June's soliloquy

Abstract

Travel is often perceived as a journey of exploration and opportunity, yet its experience is shaped by asymmetrical power structures. This paper examines the contrasting depictions of travel in Aadujeevitham (The Goat Life) and Ayesha, analysing how economic, cultural, and ideological forces define migration as either entrapment or transformation. Through a critical theory lens, the study explores three key aspects: The power dynamics that control migration, the role of ideology in constructing narratives of labour and identity, and the significance of language as a tool of agency or subjugation. Aadujeevitham portrays travel as a coercive act dictated by systemic exploitation, where the protagonist loses autonomy and is reduced to a dehumanized labourer. In contrast, Ayesha presents migration as an act of adaptation and self-reinvention, where the protagonist negotiates power through cultural capital and linguistic agency. The analysis highlights how travel is not a neutral experience but a site of power negotiation, revealing the ideological forces that shape displacement, identity, and survival in globalized labour systems.

Keywords:Travel, Migration, Power Asymmetry, Critical Theory, Ideology, Language, Identity, Displacement, Aadujeevitham, Ayesha

Travel as Power: The Asymmetry of Experience in Aadujeevitham and Ayesha

Critical theories provide essential frameworks for analysing literature and film, revealing the deeper power structures that shape human experiences. Travel, often seen as an act of exploration or self-betterment, is rarely neutral. It is a site of power negotiation, where access, agency, and control are distributed unequally. Aadujeevitham and Ayesha, the two Malayalam films present two contrasting depictions of travel for livelihood—one as entrapment and suffering, the other as adaptation and self-reinvention. By applying critical theory, this study examines how these films expose the asymmetries of travel experience, shaped by economic, cultural, and ideological forces.  The films serve as microcosms of larger societal structures, where travel is not merely a physical movement but a reflection of power dynamics. Through the lens of critical theory, we can interrogate how systems of control—economic, cultural, and ideological—shape the experiences of individuals who travel for survival or opportunity. This paper will explore three key subtopics: (1) Travel and Power: Who Controls the Journey? (2) Critical Theory and the Role of Ideology, and (3) Language, Identity, and Power in Travel. Each section will draw on specific scenes from the films to illustrate the theoretical arguments and provide a nuanced understanding of the asymmetry of travel experiences.

Travel and Power: Who Controls the Journey?

In Aadujeevitham, Najeeb embarks on his journey with the dream of prosperity, only to find himself stripped of autonomy, reduced to an object within a system that exploits migrant labour. His travel is not a means of self-discovery but of survival, dictated by economic structures that render him powerless. His body becomes a site of control—his freedom, movement, and even language are taken away from him, emphasizing how travel is often a coercive act for those on the margins of power. 

One of the most poignant scenes in Aadujeevitham occurs when Najeeb is lured into the desert under the false promise of a well-paying job. The vast, barren landscape becomes a metaphor for his entrapment. The camera lingers on his face as he realizes the gravity of his situation—his dreams of prosperity shattered, replaced by the harsh reality of forced labour. The scene underscores how Najeeb’s journey is not his own; it is controlled by external forces that exploit his vulnerability. His body, once a vessel of hope, becomes a tool for others’ profit, highlighting the dehumanizing effects of economic exploitation. 

The concept of travel as a site of power negotiation is central to understanding the asymmetry of experiences in these films. Travel, in its most basic form, involves movement from one place to another. However, this movement is never free from the influence of power structures. For Najeeb, travel is not a choice but a necessity imposed by economic desperation. His journey is marked by a loss of agency, as he is manipulated and exploited by those who control the systems of labour and migration. This reflects the broader reality of migrant workers who are often lured by the promise of better opportunities, only to find themselves trapped in cycles of exploitation and abuse. 

The power dynamics at play in Aadujeevitham are further complicated by the intersection of economic and cultural forces. Najeeb’s journey is not only shaped by his economic vulnerability but also by his cultural identity as a migrant worker. His status as an outsider renders him invisible within the system, stripping him of the rights and protections afforded to citizens. This invisibility is a form of powerlessness, as it denies him the ability to assert his humanity and demand justice. The film thus exposes the hidden violence of migration, revealing how power operates through the erasure of individual agency and identity. 

In juxtaposition, Ayesha presents a protagonist who, despite also traveling for livelihood, engages in a different kind of negotiation with power. Her journey allows her to adapt, integrate, and ultimately redefine herself. Unlike Najeeb, whose fate is shaped by external forces, Ayesha exercises a degree of agency within the systems she navigates. This contrast highlights how power structures determine whether travel is experienced as empowerment or subjugation. 

A key scene in Ayesha illustrates this difference. When Ayesha arrives in a new city, she is initially overwhelmed by the unfamiliar environment. However, instead of succumbing to despair, she actively seeks out opportunities to adapt. She learns the local language, builds relationships with the community, and gradually carves out a space for herself. This scene demonstrates how Ayesha’s journey, while challenging, is marked by a sense of agency. Unlike Najeeb, she is not entirely at the mercy of external forces; she navigates her circumstances with resilience and resourcefulness. 

Ayesha’s journey is marked by a sense of resilience and resourcefulness. While she faces challenges as a migrant, she is able to navigate her circumstances with a degree of autonomy. This autonomy is not absolute; it is constrained by the same economic and cultural forces that shape Najeeb’s experience. However, Ayesha’s ability to adapt and assert her presence within these constraints reflects a different kind of power—one that is rooted in cultural capital and social networks. Her journey thus serves as a counterpoint to Najeeb’s, highlighting the ways in which power can be negotiated and resisted, even within oppressive systems. 

The juxtaposition of these two journeys reveals the asymmetry of travel experiences. While Najeeb’s travel is characterized by coercion and loss of autonomy, Ayesha’s journey is marked by adaptation and self-reinvention. These contrasting experiences underscore the role of power in shaping the outcomes of travel. They also raise important questions about the conditions under which travel can become a site of empowerment rather than subjugation. 

Critical Theory and the Role of Ideology

One of the key concerns of critical theory is how ideology shapes perception and experience. Both Aadujeevitham and Ayesha engage with ideological constructs surrounding migration, labour, and identity. Aadujeevitham deconstructs the myth of migration as a pathway to success, exposing the hidden violence within the system. Najeeb’s suffering is not an individual failure but a consequence of larger socio-political structures that control migrant labour. His experience aligns with the critical theory argument that ideology often masks oppression, making systems of exploitation appear as opportunities. 

A powerful scene in Aadujeevitham illustrates this point. Najeeb is shown working under the scorching sun, herding goats in the desert. The camera captures the stark contrast between his physical labour and the opulence of the landowners who profit from his work. This visual contrast  exposes the ideological underpinnings of the system—the myth of hard work leading to success is shattered, revealing the brutal reality of exploitation. Najeeb’s suffering is not an isolated incident; it is a systemic issue rooted in economic and political structures that prioritize profit over human dignity. 

The ideological constructs surrounding migration are deeply rooted in the global economic system. Migration is often framed as a solution to poverty and unemployment, with migrant workers portrayed as agents of their own destiny. However, this narrative obscures the structural inequalities that force individuals to migrate in the first place. Aadujeevitham challenges this narrative by exposing the harsh realities of migrant labour. Najeeb’s journey is not a story of upward mobility but of exploitation and suffering. The film thus serves as a critique of the ideological constructs that justify and perpetuate systems of inequality. 

The role of ideology in shaping perceptions of migration is further complicated by the intersection of economic and cultural forces. Migrant workers are often portrayed as outsiders, whose labour is valued but whose humanity is denied. This dehumanization is a form of ideological violence, as it justifies the exploitation and abuse of migrant workers. Aadujeevitham exposes this violence by depicting Najeeb’s suffering in stark and unflinching terms. His experience is not an isolated incident but a reflection of the broader systemic inequalities that shape the lives of migrant workers. 

In Ayesha, the protagonist operates within another ideological framework—one that allows for adaptation through cultural capital. Her mobility is not without challenges, but she is able to assert control over her experience. The film presents an alternative narrative to migration, where travel can also function as a means of transformation rather than just loss. 

A pivotal scene in Ayesha occurs when she attends a community gathering in her new city. Despite being an outsider, she uses her cultural knowledge and language skills to connect with the locals. This scene highlights how ideology can also function as a tool of empowerment. Ayesha’s ability to navigate cultural spaces allows her to redefine her identity and assert her presence in a foreign land. Unlike Najeeb, who is trapped by the ideological structures that exploit him, Ayesha uses ideology to her advantage, transforming her journey into one of self-reinvention. 

Ayesha’s journey is shaped by her ability to navigate cultural spaces and assert her presence within them. This ability is rooted in her cultural capital, which allows her to adapt and integrate into new environments. However, this cultural capital is not equally accessible to all migrants. It is shaped by factors such as education, language skills, and social networks, which are themselves products of structural inequalities. Ayesha thus highlights the ways in which ideology can function as a tool of empowerment, but only for those who have access to the necessary resources. 

By comparing these perspectives, critical theory helps us understand how ideology constructs different realities within the same phenomenon of migration. While Aadujeevitham exposes the oppressive nature of ideological constructs, Ayesha demonstrates how ideology can also be a site of resistance and transformation. These films thus provide a nuanced understanding of the role of ideology in shaping the experiences of migrants, highlighting the ways in which power operates through both oppression and resistance. 

Language, Identity, and Power in Travel

Language plays a crucial role in both films, reinforcing the asymmetry of travel experiences. Najeeb’s linguistic isolation in Aadujeevitham exacerbates his powerlessness, rendering him incapable of asserting himself in an unfamiliar environment. His silence becomes symbolic of his erasure within the system that controls him. Critical theory, particularly in relation to discourse and power, reveals how language—or the lack of it—serves as a mechanism of control in travel narratives. 

A striking scene in Aadujeevitham depicts Najeeb attempting to communicate with his captors. His inability to speak their language leaves him voiceless, both literally and metaphorically. This linguistic barrier reinforces his status as an outsider, stripping him of the ability to advocate for himself. The scene underscores how language functions as a tool of power, determining who has the right to speak and who is silenced. 

The relationship between language and power is a central concern of critical theory. Language is not merely a tool of communication; it is also a site of power negotiation. Those who control language have the power to define reality, while those who lack access to language are rendered voiceless. This dynamic is evident in Aadujeevitham, where Najeeb’s inability to speak the language of his captors leaves him powerless to assert his humanity. His silence is not a choice but a consequence of his marginalization within the system. 

The role of language in shaping identity is further complicated by the intersection of cultural and economic forces. Migrant workers are often denied access to the language of the dominant culture, which reinforces their status as outsiders. This linguistic exclusion is a form of symbolic violence, as it denies migrants the ability to participate fully in society. Aadujeevitham exposes this violence by depicting Najeeb’s linguistic isolation as a key factor in his suffering. His inability to communicate renders him invisible within the system, stripping him of the ability to advocate for himself. 

In contrast, Ayesha engages with language as a tool of agency. The protagonist navigates multiple cultural spaces, using language as a means to establish connections and assert her presence. Her ability to communicate allows her to negotiate her space in a foreign land, reinforcing how access to discourse is linked to power. 

A key scene in Ayesha illustrates this dynamic. When Ayesha is confronted with a challenging situation, she uses her language skills to defuse tension and assert her position. This moment highlights how language can serve as a form of resistance, enabling individuals to reclaim their agency in unfamiliar environments. Unlike Najeeb, whose linguistic isolation renders him powerless, Ayesha’s command of language empowers her to navigate her journey with confidence. 

Ayesha’s command of language is a form of cultural capital, which enables her to navigate her journey with a degree of autonomy. However, this cultural capital is not equally accessible to all migrants. It is shaped by factors such as education and social networks, which are themselves products of structural inequalities. Ayesha thus highlights the ways in which language can function as a tool of empowerment, but only for those who have access to the necessary resources. 

By analysing these films through a critical lens, we see how language determines who has the right to belong and who remains invisible. The contrast between Najeeb’s silence and Ayesha’s voice underscores the role of language in shaping the outcomes of travel. These films thus provide a nuanced understanding of the relationship between language, identity, and power, highlighting the ways in which power operates through both exclusion and inclusion. 

Conclusion

As the seminar theme suggests, critical theories offer deeper insights into literature and film, exposing the power dynamics that shape human experiences. Aadujeevitham and Ayesha serve as compelling case studies of travel as power asymmetry—one depicting entrapment and suffering, the other, adaptation and self-reinvention. By applying critical theory, we move beyond the surface narratives of migration and livelihood to uncover the ideological forces at play. 

These films remind us that travel is not simply a movement across spaces—it is a negotiation with systems of power that determine whether one emerges as a subject or an object within the journey. Through the lens of critical theory, we gain a deeper understanding of how economic, cultural, and ideological forces shape the experiences of those who travel for survival or opportunity. By examining the asymmetry of travel experiences in Aadujeevitham and Ayesha, we are reminded of the urgent need to interrogate the power structures that govern our world. 

References

Aamir, A. (Director). (2023). Ayesha [Film]. Jebin Productions.

Blessy, B. (Director). (2024). Aadujeevitham [Film]. Visual Romance & Alta Global Media.

Blessy. (2024, March 21). I told Prithviraj that he should not look confident while playing Najeeb: Blessy[Interview].FilmCompanion.https://www.filmcompanion.in/interviews/malayalam-interview/i-told-prithviraj-that-he-should-not-look-confident-while-playing-najeeb-blessy-aadujeevitham-ar-rahman-amala-paul

Menon, V. (Host). (2024, March 21). Prithviraj interview with Vishal Menon | Aadujeevitham [Interview]. Film Companion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9YIeuUBaGU

MediaOneTV Live. (2024, March 21). Director Blessy interview | Aadujeevitham | The Goat Life | Prithviraj [Interview]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoDn87JRtZ0

Mathrubhumi News. (2023, January 20). Manju Warrier and Nilambur Ayisha special interview [Interview]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uay3j-fFUpc

Top News Kerala. (2023, January 20). Manju Warrier and Nilambur Ayisha special interview [Interview]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe_T1qn4H6g