Association between Manhood and Leadership - Essay Example

(school) Association between Manhood and Leadership Based on Depictions of Masculinity in King Lear and Richard II William Shakespeare is considered one of the most famous and prolific poets and playwrights this world has and would likely ever know. His works have gained much renown from the time they were first written and to date, they continue to gain much praise from literary communities. His themes and messages range from love, loss, heartache, death, war, strife, and all other angst-ridden emotions in between. Some of the messages expressed from his works have been considered subtle, and some have been clearly expressed. Themes seen in some of his works include masculinity and leadership. This is apparent in King Lear, Richard II, Henry V, and to some tragic extent, Hamlet. Shakespeare depicts leadership in various ways, with stories revolving around strong and weak leadership, charismatic leadership, and brash male leadership. This essay will consider depictions of masculinity in the plays King Lear and Richard II. The associations drawn by Shakespeare between manhood and leadership will also be presented. A brief introduction of King Lear and Richard II will first be presented. Then, the general conceptualization of leadership and masculinity by Shakespeare will be discussed. Next, the depictions of leadership and masculinity in the two plays shall be considered. A summary of these concepts will be presented and will conclude this essay. King Lear is a play by Shakespeare which discusses how the main character King Lear eventually descended into madness after illogically distributing his properties between two of his three daughters, swayed by their flattery, and eventually causing negative outcomes for everyone involved (Black and Walker, p. 227). Richard II on the other hand, is a historical play based on the life of King Richard II. The story unfolds with Bolingbroke, the king’s cousin, having a dispute with Mowbray with the king chosen to assess the situation (Thompson, p. 159). A quarrel would break out with accusations made on monies being misused by Mowbray. Richard decides that a duel can instead be carried out in order to settle the argument (Thompson, p. 160). Eventually, both men were banished from England and this decision soon affected other decisions the king made; moreover, he would also be eventually overthrown and put to death for his actions. Shakespeare demonstrates leadership and masculinity in a variety of ways in his plays. Leadership is often demonstrated in various leaders, kings, and other male leaders (Wells, p. 2). The strength in personality is also associated with leadership, including decisiveness and confidence in one’s actions even if these actions be unpopular. In his plays like Henry V, Hamlet, Macbeth, Shakespeare sought to evaluate the psyches of complex and fascinating leaders (Wells, p. 2). He depicted leadership in all their joys and tragedies, in all their toils and their triumphs. His flair for the dramatic and the shocking allowed him to explore the tragic and negative side of leaders, and these elements and qualities made these leaders more relatable. He also understood that great leadership is shaped gradually and fatal flaws of leaders are usually their eventual downfall (Wells, p. 3). Nevertheless, the desirable values of these leaders, including their charisma, wit, diplomacy, and compassion are qualities which also potentially help them succeed. In relation to masculinity, his basic conceptualization is very much based on the Elizabethan era. Masculinity is very much associated with effeminacy (Stewart). On the other hand, extreme virility, seen in persistent self-denial and military vigour is also decidedly important. Military valour and masculinity is therefore is assessed in terms of how honour could be avenged or of proving oneself as equal to one’s father (Stewart). In effect, masculinity is founded on a person’s ability to assert male qualities and dominance, beyond the usual manifestation of strength and triumphs. In relation to King Lear and Richard II, masculinity and leadership is expressed in both similar and unfamiliar ways. In Richard II, leadership inhabited two conceptualizations – the mortal body which is often prone to the weaknesses of mortality, and secondly, body politic which cannot be touched by mortal elements like old age and infirmities (Kantorowicz, p. 24). These two conceptualizations are however part of one inseparable unity with the body politic often considered above the natural body (Kantorowicz, p. 24). In Richard II, these two concepts of leadership are very much clear in various scenes, including the Coast of Wales scenes, and the scenes which unfolded at Westminster. For the coast of Wales, Richard kisses the soil as soon as he gets to England and this shows his devotion and attachment to his territories (Kantorowicz, p. 24). Such leadership and kingship is however gradually compromised especially with the persistence of the rebellion against his regime. His leadership becomes less stalwart with his mind becoming more concerned with rebellion. The body politic of Richard is also compromised when his followers started supporting Bolingbroke. He was therefore forced to concede some of his power and riches, thereby slightly diminishing his kingly stature (Kantorowicz, p. 24). Richard also manifests his leadership as he seeks to hang onto his leadership even if his title does not anymore match his actions. Associations with Jesus and King Richard’s leadership are also apparent when the humbled Christ is considered (Thompson, p. 159). Richard was set to be executed as he lost all elements which were able to secure his kingship. The scene with the mirror represents a moment where the dual conceptualizations of leadership ended (Thompson, p. 159). There is a relinquishment of the leader’s past and present as a leader. Without such trappings, Richard manifested his body politic and went back to his inner thoughts. The duality of Richard as a man and a martyr is one of the dilemmas which eventually caused his death (Thompson, p. 159). As Richard continues to act like a royal martyr, amidst the blood spilled through warfare, England would likely continue to be in danger of warfare and conflicts. Towards the end of the play, Bolingbroke emerged as heir-apparent. This signified a new age for England. Bolingbroke was depicted as an English leader settling in after a major conflict (Kantorowicz, p. 27). Bolingbroke is said to portray and manifest Machiavellian qualities as he rids the court of Richard loyalists. He was a leader who was very much concerned about securing legality for the territories. Through his actions, he signified a leader who was able to make another leader like Richards surrender his crown and discard doubts of his legitimacy as new leader (Kantorowicz, p. 27). In the same Machiavellian conceptualizations, deposed kings must be executed. Bolingbroke had Richard executed in order to safely secure his leadership. The killing itself is carried out by his people, not by him (Kantorowicz, p. 27). The fact that Bolingbroke also manifested piousness indicates his close link with the qualities of leadership laid out by Machiavelli. In the case of King Lear, Lear may have been the king of his country, however, as far as his family is concerned, he is not the ruler, nor is he king. Lear nevertheless has been perceived as the ruler or both his country and his family and the way he ruled his family soon led to his fall from grace and to their deaths (Thacker). Women and their actions and disobedience have often led to their punishment or killing. Masculinity and the patriarchal nature of the society are therefore very much apparent in King Lear (Thacker). As Cordelia did not agree with the decision of her father and king, the king to a certain extent lost part of his power. By pressing his daughters into manifesting their loyalty to him, he instead lost his power and leadership (Thacker). King Lear demonstrates the traditional gender roles commonly seen during the Elizabethan era. Despite strong expectations on masculinity and manhood, King Lear demonstrated instead the loss and lack of manhood (Yow, p. 3). The King also demonstrated emotional weakness by crying. In other words, he allowed his daughters to manipulate and influence his decision. Instead of taking a more kingly trait of being independent, fair, and unbiased, he demonstrated that he could be swayed by the preferences of his daughters (Yow, p. 5). He also allowed one of his daughters to show her objection to his decision. He did not have a tough handle and control over the situation and the consequences of his decision. As a result, flaws in his decision became even more obvious. As a leader, it was his role to be firm and overpowering in his logic and his decisions (Yow, p. 6). Even if his decisions would have gaps in them, portraying confidence in his decisions can put doubts to rest. As King Lear was emasculated by his daughters, he also lost efficacy and credibility as a leader. His failure to portray logical, male, and consistent decisions also affected his ability to be set apart as a strong and effective leader (Yow, p. 7). Under these conditions, masculinity is very much based on gender-based concepts as well as perceptions. Where it is seemingly set aside in favour of vacillating female qualities, leadership becomes superfluous and lacking. His failure to manage his family and his daughters indicated that he could not effectively manage his kingdom and his political and leadership roles (Yow, p. 4). As he was therefore deposed as a leader, he also lost any masculine associations to his actions and decisions. He became ordinary and common. King Lear was written at a time when the concept of femininity and masculinity was not only very rigid, but was also contested (Mabillard). In King Lear, Shakespeare focuses on gender reversals, portraying a society where violation of gender roles can lead to its collapse. The play evaluates the impact of violating these gender roles, with these violations often causing the downfall of the leaders. The play showed how the old king lost his reason and sense of judgment as he also jeopardized his manhood (Breitenberg, p. 45). The king’s masculinity has been founded on his reason, power, as well as his difference from women (Breitenberg, p. 43). The king lost touch of all these elements. Goneril and Regan represent powerful women who also pose a threat on the masculine authority. Cordelia also presents a threat to male authority, however her threat is less obvious. Cordelia also seeks to restore her father’s masculine authority through the authority which she herself was able to acquire (Breitenberg, p. 13). However, even with such intentions, the gender roles are violated, eventually leading to destruction and chaos. These three female characters therefore have a huge role to play in tragic ending of the play. The play starts off with a mistake on Lear’s part as he divided his kingdom unequally among his daughters. As he was later displeased with his daughter Cordelia, he would soon disinherit her for what he perceived to be her daughter’s lack of loyalty to him (Yow, p. 13). His actions indicate his lack of reason as he then proceed to find better care and nursery from his other daughters who are actually more eager to take advantage of their father’s illogical decisions. It is however important to note that Cordelia’s actions can be seen as masculine (Yow, p. 12). Her actions defy the authority of her father the king, and her answers are not influenced by feminine sentimentality. She secures a rational and therefore a masculine manifestation of love, which very much emulates the actions and motivations of her father. Cordelia can also be characterized as masculine as evidenced by her emotional restraint; and by how she controls her emotions even as she is berated by her father (Yow, p. 11). She calmly argues and reasons with her father as she eventually is firm in her decision. In effect, from the first scene, Cordelia is portrayed as possessing of masculine qualities especially in her defiance and her stalwart stoicism even with her father’s anger raging over her (Yow, p. 13). Her attempts at rationality are however not appreciated by King Lear. Lear also breaks away from primary masculine qualities, that of paternal responsibility. Such paternal responsibility resides in kings and leaders, not just in terms of their children, but in relation to their constituents (Smith, p. 23). Lear has therefore abandoned his paternal role by disinheriting Cordelia and by behaving very much like a child. He discards paternal roles including his political responsibility. His manipulative daughters also continue to compromise their father’s authority (Smith, p. 23). The play expresses various gender issues seen today and present at that time. Different themes are also apparent, one is based on the fact that Lear’s masculinity is made an issue as he also shows his lack of reason and his rejection of his kingly responsibilities. Goneril and Regan note such gaps in his leadership and both seek to fill in such gaps. In effect, the falling man and the rising woman are seen in the play (Smith, p. 24). The main cause of the downfall of the society in King Lear’s play is based on the king’s fall from the masculine role. During the Renaissance period, most men were expected to secure heroic characteristics of reason and political power (Rackin, p. 23). Lear did not display either. He lacks reason for one, as he continually displayed unreasonable actions and decisions. In other words, his rational faculties have deserted him to a significant degree. The terms used by his daughters Goneril and Regan to describe their father’s irrationality is also their means of highlighting their perceived rationality (Rackin, p. 23). They accuse their father of being rash, infirm, and unruly in a clear effort to emasculate him. They soon believe that their father has now become insane and unhinged with their demeaning comments continuing to infuriate their father. In this play therefore, the link between masculinity and leadership is very much strong as rationality is associated with masculinity and the eventual qualities of a good and effective leader (Smith, p. 11). As King Lear gradually lost his rationality and succumbed to various illogical decisions, his masculinity and his manhood was not given much credence. As a result, his leadership was also compromised and put in doubt. In Richard II, the association between manhood and leadership are less based on gender roles and qualities. The manifestation of leadership qualities are also not purely distinguished or drawn out from gender-based roles (Bergeron, p. 31). The qualities of a good leader are indicated in terms of being anointed as such and being politically discerning. A king’s power to rule is not founded on his or her right to ascend into the throne, but also in his ability to take on the responsibilities which divine power has appointed to him. His power is based on his role in leading the people wisely, ensuring that the welfare of the nation is beyond personal needs and desires (Hamilton, p. 5). Such concept of leadership in relation to Richard II is based on Tudor and Machiavellian concepts, specifically in terms of kingship as well as power. Richard’s leadership is therefore associated more with divine power, not so much his manhood. Richard is however not able to make the firm and shrewd political decisions (Hamilton, p. 6). His power has been passed on to him and from such power his authority is rightful and he has the strong obligation to support his subjects; however, as he is also weak and self-absorbed, he is unable to fulfil such duty (Hamilton, p. 6). Such inefficacy is seen in the Chronicles by Holinshed, not so much seen in the play. The adjustments instead that Shakespeare has made on the play have been meant to highlight Richard and his divine right. In the end however, these elements and qualities are not sufficient to demonstrate their legitimacy and political power. In some of his decisions, Richard is motivated by jealousy, which is often attributed to women. He is emasculated in some way for making such decision and he also manifested his weakness as a leader by allowing his emotions to affect his decisions (Schoenbaum, p. 41). Leadership therefore is very much affected by the leader’s ability to make decisions based on cold hard logic and facts, not emotions. In the plays Richard II and King Lear, the association between leadership and manhood is very much apparent. The attributes of masculinity including decisiveness, stoicism, and rationality are often linked with effective leadership. In these plays by Shakespeare, the importance of masculine qualities of decisiveness, stoicism, and rationality are very much apparent. Failures in these areas have led to the downfall of both Richard II and King Lear (Marshall). Moreover, with females manifesting traditionally masculine qualities, they were able to manifest effective leadership. King Lear was ultimately a weak leader and who is narcissistic as well as prone to violence. Although these are qualities which are often associated with masculinity, in relation to effective leadership, these qualities are not always helpful (Marshall). It indicates self-absorption which can ultimately lead to negative consequences. The authority of command is therefore based on the appropriate application and use of leadership and masculine qualities. Leadership and manhood are richly associated with each other in Shakespeare’s Richard II and King Lear. Masculinity and manhood are associated with stalwart qualities which also characterize strong and effective leaders. In King Lear, his masculine qualities were basically diminished by his daughters. His irrationality also reduced the efficacy and the power of his leadership. In Richard II, the lead character portrayed qualities which were far removed from masculinity and leadership. Lack of effective leadership eventually led to the downfall of these leaders. In effect, masculinity is mostly associated with qualities, not with the person. As is seen in King Lear, Cordelia portrayed rational qualities which actually made her stand out as a stronger leader than her father. Leadership and masculinity are therefore associated with each other mostly in terms of how qualities of rationality and decisiveness are applied by the leader. Where these qualities are present, better outcomes are often expected from the leader and his constituents. Works Cited Bergeron, D. The Deposition Scene in Richard II. Renaissance Papers 1974, 31–7. Print. Black, J. and Walker, C. King Lear: William Shakespeare. London: Broadview Press. 2010. Print. Breitenberg, M. Anxious Masculinity in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Print. Hamilton, D. The State of Law in Richard II. Shakespeare Quarterly 34.1 (1983): 5-17. Print. Kantorowicz, H. The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1957. Print. Marshall, M. Richard II & Henry V: Lessons in Leadership. 2010. 22 January 2013 Web. Mabillard, A. Representations of Kingship and Power in Shakespeare's Second Tetralogy. Shakespeare Online. 2000. 22 January 2013 < http://www.shakespeare-online.com/essays/Power.html >. Web. Rackin, P. Shakespeare and Women. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Print Schoenbaum, S. Richard II and the Realities of Power. Critical Essays on Shakespeare's Richard II. Ed. Kirby Farrell. New York: G.K. Hall & Co., 1999. Print. Smith, B. Shakespeare and Masculinity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print. Stewart, E. Shakespeare and Masculinity. 2010. 21 January 2013. Web. Thacker, H. Gender and Sexuality in Shakespeare's King Lear. 2009. 20 January 2013 http://suite101.com/article/gender-and-sexuality-in-shakespeares-king-lear-a93285 Web. Thompson, K. Richard II, Martyr. Shakespeare Quarterly 8.2 (Spring 1957), pp. 159–166. Print Wells, R. Shakespeare on Masculinity. 2000. 22 January 2013. Web. Read More