts or evil spirits in these films reaffirms the myths that contributed to the oppression of these women in the first place. Consequently, this approach dilutes the intended critique of patriarchal structures and risks trivializing the historical reality of their persecution.

The Bhul Bhulaiyaa franchise exemplifies this regression. The original film was grounded in rationality and presented a forward-thinking perspective that dismissed superstition. However, its subsequent installments increasingly indulge in supernatural tropes, undermining the rationalist stance of the first film. By reintroducing ghosts and spirits, these sequels blur the distinction between historical critique and endorsement of superstition. This trajectory shifts the narrative focus from challenging societal prejudices to reinforcing them, which not only weakens the feminist undertones but also diminishes the cultural and intellectual potential of the genre.

Ultimately, if the goal of such films is to advocate for progressive gender dynamics and intellectual freedom, they must abandon the supernatural framework. The persistence of ghosts and witches in these narratives undermines their progressive aspirations and risks reinforcing archaic beliefs. Instead, filmmakers should embrace rationalism and focus on deconstructing the myths surrounding "witches" to illuminate the oppressive structures that gave rise to them. Only by doing so can such films contribute meaningfully to a discourse on gender equality and intellectual freedom.

Marxist, Feminist, Ecocritical, and Queer Criticism

On Marxist, Feminist, Ecocritical, and Queer Criticism

Introduction

In contemporary literary studies, critical theories such as Marxism, Feminism, Ecocriticism, and Queer Criticism have provided fresh lenses to interpret literature and the socio-cultural dynamics it reflects. These approaches not only expand our understanding of texts but also shed light on issues like power dynamics, environmental ethics, gender representation, and sexual identity. Through these critical frameworks, we interrogate traditional narratives and unravel the influences of ideology, patriarchy, ecological consciousness, and heteronormativity.

1. Marxist Criticism

• Rooted in the theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Marxist Criticism explores the socioeconomic forces that shape literature. It positions texts as products of the cultural and economic structures of their time. Key texts like The German Ideology emphasize the impact of ideology on societal structures, while thinkers like Antonio Gramsci and Fredric Jameson explore hegemony and cultural materialism. Marxist critics often analyze class struggle, the role of the author’s social background, and the ways literature reinforces or challenges dominant ideologies.

1. Feminist Criticism

• Feminist Criticism examines literature through the lens of gender inequality and the patriarchal structures embedded in cultural narratives. Foundational texts like Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman and Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own advocate for women’s intellectual independence and critique male-dominated literature. Feminist critics such as Simone de Beauvoir and Elaine Showalter analyze the marginalization of women, the social construction of gender, and the representation of women as "Other" or aligned with nature, which has traditionally subordinated them in the cultural hierarchy.

1. Ecocriticism

• Ecocriticism engages with literature to highlight environmental concerns and human relationships with nature. Influential works such as Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac emphasize ecological preservation and critique the anthropocentric exploitation of nature. Ecocritics interrogate the binary between nature and culture, exploring how literature reflects the socio-ecological consciousness and promotes sustainable, ethical interactions with the environment. This approach often includes postcolonial and gendered perspectives, acknowledging how ecological degradation disproportionately impacts marginalized communities.

4. Queer Criticism

• Queer Criticism, or Lesbian and Gay Studies, challenges heteronormative ideologies and examines the representation of queer identities in literature. This framework not only uncovers homoerotic subtexts in mainstream literature but also questions rigid gender roles and boundaries. Texts like Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble have profoundly influenced Queer Theory, introducing the concept of gender as performative rather than inherent. Queer critics deconstruct societal norms around sexuality, gender fluidity, and the visibility of queer identities in canonical literature, providing a broader understanding of identity.

Visit this for more on these approaches and application of these approaches on a specific literary text. Also appear in an online test to check your understanding

Contradictory Myths Elusive Truths

The contradictory Myths of Ganesh and Kartikeya and the ever elusive truth

When we encounter the diverse and often contradictory ways in which myths, especially those steeped in cultural and religious narratives, are told, we are inevitably led to ponder the elusive nature of truth itself. Myths, by their very essence, resist a singular or definitive interpretation. They are fluid, multifaceted, and deeply reflective of the cultures and contexts from which they arise. The notion of truth, therefore, becomes contested, mutable, and, as Friedrich Nietzsche profoundly suggested, a matter of interpretation rather than an absolute. Nietzsche’s claim that "there are no facts, only interpretations" resonates powerfully when we reflect on how myths have been narrated and preserved over time, embodying a kaleidoscope of perspectives and worldviews.

Consider, for instance, the mythological narratives surrounding the deities Ganesh and Kartikeya. The stories told about these two sons of Shiva and Parvati vary significantly across the cultural landscapes of India, exposing the inherent contradictions that challenge any claim to an ultimate truth. In northern India, Kartikeya, also known as Skanda or Murugan, is predominantly portrayed as an eternal bachelor, a brahmachari, embodying the archetype of ascetic celibacy. Meanwhile, Ganesh is celebrated for his wisdom and is often described in myth as married to Siddhi (spiritual & intellectual power) and Riddhi (wealth), symbolizing his role as a divine householder and source of prosperity.

Watch this reel 

https://youtube.com/shorts/bzV-v_z1IOY?si=eJYjx8n03PLAFnEv

Contrast this with the narratives in southern India, where Kartikeya, venerated as the powerful warrior god Murugan, is revered as the husband of two consorts, Valli and Devasena, signifying a more intimate connection to earthly and spiritual domains. Here, Ganesh is frequently depicted as a celibate deity, immersed in the meditative pursuit of knowledge and wisdom. These divergent portrayals underscore not just regional differences but also profound philosophical and theological variations that shape the understanding of these deities.

The contradictions in these myths challenge our conception of a fixed, universal truth. They compel us to recognize that what we perceive as "truth" is often a reflection of cultural, historical, and interpretative frameworks. Each retelling of these myths serves a purpose, addresses a particular audience, and is shaped by the values and ideologies of that context. The north-south dichotomy in the portrayal of Ganesh and Kartikeya, therefore, is not simply a matter of narrative inconsistency; it is a powerful illustration of how human cultures use myths to grapple with complex realities, and how these stories are constantly reimagined to convey different meanings.

In a broader sense, these myths illuminate the profound insight that truth is not monolithic. It is not something that can be captured, preserved, or fixed once and for all. Rather, truth is a living, evolving construct, interpreted and reinterpreted through the lenses of language, culture, and human experience. Nietzsche’s philosophical musings on interpretation remind us that the search for a singular, objective truth may be a futile endeavor. Instead, our engagement with myths—be it the tales of Ganesh and Kartikeya or any other mythic narrative—invites us to embrace multiplicity, complexity, and the richness of human imagination. In this view, myths become more than just stories; they become a reflection of the interpretative nature of human existence itself, where every perspective adds a new dimension to the ever-unfolding narrative of truth.