Gender, Power, Authority & Violence in Shakespearean Drama - Essay Example

Gender, Power, ity & Violence in Shakespearean Drama What is often described as the timelessness of Shakespeare, the transcendent quality for which his plays have been praised around the world for centuries, is perhaps better understood as an uncanny timelessness, a quality and capacity to speak directly to circumstances, the playwright could not have foreseen or anticipated. Like a portrait whose eyes follow us around the room, engaging our glance from every angle, the plays and characters seem always to be “modern” always to be “us.” In Shakespeare’s plays we witness violence, disorder and conflict both in comedy and romance and the concept of ordered universe appears widely, since disorder is extensively used in their plots. Clashes and conflicts arise between the members of the hierarchy when those below contradict their superiors or aspire to their positions. But the important conflicts are those which are between reality and appearance; love and friendship, male and female values and love and war. Shakespeare’s Othello, along with Hamlet, King Lear and Macbeth is one of the four great tragedies, and thus a pillar of what most critics consider to be the apex of Shakespeare’s dramatic art. More than anything else that distinguishes Othello from the other tragedies is that it’s a tale of love and betrayal, secrets passion and intrigue. Iago, the villian uses Desdemona’s weakness and naiveté and succeeds in convincing Othello about the infidelity of his young and beautiful wife with his favourite lieutenant, Michael Cassio. Desdemona is almost overly virtuous, which causes her to feel that she must defend Cassio and speak in a public sphere where necessary. She is stronger than Othello believes her to be, and is not the private, withdrawn and meek woman he would ideally like her to be. Desdemona, a young Venetian woman of high birth and good breeding marries Othello out of love. She is an ideal wife appreciated by everyone except the villain. Desdemona’s wifely loyalty and the physical abuse she withstands at the hands of her jealous and distrusting husband are issues that would have made headlines in today’s society. Her concern for Casio shows her generosity, for she will intercede for him with Othello. We believe her when she says that she does not know what it means to be unfaithful and defends herself by saying that the word ‘whore’ is not in her vocabulary. Though Othello loves his beautiful bride but does not know her that well. He is a strong leader, a great warrior, self assured in his abilities to handle military matters but he is insecure with his personal qualities. He is unsure why Desdemona chose him for a husband and could only fathom one explanation, “She loves me for the dangers I have passed.” (Act 1, scene 3, 167) Othello’s sexist treatment of his faithful wife, states that Desdemona is an ideal wife and seems to fulfill even the most conservative expectations and is wise innocent and humble. (Angela Pitt, 1983). Still she has some quite serious faults as a wife, including a strong will of her own, which was evident even before she was married. This does not mean that she merits the terrible accusations flung at her by Othello, nor does she in any way deserve her death, but she is partly responsible for the tragic action of the play. Othello’s behaviour and mounting jealousy are made more comprehensible if we remember what Elizabethan husbands might expect of their wives. If Othello was merely a pawn in Iago’s hands, blinded by hurt and ruined by his own naiveté, it can be shown that Othello allows himself to be manipulated. A suggestion of Desdemona’s infidelity provides just the excuse Othello needs to show his authority and power to justify the destruction of the wife he believes cannot truly love him. Although Desdemona’s death is a result of Othello’s pride and a rush of violent judgment and he may be innately a little evil but, he does little to prevent his base instincts from becoming dominant. Even though Desdemona shows nothing but love for him, still Othello cannot believe in her love wholeheartedly. The devastation in Othello’s character brought the stormy warrior into the scene and after taking the life of his wife, he transformed into his own judge, jury and sentenced himself. When we talk about a great playwright like Shakespeare, a wide range of his plays and productions, often have some challenging new things to say about them and lays bare some of the deeper meanings and theatrical potential of his works. (Peter J. Smith,1995). Among his most interesting essays are those on gender-symbolism. We are reminds us of ways in which successful productions have managed to convey some of their social or political concerns to the present day audience. Bruce R. Smith (2000) while examining gender and Shakespeare helps us travel across the scholarly terrain, building a complex understanding of Elizabethan male identity from a critical vantage point. He outlines various ideals of masculinity and manliness and what it was to be a man in Shakespeare’s time, the values men shared, rejected, feared or strove towards. On the other hand, Carol Rutter (2001) beginning here and now in the late- twentieth century Shakespearean stage, questions and analyses the inherited pattern of dramatic representations of Shakespeare’s female figures and the ways in which some recent productions, overlook, marginalize and reveal modern prejudices towards certain female characters. The gender examination of both these Shakespearean critics could not be more different. In Taming of the Shrew, the main character Katherina is a domineering, sharp-tongued and an opinionated woman. Throughout Padua, she was widely reputed as a foul-tempered girl who constantly insulted and degraded the men around her. She is prone to such a wild display of anger that she physically attacks anyone who enrages her. Like other plays of Shakespeare, Taming of the Shrew lends a lot of interpretations, onstage and the literary criticism. Moreover, according to the modern interpretation the play is further complicated by the central issues as to what role men and women can, and should play in the society and in relationship to each other. Due to Katherina’s intelligence and independence, she is unwilling to play the role of a maiden daughter. She abhors the society’s expectations that she should obey her father and act gracefully and courteously towards her suitors. Katherina feels out of place in her society and no matter what she feels or wants, she has to realize the fact that according to the rigidity of her social situation, the only right thing for her to do was to find a husband, in order to have a secure and happy place in the world. Despite the humiliations and deprivations Petruccio adds to Katherina’s life, it becomes easier to understand why she succumbs to marry a man like him. Petruccio establishes in his very first interview with Katherina that he is her intellectual and verbal equal, and on some levels making him an exciting change from the easily dominated men she was surrounded with. Petruccio’s treatment of Katherina by forcing her to adapt to her social role was showing her that she had no real choice but to follow the laid down norms of the society and accept her role as a wife. Petruccio’s self-serving training which results in Katherina’s eventual compliance appears to be more rational than it might have seemed at first, and by the end of the play she had gained a position and even an authoritative voice which she had been previously denied. Juliet Dusinberre (1996) in her feminist analysis of Shakespeare’s plays claims that Puritan teaching on sexuality and spiritual equality raises questions about women, which feed into the drama, where the role of women in relation to authority structures is constantly renegotiated. The book claimed a right for women to speak about the literary text from their own place in history and culture. And though Petruccio indeed had intentions of marrying wealthily in Padua, but he wanted to do it in an honourable way and have a good time in marriage. As he saw it, it was just a matter of getting his young spoilt wife that she couldn’t go around browbeating not only him, but the world. Leaving aside the issue of gender, Petruccio did a great favour to his Katherina and Shakespeare’s closing scene of mock-subservience on Katherina’s part is merely a happy device. On his wedding day Petruccio is late leaving Katherina to believe that she would die an old maid. When he does arrive, he’s dressed up in a ridiculous outfit and riding a broken-down horse. At the marriage, Katherina struck the priest and Petruccio threw sop in the vicar’s face. Petruccio announces that he must leave and take Katherina with him, leaving the wedding party behind which makes Katherina feel she is being made a fool of. He announces that he would be her master as his goods and chattels and would do with her as he pleased. Sarah Werner (2001) addresses the ambiguity of Shakespeare and the inherent ideology underlying performances of Shakespeare and advocates the study through examining the work of theatre artists and encourages us to see the meaning located in the web of social relations between individual texts and cultural ideologies. The truth of Petruccio’s character probably lies in the fact that he is determined to be the lord and master of his wife, he loves her and realizes that on some level domestic harmony (on his terms) would be better for her than her life as a shrew. Petruccio goes to alarming lengths to impose his mastery on Katherina, keeping her tired and hungry for sometime after her marriage, but he also insists on framing this treatment in a language of love. He indicates his eagerness for Katherina to adapt her rightful social appointed place and his willingness to make their marriage a happy one. Petruccio is also an exaggerated figure who seems to satirize the very gender inequalities that the plot upholds. Katherina not knowing what it was to entreat for anything was starved for want of food, giddy for want of sleep, with oaths kept waking and with brawling fed; and what vexed her most was that it was all being done under the name of perfect love. Petruccio not wanting to starve his wife to death brought her a small portion of meat saying that he had dressed it for her with his own hands. Extreme hunger had abated her pride and though she was angered at heart was forced to say thank you to Petruccio. He stormed at the haberdasher and the tailor and when Katherina tried to speak her mind, he would hear no such thing Petruccio did not want her to have either the cap or the gown, though privately planned to pay for the goods Katherina liked so much. Petruccio wanted her so subdued that she should completely assent to everything he said before he took her to her father’s house and therefore, as if he were the lord of even the sun and could command the hours, he said it should be what time he pleased to have it. He had planned to bring down her proud spirit to such perfect subjection that she dared not remember that there was such a word as contradiction, only then would Petruccio allow her to go to her father’s house. And even on their journey he affirmed that the moon shone brightly at noon and Katherina no longer the Katherina of Shrew but the obedient wife said that it was moon or sun whatever he pleased and if he called it a rush candle henceforth, she vowed it shall be so for her. And though some might see the last scene as the culmination of Kate’s obedience to Petruccio and others, more of an act of mutuality between them and when he tells to discard her cap, he is actually freeing Kate from patriarchal subservience to him and creating a relationship of mutuality rather than hierarchy. When Kate professes obedience to him, Petruccio does not ask her to humiliate herself, instead kisses her indicating mutual affection. Another impressive female character of Shakespeare in Hamlet, is Ophelia who starts off with a healthy mind in the beginning of the play, yet is controlled by her father in her relationship who tells her, “I would not, in plain terms, from this time forth, have you so slander any moment leisure as to give words or talk with the Lord Hamlet. Look to’t, I charge you. Come your ways.” (Act1, scene 2,132-35). Polonius makes decisions for his daughter and she relies on his directions as she had been brought up to be very obedient. During the play she encounters several troubling experiences, along with Hamlet’s strange behaviour and cold rejection towards her. She feels lonely and has no independence, which leaves her mentally unstable and eventually leads to her death. Shakespeare then presents us with the ruthless and remorseless, Lady Macbeth who is a total contrast to Desdemona, Katherina and Ophellia. Lady Macbeth is a strong and a dominating character, is manipulative and a force of evil behind the death of the King Duncan. She is a woman who rules her husband with her psycho-sexual powers. She states, “O, never shall sun that morrow see!” (Act 1, scene 5, 71-72) and is basically ordering Macbeth to murder Duncan in their own house. She challenges her husband, belittles him and calls him not a man, but a coward. She is more ambitious than Macbeth and more resolute, but this persona in the end, proves to be brittle when she is talking in her sleep and trying to wash her hands of the imaginary blood of the King. Thus we cannot but say that Shakespeare has created classic female characters, which have become models of speech and conduct across the centuries. The social political era has certainly had an effect upon the interpretations of his work. Modern productions of the plays often struggle to absolve Shakespeare of antifeminism where women are equal to men but their roles, in different ways have been restricted, stereotyped and minimized. The basic representation of power, violence and gender authority are no doubt the basic material around which Shakespeare constructed his comedies and romances, ensuring dramatic tension and sustained interest but he also presented strong female characters in authoritative roles and as intellectual equals of their male counterparts. Bibliography Brooke, N. (1990). Introduction to William Shakespeare, Macbeth. Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford University Press. Carolyn Ruth Swift Lenz, Gayle Greene and Carol Thomas Neely. (1980). Introduction to The Womans Part. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Chedgzoy, K. (2001). Shakespeare, Feminism and Gender. Palgrave Macmillan. Dusinberre, J. (1996). Shakespeare and the Nature of Women. Palgrave, London. Edward, B. (1984). Shakespeare’s Comic Rites. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Evans, Faith; Rutter; Carol Cusack, Sinead et al. (1988). Clamorous Voices: Shakespeare’s Women Today. The Women’s Press, London. Howard, Jean E. & Rackin Phyllis. (1997). Endangering a Nation: A Feminist Account of Shakespeare’s English Histories. Routledge, London. Lancashire, A. (1991). Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol. 31. No. 2, Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama. Pitt, A. (1983). Shakespeare’s Women. Theatre Journal: Vol, 35. Rutter, C. Chillington. (2001). Enter the Body: Women and Representations on Shakespeare’s Stage. Routeledge, London. Smith, J. Peter. (1995). Social Shakespeare: Aspects of Renaissance Dramaturgy and Contemporary Society . St. Martin’s Press. Smith, R. Bruce. (2000). Shakespeare and Masculinity. Oxford University Press, USA. Werner, S. (2001). Shakespeare and Feminist Performance. Routeledge, London Read More