Humanity, Technology, and Dystopia: A Critical Study of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World

Humanity, Technology, and Dystopia: A Critical Study of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World

Introduction

Science fiction is not merely a genre of imagination; it is a mirror that reflects societal hopes, fears, and ethical dilemmas about the future. Among the most compelling works in this genre is Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, first published in 1932. Huxley envisions a highly controlled futuristic society where human beings are engineered, conditioned, and medicated to maintain order and stability. In this dystopian world, scientific and technological progress has reached astonishing heights, yet humanity’s core values — individuality, emotional depth, freedom, and moral consciousness — are profoundly compromised.

The novel forces readers to confront the critical question: Can technological advancement exist without eroding essential human qualities? Huxley’s work anticipates issues increasingly relevant in the modern era, including genetic engineering, mass surveillance, psychological manipulation, and the ethical limits of scientific progress. By combining imaginative storytelling with philosophical inquiry, Brave New World establishes itself as a timeless critique of the potential dangers of a society driven by technological control.

The Dystopian Society in Brave New World

Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World presents a society that is meticulously organized and highly hierarchical, designed to function with maximum efficiency and stability. One of the most striking aspects of this dystopia is the elimination of natural reproduction. Instead of being born through the traditional family system, humans are artificially produced in “hatcheries” using advanced reproductive technology. Embryos are carefully manipulated at the genetic level to determine intelligence, physical abilities, and even personality traits. This process ensures that every individual is suited to their designated social role, leaving no room for chance, individuality, or personal aspiration.

The World State is structured into strict caste divisions, ranging from Alphas to Epsilons. Alphas, the most intelligent and capable, occupy positions of leadership, decision-making, and intellectual authority. Betas fill supportive professional roles, while Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons are engineered for menial and labor-intensive work. The lower castes are deliberately conditioned to enjoy simple tasks and avoid ambition, ensuring that social order is preserved without coercion. This rigid hierarchy ensures that every function in society is fulfilled efficiently, but it also suppresses social mobility, creativity, and personal ambition.

Education in the World State is not about nurturing curiosity or moral understanding; it is a tool for systematic conditioning. From a very young age, children undergo hypnopaedia, or sleep-teaching, which repetitively instills societal norms, beliefs, and values. For example, a child in the Delta caste may hear slogans emphasizing the virtue of obedience and the importance of fulfilling assigned duties. This constant reinforcement trains citizens to accept their place in society without question, eliminating independent thought or critical reasoning.

The conditioning process also shapes desires and pleasures. Children are encouraged to dislike books, nature, or intellectual pursuits if these might interfere with their predetermined roles. Happiness in the World State is not a product of genuine emotional fulfillment but a result of engineered satisfaction. The society discourages deep emotional attachments, family bonds, and personal relationships, as these could create unrest or dissatisfaction. Love, grief, and moral struggle are considered dangerous because they introduce uncertainty and challenge conformity.

Huxley’s depiction of this dystopia demonstrates how social stability is prioritized over human freedom and individuality. While the system creates a smooth-functioning society free from conflict, war, or poverty, it does so by erasing essential aspects of humanity. Citizens live in a world of artificial contentment — comfort without choice, pleasure without depth, and stability without moral responsibility. Huxley’s critique lies in showing that a society designed solely for efficiency and control may achieve order, but at the profound cost of creativity, personal growth, and authentic human experience.

Technology as an Instrument of Control

In Brave New World, technology is far more than a neutral tool; it is a deliberate mechanism for maintaining societal control. Huxley presents a world in which scientific and technological advancements are harnessed not to empower individuals, but to manipulate them and ensure compliance. From the very beginning of life, humans are subjected to technological interventions that dictate their social roles, behavior, and even emotional responses.

One of the most notable applications of technology is genetic engineering. In the hatcheries, embryos are modified to produce specific physical and intellectual characteristics suited to the needs of the World State. For example, Alphas are genetically designed to be intelligent and physically capable, while Epsilons are deliberately made less intelligent and physically suited to repetitive, manual labor. These technological interventions eliminate natural diversity and choice, ensuring that individuals are biologically predisposed to accept their predetermined roles. By controlling human development at the genetic level, the society removes the possibility of rebellion, dissatisfaction, or ambition that could threaten stability.

Psychological conditioning is another powerful technological tool used to control human behavior. From early childhood, citizens are subjected to hypnopaedia (sleep-teaching) and repetitive conditioning to instill societal values and beliefs. For example, a Delta child may repeatedly hear the phrase “I always work happily” while asleep, reinforcing a mindset that finds satisfaction in menial labor. Over time, these methods suppress independent thinking, moral reasoning, and emotional reflection. Through technological control of the mind, the World State ensures that citizens remain docile and obedient, preventing any challenge to the established order.

The novel also explores the use of chemical technology as a tool of emotional control. The drug soma is perhaps the most prominent example. It induces instant euphoria and eliminates anxiety, sadness, or discomfort. Whenever citizens feel even a minor form of dissatisfaction, they are encouraged to consume soma, effectively replacing natural coping mechanisms with artificial contentment. Huxley uses soma to illustrate the dangers of technological intervention in human emotions. While it creates the illusion of happiness, it also erases the capacity for genuine feeling, reflection, and moral choice.

Through these examples, Huxley’s critique becomes clear: technology alone is not inherently good. When divorced from ethical responsibility and used solely to enforce control, scientific advancements can become instruments of oppression rather than tools for liberation. In the World State, science achieves efficiency, comfort, and order, but at the cost of individuality, creativity, and authentic human experience. Technology, in Huxley’s vision, demonstrates that progress without morality can undermine the very essence of what it means to be human.

By portraying a society where every aspect of human life — biology, behavior, and emotion — is manipulated by technological means, Huxley issues a warning to readers: scientific and technological innovations must be guided by ethical reflection, respect for human dignity, and the preservation of personal freedom. Otherwise, the promise of progress may come at a devastating cost to humanity itself.

Humanity, Individuality, and Emotional Depth

A central concern of Brave New World is the tension between technological efficiency and the essence of human nature. In Huxley’s dystopia, the pursuit of social stability and technological control comes at a profound cost: the suppression of individuality, authentic emotions, and personal freedom. Citizens in the World State are stripped of family bonds, spiritual beliefs, and meaningful personal attachments. The concepts of love, marriage, and parenthood — traditional sources of human identity and emotional depth — are considered obsolete or even dangerous. Human beings are reduced to “cogs in the machine,” valued not for their personalities, creativity, or moral choices, but solely for their usefulness and conformity.

Social and emotional conditioning ensures that humans are incapable of forming deep emotional connections. From childhood, citizens are conditioned to engage in superficial pleasures and casual sexual relationships, which serve the dual purpose of preventing emotional attachment and maintaining societal stability. For example, Lenina Crowne enjoys multiple casual relationships without forming deep bonds, reflecting the World State’s emphasis on pleasure over emotional integrity. Genuine love, grief, or loyalty are absent because these emotions could provoke rebellion, dissatisfaction, or moral questioning. Huxley’s portrayal underscores that the eradication of emotional depth is one of the World State’s greatest losses.

The character of John, the Savage, serves as a foil to this engineered society, highlighting the consequences of removing individuality and emotional complexity. Born naturally and raised outside the World State on a Native American reservation, John experiences authentic human emotions: he feels love, experiences grief, suffers physically and emotionally, and struggles with moral dilemmas. His exposure to Shakespeare and classical literature gives him the language, philosophical insight, and moral framework to reflect critically on beauty, honor, virtue, and freedom. Unlike the conditioned citizens, John is capable of understanding and valuing emotional complexity, making him profoundly human in Huxley’s eyes.

When John enters the World State, he is appalled by the artificiality of the society. Citizens pursue instant gratification, consume soma to erase discomfort, and avoid reflection or moral responsibility. To John, their happiness is shallow and meaningless because it is pre-programmed and unearned. Through John’s eyes, Huxley demonstrates that suffering, moral struggle, and emotional complexity are not burdens but essential elements of human life. True humanity involves the capacity to feel deeply, to struggle with ethical questions, and to experience life fully — even when it brings pain or hardship.

Huxley’s exploration of humanity and individuality also critiques a society that values efficiency and control above all else. By eradicating authentic emotional experiences, the World State achieves stability, comfort, and predictability, but it creates humans who are incomplete, incapable of self-reflection, and ultimately unfulfilled. Through this tension, Huxley emphasizes that technological advancement and societal order, when prioritized over emotional and moral development, may produce efficiency but destroy the very qualities that make us human.

In short, Brave New World argues that the richness of human experience — love, grief, moral choice, and personal growth — cannot be engineered, programmed, or replaced by artificial pleasure. Huxley’s message is clear: without individuality and emotional depth, humanity loses its meaning, and life becomes a sterile, hollow existence.

Conclusion

Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World remains one of the most powerful explorations of the tension between technological progress and human values. The novel presents a meticulously engineered society in which scientific advancements, psychological conditioning, and chemical interventions are used to maintain stability and control. While the World State achieves comfort, efficiency, and order, it does so by sacrificing individuality, emotional depth, moral responsibility, and authentic human experience. Citizens live in a world of superficial pleasure and artificial happiness, devoid of family, love, personal choice, or the capacity to struggle morally — essential aspects of what it means to be truly human.

Through the character of John, the Savage, Huxley contrasts the sterile, controlled world of the World State with natural human life, rich in emotion, moral struggle, and individuality. John’s experiences and reflections highlight the importance of suffering, love, moral awareness, and personal freedom in defining humanity. Huxley demonstrates that technological efficiency and societal stability cannot replace these fundamental human qualities.

The novel’s themes — freedom versus conformity, ethical responsibility in scientific progress, the importance of individuality, and the consequences of sacrificing authenticity for comfort — remain profoundly relevant today. In a world increasingly shaped by genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, psychological manipulation, and instant gratification, Brave New World serves as a cautionary tale. It reminds readers that progress must be guided by ethics, morality, and respect for human dignity, lest society sacrifice the very essence of what makes us human.

Ultimately, Brave New World challenges us to reflect critically on the role of technology in our lives, the value of emotional depth, and the importance of individuality and freedom. Huxley’s vision urges a careful balance: embracing the benefits of scientific innovation while safeguarding the core qualities that define humanity, ensuring that comfort and efficiency never come at the cost of moral and emotional integrity.

Reference :

Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. Harper & Brothers, 1932.

A Dance of the Forests by Wole Soyinka

A Dance of the Forests by Wole Soyinka

Introduction

A Dance of the Forests is a profoundly symbolic and philosophical play by Wole Soyinka, where the themes of history, guilt, ritual, and the cyclical nature of human failure are explored. Written for Nigeria’s independence celebrations, Soyinka challenges the glorification of the past, instead turning to confront the moral corruption inherited from past generations. The play is not about romanticizing history but rather urging the present to face its collective guilt. Through Yoruba cosmology, spirits, and ritual drama, Soyinka uses the characters to examine how societies often evade responsibility for their actions by hiding behind traditions and celebrations.

In this alternative ending, the core themes of the play are preserved, but the focus shifts slightly. Instead of ending with a purely mystical or ritualistic closure, the ending emphasizes human responsibility, confession, and the moral reckoning of the living generation. The alternative ending remains loyal to Soyinka’s philosophical vision, yet it offers a more direct engagement with the past, suggesting that true change begins with acknowledgment rather than divine or ritualistic absolution.

Alternative Ending

As the masqueraders complete their final circle, the forest does not sink into complete darkness but settles into a strange half-light, symbolizing the unresolved nature of the community's guilt. The drums fall silent, and the weight of the silence itself becomes heavier than any sound, creating an atmosphere of anticipation. Demoke, still disturbed by the vision of the Half-Child and the crimes of the community, steps forward. Adenebi, Rola, and Agboreko remain at a distance, unsure whether the ritual has truly concluded or whether another judgment still lurks within the trees.

From the depths of the forest, the Dead Man and the Dead Woman emerge once again. This time, they are not driven by spirits nor forced by memory. They walk freely, their eyes devoid of accusation. The Half-Child, now taking on faint human features, is no longer formless. It does not cry; instead, it watches the living with a quiet, unsettling stillness.

Forest Head speaks softly:

“You summoned the past to crown your future.

The past has come, and you turned from it.

Yet it remains, for what is not faced is reborn.”

Adenebi protests, claiming that he has already paid the price—he has lost his office, dignity, and comfort. But Forest Head interrupts:

“You lost them to chance, not to truth.

Guilt still walks unburied.”

Rola, who is usually defiant and dismissive, lowers her eyes. For the first time, she speaks without her usual mockery, confessing the cruelty of her past life—her power, her manipulations, and the survival she purchased at the expense of others. She does not ask for forgiveness; she simply admits what she has been.

Agboreko, invoking ritual to justify the community’s actions, raises his staff to seal the moment with tradition. Demoke steps forward and blocks him, asserting:

“No,” Demoke says. “Ritual without memory is only dance. We have danced enough.”

He continues:

“We summoned our ancestors and received criminals. That is our likeness. If we end this night with drums and forgetting, the Half-Child will return—not as spirit, but as flesh.”

Demoke kneels before the Dead Woman—not to beg for forgiveness, but as an acknowledgment of shared guilt:

“We carry your wound in our festivals,” he says. “We carve your pain into our masks. But we do not change. If there is a future, let it begin with shame.”

Forest Head remains silent, watching. The spirits murmur like the wind through broken branches.

The Dead Man raises his hand and speaks:

“We are not here to be avenged.

We are here to be remembered correctly.”

The Half-Child touches the ground. Where its hand meets the earth, a faint red line appears, as though the soil itself remembers the blood spilled by the community.

Forest Head declares:

“There will be no blessing tonight.

Nor curse.

Only knowledge.”

The living are then commanded to face the Half-Child, not to speak of their suffering but of what they have caused. Each character admits their sins:

• Adenebi confesses the lives ruined by his bureaucratic arrogance.
• Rola admits the men she used and destroyed.
• Agboreko admits that he hid behind tradition to excuse his cowardice.

Their confessions do not redeem them but fracture the habit of denial. The masqueraders remove their masks and place them on the ground, symbolizing the shedding of false identities. The drums resume, but slowly and unevenly, as if the dancers are learning to move again after injury. The dance that follows is awkward, broken, and unsure, reflecting the community’s attempt to reconnect with itself through honest reckoning.

The Dead Woman withdraws into the shadows with the Half-Child and says:

“We go not because you are forgiven,

but because you are awake.”

Forest Head observes them silently before saying:

“Remember: the future is not born of festivals,

but of scars that refuse silence.”

The forest brightens slightly, suggesting the arrival of dawn. The spirits depart, and the humans remain—without masks, without gods to speak for them.

• Demoke says quietly, “We must build differently.”
• There is no final chorus, no divine answer—just human responsibility.
• The drums fade into footsteps.
• Blackout.

Conclusion

This alternative ending remains true to Soyinka’s original vision, rejecting sentimental reconciliation and easy forgiveness. It does not allow the community to escape its moral failings through ritual or divine spectacle. Instead, the characters are forced to confront their guilt, and the play underscores the idea that the past cannot be ignored or forgotten. The Half-Child remains a symbol of unfinished justice, and the Dead remain moral witnesses to the community’s failures rather than objects of vengeance or pity.

By shifting the resolution from divine intervention to human responsibility and confession, this alternative ending reinforces the notion that ritual alone cannot heal a society that refuses to engage with its moral inheritance. Instead of seeking absolution or blessing, the characters are presented with knowledge—the understanding that the future will not be shaped by ceremonies but by the choices made in response to the scars of the past.

The forest, no longer a mystical refuge, becomes a space of exposure where history must be confronted honestly. The new ending preserves Soyinka’s tragic vision of history as cyclical and self-perpetuating unless the living make the conscious decision to interrupt it. In this way, it emphasizes that true independence—whether political or moral—cannot be achieved through festivals or celebrations alone but only through an honest acknowledgment of guilt and the courage to act differently.

Reference :

Soyinka, Wole. A Dance of the Forests. Methuen Drama, 1981.

Thank you for reading ...

Mechanics of Writing

This blog is assigned by Prakruti Ma’am. It focuses on research methodology and explains the mechanics of writing as part of the documentation process. Below are the two questions related to this topic.

What is the difference between Academic and Non-Academic Writing?

Introduction :

Writing is an important way of expressing ideas, sharing knowledge, and communicating with others. However, not all writing is the same. Some types of writing are formal and based on research, while others are informal and based on personal thoughts or everyday communication. Academic writing and non-academic writing are two major categories that differ in purpose, style, structure, and audience. Understanding these differences is very important for students, especially at the college and university level, where formal writing is required.

There are several important differences between academic and non-academic writing. These differences can be understood through purpose, language, structure, audience, and use of evidence.

1. Purpose of Writing :

 Academic writing is mainly written to inform, explain, analyze, or argue a specific topic in a logical and systematic way. It focuses on presenting knowledge and contributing to intellectual discussion. The writer’s aim is to develop a clear argument supported by evidence.

 Non-academic writing, on the other hand, is usually written to entertain, express personal opinions, tell stories, or communicate everyday information. It does not always aim to present deep analysis or research.

2. Use of Research and Evidence

 Academic writing is research-based. It requires the writer to use reliable sources such as books, scholarly articles, and credible websites. The writer must support every important claim with evidence. Proper citation and referencing are also necessary to avoid plagiarism.

 In contrast, non-academic writing may not require research or references. It often depends on personal experience, general knowledge, or opinions. For example, blog posts, magazine articles, and social media posts usually do not include formal citations.

3. Language and Tone

 Academic writing uses formal, clear, and precise language. It avoids slang, casual expressions, and overly emotional language. The tone is objective and serious. The writer focuses on facts rather than personal feelings.

 Non-academic writing is more informal and conversational. It may include slang, humor, contractions, and emotional expressions. The tone can be friendly, persuasive, or even dramatic.

4. Structure and Organization

 Academic writing follows a clear and organized structure. It usually includes an introduction with a thesis statement, body paragraphs with well-developed arguments, and a conclusion that summarizes the main points. Ideas are logically connected with proper transitions.

 Non-academic writing does not always follow a strict structure. It can be flexible and creative. The organization may depend on the writer’s style rather than formal rules.

5. Audience

 Academic writing is written for a specific audience such as teachers, researchers, scholars, or students. This audience expects logical reasoning, detailed explanation, and evidence-based arguments.

 Non-academic writing is usually written for a general audience. The readers may not expect detailed research or complex arguments.

6. Objectivity and Critical Thinking

 Academic writing requires critical thinking. The writer must analyze different viewpoints, compare ideas, and present balanced arguments. Personal bias should be avoided.

 Non-academic writing may openly express personal beliefs, emotions, and subjective opinions without detailed analysis.

Conclusion

In conclusion, academic writing and non-academic writing are different in many important ways. Academic writing is formal, structured, research-based, and objective. It requires evidence, logical organization, and proper support for ideas. Non-academic writing is informal, flexible, and often based on personal opinion or everyday communication. While both forms of writing are important, academic writing demands greater discipline, clarity, and responsibility from the writer.

2) What is the Importance of Punctuation?

Introduction

Punctuation is an essential part of writing. It includes marks such as periods (.), commas (,), question marks (?), colons (:), semicolons (;), quotation marks (“ ”), dashes (—), and ellipses (…). These marks may seem small, but they play a powerful role in shaping meaning. Proper punctuation helps readers understand the writer’s message clearly and accurately. In formal and academic writing especially, correct punctuation is very important for clarity and professionalism.

The importance of punctuation can be explained in the following points:

1. Provides Clarity and Meaning

 Punctuation helps make sentences clear. Without it, writing can become confusing. For example, the sentence “Let’s eat, Grandma” and “Let’s eat Grandma” have completely different meanings because of a comma. This shows how punctuation protects meaning.

2. Separates and Organizes Ideas

 Punctuation divides sentences into meaningful parts. Periods show the end of a complete thought. Commas separate items in a list or clauses in a sentence. Paragraph breaks also help organize larger ideas. This organization makes writing easier to read and understand.

3. Shows Relationships Between Clauses

 Some punctuation marks help connect ideas. For example, a semicolon links closely related independent clauses, while a colon introduces explanations or examples. These marks help maintain logical flow in writing.

4. Indicates Tone and Emotion

 Punctuation can show tone and feeling. A question mark shows a question, an exclamation mark shows strong emotion, and quotation marks indicate direct speech or special terms. This helps readers understand the writer’s intention.

5. Ensures Accuracy in Academic Writing

 In academic writing, punctuation must be used carefully. It helps present quotations correctly, separate references, and maintain formal style. Incorrect punctuation can change meaning, weaken arguments, and reduce credibility.

6. Prevents Ambiguity and Misinterpretation

 Without punctuation, readers may misunderstand the message. Clear punctuation ensures that the intended meaning is delivered without confusion or double interpretation.

7. Improves Readability

 Good punctuation makes writing smooth and natural to read. It guides the reader through pauses and stops, just like breathing guides speech.

Conclusion

In conclusion, punctuation is not just a set of marks; it is a tool that gives structure, clarity, and meaning to writing. It helps organize ideas, show relationships, express tone, and prevent confusion. Proper punctuation strengthens communication and makes writing more effective, professional, and understandable.

Reference 

• Modern Language Association of America. MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing. Modern Language Association of America, 2008. Accessed 14 Feb. 2026.

Thank you for reading ..

Documentation - Preparing a List of Works Cited

Documentation - Preparing a List of Works Cited

This blog is assigned by Prakruti Ma’am. It focuses on research methodology and explains the process of documentation, specifically how to prepare a list of Works Cited. Below are the two questions related to this topic.

Question: What is the difference between Bibliography and Citation?

Academic writing must follow clear mechanical rules and proper documentation practices. Two important parts of documentation are citation and bibliography. Though both are related to giving credit to sources, they are different in purpose, form, and placement.

A citation is a short reference that appears inside the main text of the research paper. It is used immediately after a quotation, paraphrased idea, or any borrowed information. In MLA style, citations are usually given in parentheses with the author’s last name and page number. The main purpose of a citation is to show exactly where a particular idea or quotation has come from. It helps the reader trace the source quickly and ensures academic honesty. Without citation, the writer may be accused of plagiarism.

On the other hand, a bibliography (called Works Cited in MLA format) is a complete list of all sources used in preparing the research paper. It appears at the end of the paper on a separate page. Unlike citation, it provides full publication details such as the author’s full name, title of the book or article, publisher, place of publication, and year. It gives the reader complete information to locate the source independently. It also shows the depth and range of the writer’s research.

Another important difference is that citations appear many times throughout the paper whenever sources are used, while the bibliography appears only once at the end. Citation is brief and specific; bibliography is detailed and comprehensive.

In simple words, citation tells the reader where a specific idea in the text comes from, while bibliography shows the complete list of all sources used in the research. Both are essential parts of academic writing because they maintain clarity, credibility, and academic integrity.

Question : Short Question : MLA Style

MLA style refers to the format and guidelines recommended by the Modern Language Association for writing research papers and scholarly manuscripts. It is mainly used in the humanities, especially in subjects like English literature, foreign languages, literary criticism, comparative literature, and cultural studies. The rules for students are given in the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers.

MLA style focuses on the mechanics of writing, such as punctuation, quotation, spelling, formatting, and especially documentation of sources. Its main aim is to maintain clarity, uniformity, and academic honesty in research writing.

The Modern Language Association (MLA), founded in 1883 in the United States, is a leading academic organization that promotes the study of language and literature. It also publishes important academic journals like Publications of the Modern Language Association of America and provides official guidelines for documentation.

One of the most important features of MLA 7th edition is its in-text citation system. When a writer quotes or paraphrases from a source, they must provide the author’s last name and page number in parentheses. For example:

(Ellison 3)

If the author’s name is mentioned in the sentence, only the page number is written in parentheses.

Another important feature is the Works Cited page, which appears at the end of the research paper. It gives full publication details of all sources used. The basic format for a book in MLA 7th edition is:

Author’s Last Name, First Name. Title of Book. Publisher, Year of Publication.

Example:

Ellison, Ralph. Invisible Man. Vintage International, 1995.

MLA style uses a cross-referencing system that connects the in-text citation with the Works Cited page. This helps readers easily locate the original source of information.

In conclusion, MLA style (7th edition) provides a clear and systematic method for writing research papers. It ensures proper formatting, correct citation, and accurate documentation of sources, which helps prevent plagiarism and maintain academic integrity.

create an annotated bibliography containing at least 8 varied qualitative source types.

1. Journal Article

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, University of Illinois Press, 1988, pp. 271–313.

Annotation:

This article discusses whether marginalized women in postcolonial societies can truly express themselves within dominant power structures. Spivak critiques Western intellectual frameworks that claim to represent subaltern women. The essay is important for understanding how women writers negotiate voice and silence. It provides a strong theoretical foundation for analyzing representation and agency in postcolonial women’s literature.

2. Book

Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. Feminism without Borders: Decolonizing Theory, Practicing Solidarity. Duke University Press, 2003.

Annotation:

Mohanty critiques Western feminism for generalizing “Third World women” and ignoring cultural differences. She promotes transnational feminist solidarity based on shared struggles. This book is useful for studying women writers because it encourages context-based analysis and highlights diversity among women’s experiences. It strengthens feminist interpretation of postcolonial texts.

3. Book Chapter

Gilbert, Sandra M., and Susan Gubar. “The Madwoman in the Attic.” The Madwoman in the Attic, Yale University Press, 1979, pp. 1–44.

Annotation:

This chapter examines how women writers express suppressed creativity through symbolic figures like the “madwoman.” Though focused on Victorian literature, its feminist framework helps analyze postcolonial women writers. It explains how women negotiate patriarchal oppression and develop narrative voice.

4. Encyclopedia Entry

“Postcolonial Feminism.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2023, www.britannica.com/topic/postcolonial-feminism.

Annotation:

This entry defines postcolonial feminism and explains its historical background and key thinkers. It offers a concise overview of the theoretical framework in which many women writers operate. It is helpful for beginners seeking foundational knowledge.

5. News Article

Pérez-Peña, Richard. “Women Writers and the Global Literary Canon.” The New York Times, 15 Mar. 2019, www.nytimes.com.

Annotation:

This article discusses the increasing recognition of women writers from formerly colonized countries. It highlights issues of visibility and representation in global literature. The news perspective adds contemporary relevance to academic discussions.

6. Video

hooks, bell. “Feminism Is for Everybody.” YouTube, uploaded by The New School, 12 Oct. 2016, www.youtube.com.

Annotation:

In this lecture, bell hooks explains feminism as a movement to end sexist oppression. She emphasizes accessibility and intersectionality. The video supports the study of women writers by reinforcing the importance of inclusive representation and voice.

7. Webpage

“Women in Postcolonial Literature.” Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL), Purdue University, owl.purdue.edu.

Annotation:

This webpage provides an introduction to feminist and postcolonial literary criticism. It explains key concepts in simple language and offers guidance for analysis. It is helpful for students beginning research in this field.

8. Image

Sher-Gil, Amrita. Self-Portrait as Tahitian. 1934, National Gallery of Modern Art, New Delhi.

Annotation:

This painting represents themes of identity, self-representation, and hybridity. Though visual art, it connects to themes explored by postcolonial women writers. It symbolizes resistance to colonial and patriarchal norms and broadens interdisciplinary understanding.

Question 2

Choose a research article on one identity and analyze whether its introduction follows the principles of inclusive language (MLA 9th edition).

Answer:

Identity Chosen: Refugees

Research Article:

Betts, Alexander, et al. “Refugee Economies: Rethinking Popular Assumptions.” Refugee Studies Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 1, 2017, pp. 1–22.

The introduction of this article follows several principles of inclusive language discussed in the MLA Handbook.

First, the authors avoid stereotypes and do not portray refugees as helpless victims. Instead, they describe them as individuals with agency and economic potential. Second, the article avoids biased or emotionally loaded terms and uses respectful, neutral academic language. Third, it recognizes diversity among refugees by acknowledging differences in background, skills, and experiences. Finally, the introduction focuses on structural conditions rather than blaming individuals.

Therefore, the article adheres to inclusive language principles by respecting human dignity, avoiding generalization, and presenting refugees as complex individuals. It reflects ethical and responsible academic writing.

Reference : 

• Modern Language Association of America. MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing. Modern Language Association of America, 2008. Accessed 14 Feb. 2026.

Thank you ...

Film Screening - Humans in the Loop

This blog has been assigned by Dr. Dilipsir Barad as part of our academic study of the film Humans in the Loop. The purpose of this blog is to critically engage with the themes, cinematic techniques, and theoretical perspectives related to the film. Students are expected to carefully read the blog and respond to the questions provided. Please click here to access the worksheet and complete the assigned tasks.Click here

PRE-VIEWING TASK : 

1. AI Bias & Indigenous Knowledge Systems

Artificial Intelligence (AI) bias refers to the unfair or unequal outcomes produced by AI systems due to biased training data, limited representation, or embedded social prejudices. Since AI systems learn from human-generated data, they often reflect the dominant social, cultural, or economic perspectives present in that data. As a result, marginalized communities may be misrepresented or excluded within technological systems.

Indigenous knowledge systems, particularly those of Adivasi communities, are based on lived experience, ecological balance, oral traditions, and a relational understanding of land and nature. These systems are holistic and contextual rather than rigid and categorized. AI, however, operates through fixed classifications and algorithmic logic, which may fail to recognize cultural nuance and experiential knowledge.

The film likely explores how indigenous ecological wisdom challenges technological frameworks that prioritize efficiency and categorization over context. This tension raises important questions: Who defines knowledge in the digital age? Can AI truly understand diverse cultural realities? Thus, AI bias becomes not only a technical issue but also a political and cultural concern.

2. Labour & Digital Economies

In digital economies, “invisible labour” refers to the hidden human work that supports automated systems such as AI, search engines, and social media platforms. Although AI is often presented as autonomous and intelligent, it depends heavily on human workers who label data, moderate content, and correct errors. These workers are frequently underpaid, unrecognized, and located in marginalized regions.

In Humans in the Loop, the protagonist Nehma, an Adivasi woman from Jharkhand, engages in AI data-labelling work. Her role highlights the human presence behind so-called intelligent machines. This labour remains invisible because users only see the final technological output, not the human effort that makes it possible.

The film likely critiques digital capitalism, which celebrates innovation while overlooking the workers who sustain it. By foregrounding invisible labour, the narrative challenges the myth of AI as purely machine-driven and raises ethical concerns about exploitation, economic inequality, and global power hierarchies. Recognizing this labour is essential to understanding the social realities behind technological progress.

3. Politics of Representation

Representation in cinema refers to how identities, cultures, and institutions are portrayed and interpreted. From available publicity and reviews, Humans in the Loop appears to contrast advanced technological environments with the lived reality of Adivasi life. This contrast draws attention to issues of marginalization and visibility.

Adivasi communities are rarely centered in narratives about science and technology. By placing an Adivasi woman at the center of an AI-related story, the film potentially challenges dominant narratives that associate technological knowledge only with urban or elite groups. It may also question how digital systems categorize and interpret cultural identities.

Technology is often represented as neutral and progressive; however, the film likely presents it as shaped by social power structures and knowledge hierarchies. Through this lens, representation becomes political. The portrayal of Nehma may emphasize agency, dignity, and cultural identity rather than victimhood.

Thus, the film seems to explore how both technology and indigenous culture are framed, inviting viewers to critically reflect on visibility, power, and epistemological authority.

POINTS TO PONDER WHILE WATCHING

1. Narrative & Storytelling

• How does the film situate Nehma’s personal life within larger algorithmic structures? What narrative turns foreground labour, family, and knowledge systems?

While watching the film, observe how Nehma’s everyday life is connected to global technological systems. The narrative likely moves between her domestic space, community life, and digital workspace. Pay attention to how scenes of family interactions, village environment, and traditional practices are placed alongside scenes of data-labelling work.

Consider how the story structure highlights the contrast between lived experience and algorithmic systems. Notice whether emotional or personal moments are interrupted by technological demands. Identify key turning points in the narrative where labour becomes central — for example, moments when Nehma questions the task she is performing or confronts the limitations of the AI system.

Reflect on how the film uses storytelling to show that global AI infrastructures depend on individual human lives. The narrative may suggest that behind every automated system, there are real families, identities, and cultural knowledge systems shaping and sustaining it.

•  When Nehma “teaches” AI, what does this suggest about human-machine learning loops beyond technological jargon?

While observing scenes where Nehma labels data or corrects AI outputs, think about the meaning of “teaching” in this context. Although AI is often described as autonomous and intelligent, it depends on human instruction. The phrase “human in the loop” itself implies that machines require continuous human guidance.

Consider what it means for an Adivasi woman to train advanced technology. Does the film portray this as empowerment, exploitation, or a complex mix of both? Notice whether her cultural understanding conflicts with the rigid categories required by the system.

Beyond technical language, the human-machine loop may symbolize interdependence rather than replacement. The film might challenge the idea that machines are superior to human knowledge. Instead, it may reveal that AI systems are shaped by the people who train them, including their experiences, biases, and worldviews.

2. Representation & Cultural Context

 How are Adivasi culture, language, tradition, and ecological knowledge represented?

While watching the film, observe how Adivasi life is visually and narratively framed. Pay attention to language use, clothing, rituals, community interactions, and the depiction of natural landscapes. Consider whether these elements are shown as living, dynamic practices or merely as background settings.

Notice how ecological knowledge—such as understanding of forests, land, seasons, and sustainable living—is portrayed. Is it treated as valuable knowledge or as something outdated in comparison to technological systems? Reflect on whether the film presents indigenous knowledge as equal to scientific or algorithmic knowledge.

Also consider the tone of representation. Are cultural practices shown with dignity and authenticity? Does the camera perspective allow space for Adivasi voices, or does it position them as objects of observation? The way the film frames these aspects may reveal its ideological stance toward indigenous epistemologies.

• Does the film challenge or reinforce dominant media stereotypes about tribal communities and modern technology?

In mainstream media, tribal or Adivasi communities are often stereotyped as backward, disconnected from modernity, or resistant to technological change. While watching, analyze whether the film disrupts these simplified portrayals.

Does Nehma appear as passive and marginalized, or as intelligent, reflective, and capable of engaging critically with technology? Consider whether the narrative presents her as merely a victim of exploitation or as an active participant shaping AI systems.

Examine how technology is represented in relation to tribal identity. Is modern technology shown as incompatible with indigenous life, or does the film suggest a more complex coexistence?

If the film foregrounds Nehma’s agency and highlights the intellectual contribution of her lived experience to AI systems, it may challenge dominant stereotypes. However, if it overemphasizes victimhood or romanticizes tradition without nuance, it may risk reinforcing them.

While watching, reflect critically on whether the film creates a balanced and empowering representation of Adivasi identity within the digital age.

3. Cinematic Style & Meaning

• Mise-en-scène & Cinematography

While watching the film, carefully observe the mise-en-scène — this includes setting, lighting, costume, props, framing, and spatial arrangement within the frame.

Notice how the forest landscape is framed. Are wide shots used to emphasize openness, depth, and connection with nature? Is natural lighting employed to create authenticity and realism? The forest may symbolize organic knowledge, continuity, and lived experience.

In contrast, observe how computer screens and workspaces are presented. Are they framed through close-ups, static shots, or confined compositions? Does artificial lighting dominate these scenes? Such framing may visually suggest restriction, surveillance, or mechanization.

Pay attention to the visual contrast between ritual spaces and digital work environments. The positioning of the body within these spaces can reflect power structures — for example, whether Nehma appears empowered, isolated, or fragmented within the frame.

Through cinematography and spatial composition, the film may visually construct the tension between ecological life and algorithmic systems.

• Sound Design & Editing

Sound design and editing rhythms are crucial in shaping thematic contrast.

Observe the soundscape of the forest and village — natural ambient sounds such as birds, wind, footsteps, or community voices may create a sense of continuity and relational existence. These sounds often produce a slower, organic rhythm.

In contrast, the digital workspace may feature mechanical sounds, keyboard clicks, notification alerts, or low electronic hums. These artificial sounds can create a repetitive or monotonous rhythm, reflecting the mechanical nature of data-labelling labour.

Consider the editing pace. Are rural scenes edited with longer takes and smooth transitions, while digital labour scenes are cut more sharply or rhythmically? Faster cuts may represent the speed and pressure of algorithmic systems, whereas slower pacing may evoke reflection and embodied time.

Together, mise-en-scène, cinematography, editing, and sound design contribute to the film’s deeper meaning. They do not simply illustrate the story but actively construct the contrast between analog life and digital labour, shaping the viewer’s emotional and ideological understanding.

4. ETHICAL & POLITICAL QUESTIONS 

 What ethical dilemmas are depicted when training AI with culturally specific data?

While watching the film, pay close attention to moments where culturally specific knowledge is translated into algorithmic categories. Ask yourself: What happens when lived experience is reduced to data?

Notice whether the AI system simplifies complex traditions, ecological knowledge, or cultural practices into rigid labels. Does this process create distortion or loss of meaning? Observe if Nehma appears conflicted while categorizing information that may not fit the system’s predefined structure.

Consider issues of consent and ownership. Who controls the data? Who benefits from it? Are the communities whose knowledge is being used adequately acknowledged or compensated?

Also reflect on power imbalance. If algorithmic frameworks are shaped by dominant knowledge systems, how are indigenous epistemologies positioned within them? The film may visually or narratively suggest that technological progress can unintentionally marginalize cultural specificity.

• How does the film’s “human-in-the-loop” metaphor operate beyond the technical term—politically, socially, and culturally?

As you watch, think about the metaphor beyond its technical definition (human supervision in AI training).

Politically, does the film reveal inequalities in global digital labour? Who performs the work, and who holds decision-making power? Observe how Nehma’s labour connects to larger technological structures.

Socially, reflect on whether the film challenges the idea that machines are independent or superior. Does it emphasize human dependency within AI systems?

Culturally, consider whether the “loop” represents a tension between indigenous knowledge and technological logic. Is it a space of conflict, negotiation, or coexistence?

While watching, ask: Is the human truly “in control,” or merely sustaining the system? The metaphor may function as a critique of digital capitalism, knowledge hierarchies, and power structures embedded within AI development.

POST-VIEWING REFLECTIVE ESSAY TASKS

TASK 1 — AI, BIAS, & EPISTEMIC REPRESENTATION 

Technology and Human Knowledge in Humans in the Loop (2024)

Directed by Aranya Sahay, Humans in the Loop explores the complex relationship between artificial intelligence (AI) and human knowledge through the story of Nehma, an Adivasi woman from Jharkhand working in AI data-labelling. The film challenges the common belief that AI is neutral and purely technical. Instead, it presents technology as culturally shaped, socially embedded, and politically influenced. Through narrative structure and cinematic techniques, the film exposes algorithmic bias and highlights epistemic hierarchies—raising questions about whose knowledge is valued in digital systems.

Algorithmic Bias as Culturally Situated

AI is often described as objective and rational. However, the film shows that AI systems learn from human-generated data. Because data reflects social realities, AI can reproduce existing inequalities. In the film, Nehma’s task is to label and categorize data so that machines can “learn.” This process reveals that AI depends on human interpretation. When culturally specific knowledge—such as ecological understanding or traditional practices—is translated into fixed categories, complexity is reduced.

The narrative shows moments where lived experience does not easily fit into algorithmic structures. These scenes suggest that bias is not simply a programming mistake but a result of dominant cultural frameworks embedded in technology. From the perspective of ideology in film studies, AI in the film operates as a system that appears neutral but actually reflects power relations. The categories used by the system are shaped by particular social viewpoints, not universal truths.

Thus, the film argues that algorithmic bias is culturally situated. It emerges from the social and political contexts in which AI systems are designed and trained.

Epistemic Hierarchies: Whose Knowledge Counts?

A major theme in the film is epistemic hierarchy—the ranking of knowledge systems according to perceived value. In technological discourse, scientific and computational knowledge is often seen as superior, while indigenous knowledge is marginalized. Through Nehma’s experience, the film highlights this imbalance.

Although Nehma’s cultural and ecological knowledge is essential for training the AI, it is not treated as authoritative knowledge. Instead, it is converted into data for technological use. Decision-making power remains outside her control. This reflects broader power relations in digital economies, where marginalized communities provide labour but lack authority.

Using representation theory, we can observe that the film challenges stereotypes about Adivasi communities. Rather than portraying Nehma as backward or disconnected from technology, the film represents her as skilled, thoughtful, and intellectually engaged. However, it also shows the limits of her agency within larger technological structures.

The film therefore exposes how technological systems privilege certain forms of knowledge while subordinating others. Knowledge becomes legitimate only when it fits within algorithmic frameworks.

Cinematic Representation and Ideology

The film’s visual style reinforces its critique. The forest and village spaces are shown with natural light, open framing, and ambient sound, suggesting relational and ecological modes of knowing. In contrast, the digital workspace is visually confined and structured, often centered around screens and artificial lighting. This contrast between organic space and technological environment symbolizes the tension between embodied knowledge and algorithmic logic.

Editing rhythms also contribute to meaning. Slower pacing in rural scenes contrasts with repetitive sequences of digital labour. This formal contrast reflects ideological tension—between lived time and machine time.

Drawing on Foucault’s idea of power/knowledge, the film suggests that knowledge is always connected to systems of control. AI functions as a contemporary structure of power that defines categories, determines relevance, and organizes reality. Nehma’s role within this structure shows how individuals participate in sustaining systems that may not fully recognize their knowledge.

Beyond the Technical “Human-in-the-Loop”

Technically, “human in the loop” refers to systems where human supervision is necessary for AI training. However, the film expands this term into a broader metaphor. Politically, it reveals the dependence of advanced technology on marginalized labour. Socially, it challenges the myth that machines function independently of humans. Culturally, it represents a negotiation between indigenous epistemology and algorithmic classification.

The “loop” becomes a space of both connection and inequality. Humans are essential to AI, yet they are not equally empowered within its structure. The film therefore critiques digital capitalism, where innovation is celebrated while human contributors remain invisible.

Conclusion

Humans in the Loop presents AI not as a neutral technological achievement but as a system shaped by culture, ideology, and power relations. By centering an Adivasi woman within a technological narrative, the film exposes algorithmic bias as socially constructed and highlights epistemic hierarchies that determine whose knowledge counts.

Through narrative contrast and cinematic techniques, the film invites viewers to critically examine the relationship between human knowledge and artificial intelligence. It ultimately argues that ethical AI development requires recognizing cultural diversity, redistributing authority, and acknowledging the human labour that sustains technological systems.

How does the narrative expose algorithmic bias as culturally situated rather than purely technical?

The narrative of Humans in the Loop (2024), directed by Aranya Sahay, demonstrates that algorithmic bias is not simply a technical error but a cultural and social issue. The film shows that AI systems learn from data labeled and categorized by humans. Since this data comes from particular social contexts, it carries the assumptions, values, and limitations of those contexts.

Through Nehma’s work as a data-labeller, the narrative reveals how culturally specific knowledge must be adjusted to fit rigid algorithmic categories. When her lived, ecological, and community-based understanding does not align with predefined digital labels, tension emerges. This shows that AI systems are built upon dominant frameworks of knowledge that may not accommodate diverse cultural realities.

The film suggests that bias occurs not because machines “fail,” but because the systems are designed within particular ideological and cultural boundaries. By connecting Nehma’s personal experience with global technological structures, the narrative makes clear that algorithmic bias reflects power relations embedded in society rather than being a neutral computational problem.

In what ways does the film highlight epistemic hierarchies—that is, whose knowledge counts in technological systems?

The film highlights epistemic hierarchies by showing that certain forms of knowledge are privileged over others within technological systems. Scientific, technical, and algorithmic knowledge is treated as authoritative, while indigenous and experiential knowledge is required to adapt itself to technological frameworks.

Although Nehma’s cultural and ecological knowledge is essential for training AI, it is not recognized as independent intellectual authority. Instead, it is transformed into data that serves the system. This demonstrates that marginalized communities contribute significantly to technological production, yet they do not control it.

By portraying an Adivasi woman as central to AI training, the film challenges stereotypes about tribal communities being disconnected from modern technology. However, it also reveals that decision-making power remains concentrated elsewhere. In this way, the film exposes how technological systems reproduce broader social hierarchies—determining whose knowledge is visible, valued, and legitimized.

Ultimately, Humans in the Loop argues that technology is not neutral; it reflects existing structures of cultural and epistemic power.

THEORETICAL LENS SUGGESTIONS:

Apparatus Theory is a film theory that developed in the 1970s, mainly influenced by Marxist and psychoanalytic thinkers such as Jean-Louis Baudry and Christian Metz. The theory argues that cinema is not just a storytelling medium but an ideological apparatus that shapes how viewers see and understand reality.

According to Apparatus Theory, the “apparatus” includes the entire cinematic system—camera, editing, projection, screen, and viewing situation. These technical elements are not neutral. They position the spectator in a specific way and unconsciously guide interpretation. The camera’s framing, point of view, and editing patterns create an illusion of realism and authority, which makes the ideology embedded in the film appear natural and unquestionable.

When applying Apparatus Theory to Humans in the Loop (2024), directed by Aranya Sahay, we can examine how both cinema and AI function as ideological apparatuses. Just as cinema constructs meaning through framing and representation, AI systems construct reality through categorization and data classification. Both systems appear objective but are shaped by social power structures.

For example, the way the film frames Nehma within digital workspaces versus natural landscapes may guide viewers to critically question technological authority. The representation of AI interfaces and surveillance-like screens can mirror societal hierarchies, where marginalized individuals contribute labour but lack decision-making power.

Thus, Apparatus Theory helps us understand that technology in the film is not neutral. It reflects and reproduces ideological structures—just as cinema itself does. The film therefore becomes self-reflexive: it uses the cinematic apparatus to critique technological apparatuses.

TASK 2 LABOR & THE POLITICS OF CINEMATIC VISIBILITY

Invisible Labour and Digital Capitalism in Humans in the Loop (2024)

Directed by Aranya Sahay, Humans in the Loop critically visualizes the hidden human labour that sustains artificial intelligence systems. The film foregrounds data-labelling work—often presented in mainstream discourse as automated or machine-driven—and reveals the emotional, cultural, and social dimensions of this invisible labour. Through its visual language and narrative structure, the film offers a critique of labour conditions under digital capitalism.

Visual Representation of Labelling Work and Emotional Experience

The film’s visual language plays a crucial role in making invisible labour visible. Data-labelling scenes are often framed through close-ups of screens, repetitive hand movements, and confined workspace compositions. This framing emphasizes monotony, precision, and constraint. The limited spatial depth of these scenes may visually reflect restricted agency within digital systems.

In contrast, scenes set in Nehma’s village or forest environment often use wider frames and natural lighting. This visual contrast highlights the shift from relational, embodied life to isolated digital work. The repetitive rhythm of typing, clicking, and categorizing data suggests mechanical routine, while facial expressions and pauses reveal emotional complexity—fatigue, hesitation, reflection, or quiet resistance.

By focusing on the physical and emotional dimensions of labelling work, the film challenges the myth that AI functions independently. It visually insists that behind every “intelligent” system, there is human effort, interpretation, and cognitive labour.

Cultural Valuation of Marginalised Work

The film suggests that digital capitalism depends heavily on marginalized labour while simultaneously rendering it invisible. Data-labelling work is essential for AI training, yet it is socially undervalued and economically undercompensated. The workers remain unseen by the end users who benefit from seamless technological services.

This dynamic reflects broader cultural hierarchies. Technological innovation is celebrated, but the human contributors—often from marginalized communities—are excluded from recognition and authority. The film shows that while Nehma’s knowledge and labour are indispensable, they are not acknowledged as intellectual or creative contributions. Instead, they are reduced to technical support roles.

In this way, the film critiques how capitalist systems assign value. Prestige and visibility are given to developers and corporations, while foundational labour remains peripheral. The invisibility of such work mirrors historical patterns where marginalized communities sustain economic systems without receiving equal status or power.

Empathy, Critique, and Transformation

The film invites empathy by centering Nehma’s perspective. Through close framing, attention to facial expressions, and integration of her personal life with her digital labour, viewers are encouraged to understand her emotional world. This humanization counters the abstraction of technological discourse.

At the same time, the film moves beyond empathy toward critique. By visually contrasting rural ecological life with repetitive digital tasks, it raises questions about exploitation, control, and power. It subtly critiques digital capitalism’s dependence on low-wage, invisible labour.

Importantly, the film also encourages transformation in how labour is perceived. By foregrounding data-labelling as skilled cognitive work rather than mechanical input, it reframes AI development as a collaborative human-machine process. The “human in the loop” metaphor emphasizes interdependence rather than replacement, suggesting that labour should be recognized, valued, and ethically treated.

Conclusion

Through its cinematic techniques and narrative focus, Humans in the Loop exposes the hidden labour sustaining AI systems and critiques the inequalities embedded in digital capitalism. The film not only makes invisible labour visible but also questions how societies value technological work. By inviting empathy and critical reflection, it challenges viewers to reconsider the cultural and economic structures that shape contemporary labour systems.

THEORETICAL LENS SUGGESTIONS:

1. Marxist and Cultural Film Theory

Marxist Film Theory is based on the ideas of Karl Marx, especially his analysis of class struggle, labour exploitation, and capitalism. In film studies, this theory examines how cinema represents economic systems, class relations, and the commodification of human labour.

According to Marxist theory, capitalism turns human labour into a commodity—something that can be bought and sold. Workers often become alienated from the products of their labour, meaning they do not control or fully benefit from what they create. Cultural Film Theory expands this approach by analyzing how films reflect and critique social structures, ideology, and power relations.

When applied to Humans in the Loop (2024), directed by Aranya Sahay, this lens helps us examine how digital capitalism depends on invisible labour. Nehma’s data-labelling work becomes an example of commodified cognitive labour. Although her work is essential for AI systems, she does not control the technology or receive recognition equal to its value.

The film can therefore be read as a critique of capitalist structures where corporations profit from technological innovation while marginalized workers remain economically and socially peripheral. It highlights class inequalities embedded in global digital economies.

2. Representation and Identity Studies

Representation and Identity Studies focus on how films construct identities related to gender, class, caste, race, ethnicity, and culture. This approach asks: Who is visible? Who speaks? Whose experiences are centered? How do cinematic portrayals challenge or reinforce stereotypes?

In technological narratives, marginalized communities are often excluded or portrayed as disconnected from modern innovation. By centering an Adivasi woman in a story about AI, Humans in the Loop challenges dominant assumptions about who contributes to technological systems.

The film represents Nehma not as technologically backward but as intellectually capable and essential to AI development. This shifts the narrative from viewing indigenous communities as passive recipients of modernity to recognizing them as active participants in shaping digital systems.

At the same time, the film also reveals structural inequality—showing that while marginalized identities contribute labour, authority and ownership remain elsewhere. Thus, identity and labour intersect in the cinematic portrayal to expose power imbalances within technological production.

1. Marxist and Cultural Film Theory

Marxist Film Theory is based on the ideas of Karl Marx, especially his analysis of class struggle, labour exploitation, and capitalism. In film studies, this theory examines how cinema represents economic systems, class relations, and the commodification of human labour.

According to Marxist theory, capitalism turns human labour into a commodity—something that can be bought and sold. Workers often become alienated from the products of their labour, meaning they do not control or fully benefit from what they create. Cultural Film Theory expands this approach by analyzing how films reflect and critique social structures, ideology, and power relations.

When applied to Humans in the Loop (2024), directed by Aranya Sahay, this lens helps us examine how digital capitalism depends on invisible labour. Nehma’s data-labelling work becomes an example of commodified cognitive labour. Although her work is essential for AI systems, she does not control the technology or receive recognition equal to its value.

The film can therefore be read as a critique of capitalist structures where corporations profit from technological innovation while marginalized workers remain economically and socially peripheral. It highlights class inequalities embedded in global digital economies.

2. Representation and Identity Studies

Representation and Identity Studies focus on how films construct identities related to gender, class, caste, race, ethnicity, and culture. This approach asks: Who is visible? Who speaks? Whose experiences are centered? How do cinematic portrayals challenge or reinforce stereotypes?

In technological narratives, marginalized communities are often excluded or portrayed as disconnected from modern innovation. By centering an Adivasi woman in a story about AI, Humans in the Loop challenges dominant assumptions about who contributes to technological systems.

The film represents Nehma not as technologically backward but as intellectually capable and essential to AI development. This shifts the narrative from viewing indigenous communities as passive recipients of modernity to recognizing them as active participants in shaping digital systems.

At the same time, the film also reveals structural inequality—showing that while marginalized identities contribute labour, authority and ownership remain elsewhere. Thus, identity and labour intersect in the cinematic portrayal to expose power imbalances within technological production.

TASK 3 — FILM FORM, STRUCTURE & DIGITAL CULTURE 

In Humans in the Loop (2024), directed by Aranya Sahay, film form plays a central role in expressing philosophical concerns about digital culture and human-AI interaction. Through camera work, editing, and sound, the film makes abstract ideas about technology and labour visually and emotionally tangible.

The contrast between natural imagery and digital workspaces is especially important. Scenes set in the forest or village are often shown with wider shots, natural lighting, and ambient sounds. These create a sense of openness and lived experience. In contrast, digital spaces—computer screens and office interiors—are framed more tightly, with artificial lighting and static compositions. This visual difference highlights the tension between organic human life and the structured, mechanical world of algorithms.

Editing also shapes meaning. The repetitive cutting between screens, typing, and labelling tasks reflects the monotonous and fragmented nature of digital labour. The rhythm of these sequences allows the audience to feel the routine and cognitive strain of the work. Through this, invisible labour becomes visible and experiential.

Sound design further strengthens this contrast. Natural sounds such as wind and voices emphasize human presence, while keyboard clicks and notification tones mark technological control. The combination of these elements suggests that AI systems depend on human effort, even if that effort remains hidden.

Overall, the film’s aesthetic choices encourage viewers to reflect on labour, identity, and technology. Rather than presenting AI as purely innovative, the cinematic form reveals its human foundation and invites a critical understanding of digital culture.

Questions

How does the interplay of natural imagery versus digital spaces communicate broader thematic concerns?

In Humans in the Loop (2024), directed by Aranya Sahay, the contrast between natural imagery and digital spaces highlights a central philosophical tension between embodied human knowledge and algorithmic systems. Natural environments are presented as expansive, fluid, and rooted in lived reality. In contrast, digital workspaces appear confined, structured, and artificial. This visual opposition suggests that technology operates by simplifying and categorizing complex human experiences. The film uses this contrast to question whether AI can truly understand or represent nuanced cultural and social realities.

The aesthetic choices shape the viewer’s experience by making digital labour feel repetitive and cognitively demanding. Through close shots of screens and small gestures like typing or clicking, the film emphasizes the meticulous effort behind AI systems. These choices foster empathy for the worker and challenge the perception of technology as automated or self-sufficient. The viewer becomes aware that AI depends on hidden human labour, reshaping how labour and technological progress are perceived.

How do aesthetic choices shape the viewer’s experience of labour, identity, and technology? 

In Humans in the Loop (2024), the interplay between natural settings and digital environments communicates broader concerns about displacement and transformation under digital culture. Natural imagery—open landscapes, ambient sounds, and slower pacing—creates a sense of identity grounded in place and community. Digital spaces, however, are visually rigid and repetitive, reflecting the standardized logic of algorithms. This contrast suggests that digital capitalism reorganizes human experience into data, reducing lived realities into measurable categories.

Aesthetic techniques strongly influence how viewers perceive labour, identity, and technology. The repetitive editing of labelling tasks mirrors the monotony of digital work, allowing the audience to feel its rhythm and strain. Sound design—mechanical clicks versus organic environmental sounds—reinforces the divide between human presence and machine processes. These choices create not only empathy but also critique. The film encourages viewers to question the cultural value assigned to technological systems while the human labour sustaining them remains invisible.

THEORETICAL LENS SUGGESTIONS:

1. Structuralism / Film Semiotics

Structuralism and Film Semiotics examine how meaning in a film is produced through systems of signs—images, symbols, narrative patterns, and visual contrasts. Instead of looking only at the story, this approach studies how the film functions as a structure made up of codes.

In Humans in the Loop, the contrast between forest landscapes and computer screens operates as a system of signs. The forest signifies tradition, lived knowledge, and cultural continuity. The computer interface signifies modernity, abstraction, and algorithmic control. These visual oppositions create a structural binary: nature vs. technology, human knowledge vs. machine logic, visibility vs. invisibility.

Nehma’s data-labelling work becomes a key signifier. Although she appears to perform small, repetitive digital tasks, these images signify a larger global system of AI production. The film uses recurring shots of screens, clicking, and reviewing data as visual codes representing digital capitalism. Through this semiotic structure, the film communicates that AI is not autonomous—it is built on hidden human labour.

2. Formalist and Narrative Theory

Formalist theory focuses on how cinematic techniques—camera, editing, sound, and narrative structure—create meaning. Rather than emphasizing social context first, it closely analyzes film form.

In Humans in the Loop, meaning is shaped through visual composition and pacing. The camera often frames Nehma in close-up while she works, drawing attention to her concentration and emotional engagement. Repetitive editing patterns during labelling sequences mirror the monotony of digital labour. The rhythm of these scenes creates a feeling of routine and cognitive strain.

Narratively, the film structures its story around the contrast between Nehma’s rural life and her digital employment. This parallel structure emphasizes the tension between her identity and the technological system she contributes to. The use of silence and minimal dialogue in work scenes strengthens the sense of isolation within digital spaces.

Through these formal choices, the film does not simply tell the viewer that labour is invisible—it makes the audience experience that invisibility. The techniques themselves generate meaning.

Reference 

Alonso, David V. "Imagining AI Futures in Mainstream Cinema: Socio-Technical Narratives and Social Imaginaries." AI & Society, 2026,https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-026-02880-7. 

Anjum, Nootan. "Aranya Sahay's Humans in the Loop and the Politics of AI Data Labelling." The Federal, 2026, thefederal.com/films/aranya-sahay-humans-in-the-loop-oscar-adivasi-data-labelling-jharkhand-ai-tribal-216946.

Apparatus: Film, Media and Digital Cultures of Central and Eastern Europe. Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, retrieved 15 Feb. 2026, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparatus_(journal) .

Barad, Dilip. "Humans in the Loop: Exploring AI, Labour and Digital Culture." Blog post, Jan. 2026, blog.dilipbarad.com/2026/01/humans-in-loop-film-review-exploringai.html .

Bazin, André. What Is Cinema? Vol. 1, University of California Press, 1967.

Bordwell, David, and Kristin Thompson. Film Art: An Introduction. 12th ed., McGraw-Hill Education, 2019.

Cave, Stephen, et al. "Shuri in the Sea of Dudes: The Cultural Construction of the AI Engineer in Popular Film, 1920–2020." Feminist AI: Critical Perspectives on Algorithms, Data, and Intelligent Machines, Oxford University Press, 2023, pp. 65–82, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192889898.003.0005 .

D'souza, Sahir Avik. "'Humans in the Loop': A Thoughtful Film About the Human Intelligence Behind AI." The Quint, 5 Sept. 2025, thequint.com/entertainment/bollywood/humans-in-the-loop-review-ai-theatrical-release .

Deleuze, Gilles. Cinema 1: The Movement Image. Translated by Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam, University of Minnesota Press, 1983.

"Film Theory." The Year's Work in Critical and Cultural Theory, 2025,https://doi.org/10.1093/ywcct/mbaf004 .

Frías, Carlos L. "The Paradox of Artificial Intelligence in Cinema." Cultura Digital, vol. 2, no. 1, 2024, pp. 5–25,https://doi.org/10.23882/cdig.240999  .

Göker, Deniz. "Human-Like Artificial Intelligence in Indian Cinema: Cultural Narratives, Ethical Dimensions, and Posthuman Perspectives." International Journal of Cultural and Social Studies, vol. 11, no. 2, 2025, pp. 1–10,https://doi.org/10.46442/intjcss.1799907 .

Haris, M. J., et al. "Identifying Gender Bias in Blockbuster Movies through the Lens of Machine Learning." Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 10, 2023, p. 94, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01576-3 .

"Humans in the Loop (Film)." Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, retrieved 15 Feb. 2026, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans_in_the_Loop_(film) .

Indian Express Editorial. "Humans in the Loop Explores How AI Clashes with Traditional Belief Systems." The Indian Express, 3 May 2025, indianexpress.com/article/express-sunday-eye/humans-in-the-loop-explores-how-ai-clashes-with-traditional-belief-systems-9980634/ .

McDonald, Kevin. Film Theory: The Basics. 2nd ed., Routledge, 2023.

Mehrotra, Karishma. "Human Touch." Fifty Two, 2022, fiftytwo.in/story/human-touch/ .

Sahay, Aranya, director. Humans in the Loop. Storiculture, 2024.

Vighi, Fabio. Critical Theory and Film: Rethinking Ideology through Film Noir. Bloomsbury Academic India, 2019.

Thank You !