Teaching Literature for Employability

The revolutionary changes brought about by 21st-century technology have significantly altered the way we view teaching, learning, and employing literature. Many are supporting the claim to its redundancy and are advocating the closure of literature teaching departments in universities quoting the lack of employability of degrees in literature in the tech-driven world of 21st century. While it may appear that literature has lost its immediate value as a direct livelihood tool, this does not mean that teachers, students, or lovers of literature should abandon this discipline. Instead, it is imperative to adopt new pedagogical approaches that reposition literature as a skill-building and employability-oriented field, rather than one confined to passive reading and aesthetic enjoyment. Literature is the storehouse of knowledge and experiences of highly imaginative genius minds and ignoring its teaching would be an injustice to the progeny of humanity by denying them this rich area of knowledge and aesthetics.  Besides, teaching literature means helping people, tell, listen and analyze the stories of individual as well as collective. Abandoning teaching of literature would deny this opportunity of storytelling to humanity. 

Literature must evolve into a discipline that fosters transferable skills essential for navigating the rapidly changing technological and economic landscapes of the 21st century. UNESCO and the World Economic Forum highlight at least five core competencies required for sustainability in contemporary society: critical thinking and problem solving, communication and collaboration, cultural understanding, creativity, and digital literacy. Literature, when taught innovatively, can nurture all these skills and thus ensure its continued relevance. Teachers can transform literature classes into dynamic spaces for skill development. For instance, Critical Thinking can be cultivated by comparing dystopian texts such as George Orwell’s 1984 and Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, which encourage students to analyze power, surveillance, and gender politics from different angles. Cultural Literacy can emerge through reading Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart alongside Kamila Shamsie’s Home Fire, prompting students to reflect on colonialism, identity, and cross-cultural conflicts. Communication Skills can be enhanced through debating Shakespeare’s Hamlet or staging scenes from Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, exercises that sharpen persuasive expression and public speaking. Creativity and Innovation can be encouraged by asking students to reimagine Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein as a modern AI ethics narrative, blending literary study with technological imagination.

Beyond classroom engagement, literature teaching can be reoriented towards employment-oriented activities. In today’s digital economy, content creation for blogs, podcasts, YouTube channels, book reviews, and storytelling platforms has become highly significant. For example, students analyzing Emily Dickinson’s poetry can transform their interpretations into short-form video essays for TikTok or Instagram, thereby practicing digital communication and audience engagement. Similarly, classes on narrative structure can be linked to scriptwriting, journalism, or creative advertising, opening pathways into the creative industries. Teaching literature may emphasize more on these proliferating activities rather than simple classroom analysis. Moreover, the study of literature also provides opportunities to explore leadership and ethics. Shakespeare’s Macbeth offers a case study in ambition and moral compromise, while Orwell’s 1984 raises questions about propaganda, governance, and truth, which are skills relevant for leadership training, policy analysis, and media literacy. Furthermore, with the global demand for English and multilingual communication, literature can serve as a resource for teaching and interpreting language. For instance, analyzing Jhumpa Lahiri’s Interpreter of Maladies allows students to see how cultural translation, empathy, and nuanced communication operate—skills essential for international careers.

To remain relevant, literature must also embrace artificial intelligence and digital humanities. Students can use text-mining tools to compare language patterns in Shakespeare’s tragedies and comedies or create digital corpora to track the evolution of themes such as migration in contemporary fiction. AI can also be used to generate visual adaptations of texts, such as book trailers or interactive storytelling projects, combining literary study with technological fluency. A revolutionary shift in pedagogy is required, moving from traditional instruction to project-based and interdisciplinary learning. Literature can relate to psychology (Freudian readings of Kafka), politics (postcolonial readings of Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o), economics (Dickens on industrial capitalism), media studies (film adaptations of Jane Austen), and environmental studies (eco-criticism in Amitav Ghosh’s The Hungry Tide). Experiential approaches, such as theatre workshops simulating historical debates, or student-led podcasts reviewing contemporary novels, can make literature more interactive. By encouraging learners to design newsletters, blogs, or social media campaigns inspired by texts, teachers help them practice professional communication in digital formats.

Ultimately, literature is no longer just about books; it is about cultivating skills for life, society, and work. In the 21st century, literature must be reframed not as a relic of cultural tradition but as a living discipline that equips learners with vital competencies. Through critical thinking, creativity, cultural understanding, digital literacy, and communication skills, literature can contribute meaningfully to employability and social development. By embracing interdisciplinary approaches, digital tools, and experiential pedagogy, literature teaching can prepare students not only to appreciate texts but also to thrive in an increasingly complex and technologically driven world.

The Rise of Convenience Culture: A Critical Appraisal

 

Since the advent of Covid-19, societies across the globe were introduced more forcefully to what we may call a convenience culture. This culture is characterized by the ease of purchasing goods, accessing services, and conducting daily activities online, often with just a few clicks. During the pandemic, when physical interaction was restricted to curb the spread of the virus, this mode of living seemed not only useful but necessary. Food, medicine, and household items could be ordered from home and delivered through courier services. Educational institutions, workplaces, and even social gatherings moved to virtual platforms. While this shift initially represented an effort to safeguard human lives, the trend has continued even in the post-Covid years, embedding convenience culture as an integral part of modern lifestyles. However, convenience culture is not limited merely to the purchase of commodities. A wide range of services are now available online. For instance, ride-hailing services such as Uber and Careem, food delivery platforms like Foodpanda, and online grocery apps have become part of everyday life. On the surface, this provides comfort, time-efficiency, and flexibility. Yet, beneath this convenience lies a range of social, psychological, and environmental costs that are often overlooked.

One hidden cost is the risk borne by service providers. For example, delivery riders often drive under pressure to meet deadlines, exposing themselves to traffic hazards. Another cost is environmental: the packaging materials involved in online deliveries contribute significantly to waste and pollution. Furthermore, the reliance on digital platforms reduces opportunities for face-to-face interaction. Traditionally, visiting a marketplace or shopping center allowed individuals to engage in casual social exchanges, observe products firsthand, and build connections within the community. This type of interaction, which contributed to confidence, trust, and community spirit, is increasingly disappearing. Education has also been affected. Learning, which thrives in the physical presence of teachers and students, has shifted substantially online. While online classes offer accessibility, they often lack the depth of real-time human interaction. Nuances of communication, immediate feedback, and the sense of community inherent in a classroom environment are diminished when teaching is reduced to video or audio calls.

Moreover, the glamour of convenience culture fades when its fragility becomes apparent. Poor internet connectivity, technical glitches, or sudden system shutdowns cause frustration and disrupt important activities. Issues such as data breaches and cybercrime further expose consumers to risks that are not easily reparable. Even when applications function smoothly, their maintenance costs are indirectly passed on to users, creating economic burdens under the guise of “free access.” Thus, the one-click lifestyle often results in socio-psychological inconvenience despite its initial promise of ease. The erosion of human relationships is perhaps the greatest casualty. Social media interactions—likes, comments, and shares—are increasingly replacing genuine human connection. What was once achieved through gatherings, shopping trips, and face-to-face exchanges is now mediated through screens. This not only diminishes empathy and emotional depth but also weakens the bonds that sustain communities. For example, previously, shopping excursions were occasions of recreation, friendship-building, and shared experiences. These have largely been replaced by solitary scrolling and digital transactions. Another dimension often neglected is the environmental footprint of convenience culture. Data centers, which store and process the massive amounts of online activity, consume vast amounts of energy and require rare-earth materials for maintenance. These costs are seldom discussed in public debates but represent a significant burden on the planet. Admittedly, convenience culture has created economic opportunities. The rise of digital platforms has opened new businesses and provided employment to many young people, particularly in developing countries. However, these gains come with trade-offs, as many traditional businesses, small shops, and community marketplaces have struggled to survive against the tide of online consumerism.

In conclusion, convenience culture—though initially embraced as a survival mechanism during the pandemic—has now become a permanent lifestyle feature with profound implications. While it offers efficiency and creates economic opportunities, it simultaneously undermines human relationships, weakens community ties, burdens the environment, and creates new psychological and social challenges. The task ahead is not to reject convenience altogether but to strike a balance: to embrace technology where it truly adds value while safeguarding the social, communal, and ecological dimensions of human life.

When Politics Meets Cancel Culture

Whenever one turns on the television, whether at home or elsewhere, it is common to see politicians participating in talk shows or panel discussions, primarily engaging in personal attacks against their opponents. Such confrontations are often aimed at portraying oneself as the most capable and dedicated leader, eager to serve the nation, while presenting the opponent as utterly unworthy of respect or consideration. Unfortunately, these exchanges rarely introduce constructive agendas or policy proposals; instead, the focus is almost entirely on discrediting rivals. This style of discourse feeds into the broader phenomenon of “cancel culture,” which has gained significant traction on social media. This is happening not only in the developing counties but also in the advanced states of the globe and is promoted mostly by the populist leaders. Be it east or the west, the agenda of undermining one’s opponents is in full swing. This cancel-culture is seeping and spreading not only in politics but also almost every section of society which is rapidly spiraling into increase in street crimes, hate, intolerance and self-aggrandizement. Be it parliament, pressers, media meet, the opponents are derailed instead of debating policy for the public benefit. Politics is being discussed, promoted and popularized but there are no solutions for the issues of the people debated. Where are the politicians whose main aims were to promote people not individuals? 

On these platforms, ordinary users, celebrities, and the media arms of political parties frequently participate in campaigns to highlight and amplify the alleged flaws and shortcomings of their opponents. The original purpose of cancel culture, intended to promote accountability, uphold healthy social values, and encourage constructive discussion about individuals, issues, and institutions, has largely been lost. Instead, it has devolved into a mechanism for personal attacks, fostering hostility, and aggravating societal divisions. Whenever an incident occurs or an individual voices an opinion—particularly on matters of national interest, online discourse often quickly descends into trolling, harassment, and the dissemination of inflammatory content. These reactions generate anger, distrust, and polarization, undermining the democratic spirit that social media was once believed to foster. Political self-promotion now dominates these spaces, overshadowing the possibility of productive dialogue.

While this dynamic may provide short-term satisfaction for certain politicians, both domestically and internationally, it is producing a deep and damaging divide within society. Young people, in particular, are either left confused about which perspectives to trust or become blind followers of partisan rhetoric. Cancel culture, as practiced in televised debates and on social media, has reduced public engagement to the uncritical acceptance of one side’s views while rejecting or ridiculing all others. Ideally, political discourse should focus on substantive agendas, enabling the public to evaluate ideas, policies, and ideologies before forming opinions. Open and respectful debate helps citizens determine whether a proposal is beneficial or harmful. Instead, the current climate fosters personal hostility toward anyone who holds even a slightly different viewpoint, further entrenching social divisions. It is imperative that political actors in our country reassess their approach. Rather than undermining opponents in the harshest possible terms, they should work toward the intellectual and moral development of youth and the overall progress of the nation. Democracy cannot be established, let alone flourish, in an environment characterized by factionalism, segregation, and hostility. Such conditions nurture authoritarian tendencies rather than democratic ones.

Politicians must also recognize the far-reaching consequences of their public statements. Once broadcast or posted online, their words can quickly spread globally, often being edited, reframed, or repurposed to serve narrow, self-interested agendas with little regard for the collective good. If this trend continues unchecked, the long-term result will be a society where mutual antagonism is the norm and national unity becomes impossible. Besides, such unchecked spread of hate for opponents develops a personality focused fellowship instead performance- based fellowship. Consequently, the national and collective benefit is left far behind, and people and individuals gain more ground which ultimately generates an unhealthy trend of democracy.

This is not to say that disagreement should be silenced—healthy debate is essential to democracy. However, political discourse must avoid becoming personal or divisive. Healthy debates are promoted only at that time when such discussions take place, but it does not mean that it should be taken at the personal level and psychologically speaking the politicians should make such speeches or should talk or discuss such things in a way that people are divided. This tendency should be discouraged and instead every politician should come forward to make a nation which is healthier positive debating and is emerging with the best possible view for the benefit of the country and the people. The leaders may discuss their policies and promote their agenda for the national benefit instead of keeping on claiming ‘better than thou’ status. Leaders should strive to cultivate a culture of respectful discussion, critical thinking, and cooperation, with the shared aim of building a positive, forward-looking society for the benefit of all citizens.

The healthy debates are only taking place at that time when such discussions take place but it does not mean that it should be taken at the personal level and psychologically speaking the politicians should make such speeches or should talk or discuss such things in such a way that people are divided that tendency should be discouraged and instead every politician should come for to come forward in order to make a nation which is healthier positive debating and is emerging with a best possible view for the benefit of the country and the people.