t is known quite well that language is not only a medium of communication but also a tool of power. Therefore, the relationship between language and power is of cardinal importance in modern literary theory. This is why the poststructuralist philosopher Derrida disowned his reflexive theory of language as a ceiling to fixed meaning. The attribution of unsteadiness in meaning within language is therefore of primary significance.

According to poststructuralists, language is a means of struggle. The discourse on power dynamics is always present. As we study literature, we learn how the language upholds power structures and hierarchies in the reconstruction of texts. Hence, through textual dissection, poststructuralists reveal hidden power relations in language.

Before the structuralist viewpoint, Karl Marx’s (1818–1883) concept of language was considered to be of special importance. From the Marxist perspective, language is viewed as a tool used by the ruling class to maintain its ideological hegemony. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels argue that the dominant ideology of a society is the ideology of the ruling class.

Therefore, language becomes a means for the promotion and development of this ideology. Marx also contends that language shapes people’s beliefs and behaviours in ways that reinforce the status quo. Antonio Gramsci’s (1891–1937) concept of cultural hegemony supports the Marxist language theory.

Gramsci posits that the ruling class maintains its power through control over language and cultural institutions. Literary texts, therefore, become sites where multiple possibilities for ideological discourse exist, and language is seen to construct and affirm social norms. Fakhruddin Nizami’s masnavi (narrative poem) Kadam Rao Padam Rao (1421) contains a couplet:

[One is a magnanimous female cobra, the other a run-of-the-mill snake.
See them together, playing their devices and deceits.]

The first point of the couplet is to denounce the coitus of snakes and serpents as iniquitous, which confirms the state ideology of personal and ethnic differentiation enduring in the Fifteenth Century Deccan.

The second point seems related to the snake and serpent symbols, representing different aspects of the ruling class and different methods of inflicting anguish. The third point of the couplet denotes that the snake (inferior race) and the cobra (superior race) represent different forms of exploitative behaviour by the ruling class.

A similar situation features in DH Lawrence’s (1885–1930) novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover, when the protagonist, Sir Clifford, advises his wife, Connie, to shun sexual relations with Oliver Mellors after his paralysis because he belongs to an inferior race. Like Oliver Mellors and Connie’s physical relationship, the connection between the inferior snake and the superior serpent in Fakhruddin Nizami’s masnavi is considered sinful.

All these interpretations are viable due to the semantic precariousness of creative language, which also reveals two different notions of language in the work of both Marx and Derrida (1930–2004). Feminist literary theory also examines how language perpetuates gender inequality.

In feminist literary theory, language is viewed as a patriarchal construct that marginalises women and reinforces male dominance. The theoretical writings of Julia Kristeva (1941) and Luce Irigaray (1930) provide a rich explanation of how the language of literature reflects patriarchal values. Hélène Cixous’s (1937) concept of écriture féminine marks the creation of a new language capable of expressing women’s experiences and challenging the overriding masculine language of literature.

Colonisers often impose their languages on indigenous peoples, resulting in the extinction of native languages and cultures.

This implies that the feminist perspective attempts to dismantle power structures by constructing new forms of expression.

Similarly, postcolonial theory examines the relationship between language and colonial power. Colonisers often impose their languages on indigenous peoples, resulting in the extinction of native languages and cultures. Here, language becomes a tool of linguistic colonialism.

Edward Said (1935–2003) and Ngugi wa Thiong’o (1938) agree on how colonial languages enshrine colonial power. Said’s concept of Orientalism demonstrates how Western literature portrays the East as the ‘other’ and inferior. Ngugi, on the other hand, sees language as a means of asserting Western superiority, advocating a return to indigenous languages as a form of resistance to colonial power.

Michel Foucault’s (1926–1984) theories of discourse and power have significantly impacted the understanding of language and its dynamics. Foucault argues that power is not only repressive but also productive, paving the way for discourse to shape knowledge and social practices.

The concept of discourse in Foucault’s philosophy involves two modes of ‘speaking’ and ‘thinking,’ through which the truth of things is illuminated. This is why he asserts that those who possess the power of speech hold significant influence. Foucault adds that discourses in literature determine themes and narratives that privilege certain groups while marginalising others. Therefore, an analysis of literary texts can unveil how ‘discourse’ constructs power and reality.

Examples of Deputy Nazir Ahmad’s (1830–1912) novels Ibn-ul-Waqt (Son of the Time) and Mirat-ul-Uroos (Bride’s Mirror) confirm this point. In Ibn-ul-Waqt, the protagonist is a young Indian who abandons his oriental traditions and pursues colonial culture, illustrating the complexities of identity and cultural assimilation.

While this novel critiques the blind imitation of British colonialism, it also emphasises the importance of preserving cultural heritage. In Mirat-ul-Uroos, Nazir Ahmad highlights virtues and vices in Muslim society through the characters of Akbari and Asghari. The narration in this novel reveals Nazir Ahmad’s endorsement of colonial modernity, promoting feminism and rationalism through the character of Asghari. This exemplifies Foucault’s two modes of discourse – ‘speaking’ and ‘thinking.‘

It is important to remember that language also plays a crucial role in constructing identity. The way we use language reflects and shapes our social, ethnic and class identities. Literary theorists, therefore, analyse how words in a text express identity and resist oppression. In sociolinguistics, the concept of code-switching emphasises how individuals navigate different linguistic codes or covert signals in various social contexts. Literature often mirrors identity struggles, revealing the power dynamics inherent in language.

This point regarding language becomes particularly important as new literary theories place special emphasis on the role of the reader in interpreting and understanding the text. The reader-response theory asserts that meaning is not fixed in the text but is created through the interaction between the reader and the text.

This interaction is influenced by the reader’s social and cultural context, challenging the power structures embedded within the text. In this way, readers can evoke power dynamics and, in some cases, resistance through their reading process.

Thus, language is a powerful tool that shapes our understanding of reality and reinforces social hierarchies. In new literary theories, discourse on language holds a central position, spanning from structuralist studies of language to poststructuralist semantic deconstruction, from Marxist theories to feminist critiques of patriarchal language, and from postcolonial resistance to linguistic colonialism to Foucault’s discourse analysis. Each theory presents a unique perspective.

The writer is a poet and a critic. He is an assistant professor of Urdu at Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University in Kanpur, India, and the author of three books.