Can Shakespeare Survive Woke?

The prevailing winds of ideology are sweeping through the cultural world today and stirring up the currents of Shakespeare criticism. A good example is Elizabeth Frazer’s new book, Shakespeare and the Political Way. Her goal is admirable. Although she does not regard Shakespeare as a political thinker in his own right, she does believe that we can learn about politics from studying his plays. Contrary to many traditional commentators from English departments, she does not adopt a strictly aesthetic perspective and treat politics as a sordid subject, well beneath Shakespeare’s lofty concerns as a great poet. As a political scientist, Frazer understands public life as something more than just a field in which narrowly partisan interests contend. Taking a cue from Aristotle, she views politics as one of the broadest and most significant fields of human endeavor. Accordingly, Frazer recognizes that political life is important in the world of Shakespeare’s plays. But so are other ways of life, and Frazer sees that much of the drama in his plays stems from the complex way in which the legitimate demands of politics repeatedly clash with the legitimate demands of other sources of commitment in human life, among them, the family, romantic love, and religion.

Unfortunately, the conception of politics with which Frazer operates is too narrow for her to be open to the wide range of political possibilities Shakespeare explores in his plays. For Frazer, politics is fundamentally democratic politics, and a left-wing, social-justice brand of democracy at that. For Frazer, a good political system must first and foremost be able to tolerate and incorporate dissenting voices. In Frazer’s definition of politics, she clearly is thinking in terms of contemporary democratic politics: “Politics, after all, is preeminently a practice, a world, of speech—counsellors advise, protesters argue and sloganize, debaters persuade, rulers consult and pronounce”. Where Shakespeare might portray an angry mob unleashing its fury, Frazer sees peaceful protesters with their slogans. This is indeed the world according to modern political science, a world in which public opinion is supposed to rule and politics largely becomes the attempt to mold and control it. Frazer views Shakespeare’s political world from the perspective of a poll watcher, trying to make sure that every vote counts.

It is understandable that Frazer thinks in terms of democratic politics—that is, after all, what she has been studying for her whole career. Her orientation to modern politics at least has the virtue of alerting her to Shakespeare’s interest in republican forms of government. For most of the history of Shakespeare criticism, scholars have by and large assumed that Shakespeare uncritically endorsed monarchy, since it was supposedly the only form of government of which he had any experience. Only in recent decades have critics such as Andrew Hadfield taken seriously the possibility that Shakespeare may have regarded republics as a viable alternative to monarchies. In fact, in his choice of political settings for his plays, Shakespeare displays a marked fascination with republican forms of government, from ancient Rome to modern Venice.

Maybe one of the values for us of studying Shakespeare is that he was a pre-modern thinker and thus can offer alternatives to our modern, democratic ways of thought. Studying his plays can help reopen for us the ancient question of aristocracy versus democracy.

Frazer is to be applauded for devoting nearly as much time to republics as she does to monarchies in her book. But even here, she fails to acknowledge that Shakespeare deals with aristocratic republics, in which the common people have at best a limited place in the regime. In Shakespeare’s portrayal, Rome and Venice are basically ruled by senators, that is, by wealthy aristocrats. But Frazer does not take kindly to aristocrats; in her political universe, aristocracy is a sham. After all, all human beings are created equal, a truth apparently as self-evident to Elizabeth Frazer and it was to Thomas Jefferson.

Consider one of Frazer’s most fundamental pronouncements: “If we begin with free and equal individuals, with needs that should be met—as modern thinkers including Shakespeare himself do, up to a point—then final authorities, and their pronouncements and actions should be bounded by people’s assent, as well as their needs. That is, there is an inference from the sovereignty of the individual, to popular (that is shared or aggregated) sovereignty”. Talk about begging the question! Frazer begins with the premise that human beings are free and equal, but that is precisely what is at issue in the debate between aristocracy and democracy. She understands that this is a distinctively modern political position, but then simply assumes, without any argument, that Shakespeare is a modern thinker and therefore he must be fundamentally democratic in his thinking.

But at first sight, Shakespeare appears to take aristocracy seriously. In accordance with the classic principle of decorum, all his tragic heroes are of noble birth (even Romeo and Juliet come from prominent families in Verona). They typically occupy exalted positions in society (kings, queens, princes, generals) and they derive their gravitas as tragic figures from the fact that their stories are more than merely personal; the fate of a whole community rests upon what they do. To be sure, Shakespeare repeatedly distinguishes nobility by nature from nobility by convention. Many of his nobly born characters turn out to be quite ignoble in their actions. But still, Shakespeare’s aim seems to be precisely to distinguish true nobility from false, and he invokes the categories of the noble and the base throughout his plays, especially the tragedies.

Maybe one of the values for us of studying Shakespeare is that he was a pre-modern thinker and thus can offer alternatives to our modern, democratic ways of thought. Studying his plays can help reopen for us the ancient question of aristocracy versus democracy. As loyal citizens of democratic regimes today, we are understandably reluctant to reopen this debate, which we regard as settled because we have no desire to call into question the kind of regime under which we all live comfortably. But can we fully understand the argument for democracy if we do not consider the counterargument for aristocracy?  We may ultimately decide in favor of democracy, but we might be able to compensate for and correct some of its defects if we become aware of the good things we may lose when we reject aristocracy, among them old-style high-mindedness and public spiritedness.

After years of studying politics in Shakespeare, I have concluded that on many fundamental issues, he is closer to the ancients than the moderns, that he has more in common with Plato and Aristotle than he does with Hobbes and Locke. In particular, Shakespeare wrote just before the great invention of modern political science—representative government—was theorized by Hobbes and Locke. When Shakespeare thought about democracy, he had in mind the direct democracy of, say, ancient Athens. If he had doubts about this kind of democracy, one could say in his defense that these doubts were shared by the Founding Fathers of the United States.

They designed a regime, a constitution, with a view to neutralizing the defects of the direct democracy of the “petty republics of Greece and Italy” (Federalist, #9). Instead of having the common people rule directly, the US Constitution allows them to exert their popular sovereignty only indirectly through the forms of representative government. Based on the principles of separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism, the US Constitution moderates the potential excesses of direct democracy. One sees here at work the great hope of modern political science—that we could create a set of political institutions that would make up for the fact that we cannot reasonably expect to be governed directly by the best of human beings (the aristocratic principle).

Here is where Shakespeare parts company with modern political thinkers and returns to the ancients and their intellectual quest for the best regime. For Shakespeare, the fundamental question about any regime is not: “What are the rules?” but: “Who rules?” Shakespeare wants to know of a given ruler: Will he make the right political decision, regardless of whether anyone agrees with him or whether he follows the correct procedures?  But Frazer thinks of all government as representative. She wants a ruler, not just to come up with the right thing to do, but also to get the people to consent to it, and ultimately, for her, consent seems to be more important than wisdom in any political action.

Frazer explicitly rejects the ancient focus on the quest for the best regime as undemocratic: “It might be nice if societies were to be run by wise magicians, or divinely ordained sovereigns with omnipotent capacities, or benevolent dictators. But, who are they? They are only people like those they govern”. So much for Plato’s Republic and Shakespeare’s The Tempest with its portrait of Prospero as philosopher-king.   Frazer cannot imagine that the premise of aristocracy might be true—that some people are by nature better than others and are entitled to rule by virtue of their excellence.

For Shakespeare, King Lear is not just like the people he governs; for all his faults, with his commanding presence he towers above ordinary people. According to the Earl of Kent, Lear’s authority is written clearly on his face for all his subjects to see. I realize how distasteful these ideas must sound to partisans of democracy. Frazer’s democratic biases are so great that they distort her reading of King Lear. Contrary to the way audiences normally react, she sides with Goneril and Oswald against Lear and Kent. Given her focus on politics as speech, she views verbal attacks as just as violent as physical attacks. Thus, for Frazer, Goneril and Oswald become the victims in the play, not as they appear to be, the villains. Goneril is the victim of Lear’s monumental curses; Oswald of Kent’s aristocratic contempt for him as a lowly serving man.

Instead of viewing the individual characters Shakespeare created in the moral context of the play, she sees a generic woman and a generic servant and that leads her to champion their cause as victims of oppression. This is the result of invoking identity politics in literary criticism; you see stereotypes where Shakespeare has created individualized human beings.

In Frazer’s view, because Goneril and Oswald are subject to verbal abuse from Lear and Kent, they are examples of the marginalized figures—women and servants—who suffer under Lear’s regime. Frazer is truly “woke”: she views speeches as the equivalent of deeds, lumping together in one category “Lear’s cruel misogynistic attack on Goneril; the torture and punishment of Gloucester; the execution of Cordelia”. Frazer presents these as all equally examples of “violence.” She ignores the fact that Lear’s condemnation of Goneril is justified in view of what she does to him and others in the play, whereas the blinding of Gloucester and the hanging of Cordelia are clearly presented as criminal and horrific deeds.

This distortion is what happens when you try to give a democratic reading of an aristocratic play and let your ideology trump any other consideration. Contrary to what Frazer thinks, the Earl of Kent is one of the noblest characters in all of Shakespeare. He has the courage and integrity to contradict Lear when he thinks his king is wrong; he continues to serve Lear loyally even at the risk of his own life; and if we had any lingering doubts about how to react to him, we have the fact that Kent earns Cordelia’s respect and love. Meanwhile, Shakespeare portrays Oswald as the archetype of the servile toady; his character is summed up by his attempt to kill a helpless, blind, old man (Gloucester). As for Goneril, her own husband, the morally upright Albany, tells her: “You are not worth the dust which the rude wind / Blows in your face.”

Yet Frazer joins the recent fashionable trend to take Goneril’s side; she goes so far as to accuse Lear of sexually abusing his daughters. Even Frazer feels compelled to quote a contrary view from a female critic: “[Kathleen] McLuskie [says] ‘the hardest hearted feminist’ cannot fail to have sympathy for [Lear’s] pain”. But Frazer cannot leave it at that concession; she immediately adds: “even the softest hearted feminist cannot overlook the clear violence . . . of [Lear’s] attack on Gonoril [sic]”. Here we momentarily get a glimpse of the acceptable range of political opinion for Frazer—it runs pretty much all the way from hard hearted feminism to soft hearted feminism. Frazer is of course entitled to her own political opinions; the problem comes when she imputes them to Shakespeare. Perhaps she should have called her book Shakespeare and My Political Way.

In the spirit of Weberian social science, Frazer offers a “value-free” reading of King Lear. She ignores the moral surface of the play. Looking at Goneril and Oswald, she does not see two manifestly evil characters, who, by the reliable testimony of the decent characters in the play, are viewed as beneath contempt. For Frazer, that is just patriarchy—male, aristocratic prejudice—at work. Instead of viewing the individual characters Shakespeare created in the moral context of the play, she sees a generic woman and a generic servant and that leads her to champion their cause as victims of oppression. This is the result of invoking identity politics in literary criticism; you see stereotypes where Shakespeare has created individualized human beings. Shakespeare looks at all his rulers as individuals, not as types. He wants above all to know if a given ruler is good or evil, noble or base, a wise man or a fool.

Shakespeare’s English history plays explore the question of what makes a good king, what kind of personal qualities he needs and what kind of upbringing might develop them. Someone comfortably born to the throne like Richard II is liable to become complacent and overestimate the security of his regime, thus letting himself become incompetent as a ruler. Someone like Henry IV who wins the throne by his own efforts through an act of usurpation is likely to be competent as a ruler, especially in military terms, but he also is likely to feel insecure because of his illegitimacy and decide to do cruel things to defend his throne. Shakespeare offers Henry V as a model monarch, because he combines elements of legitimacy and illegitimacy. He has the strength to rule effectively and thus is secure enough on the throne to moderate his cruelty with mercy.

Shakespeare’s two Henry IV plays provide a portrait of the successful education of a good king, the development of Prince Hal into a decent and wise monarch. It might please Frazer that Shakespeare shows that an integral part of Hal’s education involves getting to know the common people of his realm, or as he himself puts it, he learns to “drink with any tinker in his own language.” But contrary to Frazer, Shakespeare does not suggest that a prince should become familiar with his subjects so that he can take their advice or represent their interests when he becomes king. No: in Shakespeare’s view, the king must get to know his people so that one day he will be able to rule over them as their superior in political wisdom.

One of the oddest features of Frazer’s book is her relative silence on Shakespeare’s English history plays. They are the plays that most emphasize the personal element in politics. Again and again, Shakespeare shows that the character of the king determines the character of his reign. Richard III is an evil man (no value-free political science here), and hence all his efforts to manipulate public opinion and give a veneer of popular support to his regime do nothing to mitigate the villainy of his rule. By the same token, the glory of Henry V’s rule is to be traced to the remarkable complexity of his character. He combines a basic human decency and regard for his subjects with a Machiavellian dark side, his cold-blooded ability to do nasty things like executing his French prisoners at the Battle of Agincourt when the very existence of his army—and hence his regime—is at stake. Henry V works to cultivate the common good of England, while doing whatever he has to do to ensure that the nation survives even in the face of powerful threats from abroad.

Yet Shakespeare ends Henry V by reminding his audience that the king’s premature death led to the collapse of everything he had carefully built up in his lifetime. When his son came to the throne as a child, he proved to be a weak and ineffective ruler and lost all of his father’s conquests in France. England’s fate always lies in the hands of its rulers. The chance event of a king’s premature death can change everything. Shakespeare’s history plays suggest that the English constitution does not provide a lasting solution to the problem of succession and smooth transition between regimes. Even a settled monarchy leaves the issue of the character of the monarch to the luck of the draw. The strongest of kings may leave the kingdom to the weakest of sons.

Modern political science has tried to solve the problem of government by means of institutions and procedures designed to serve as brakes on the disruptive and destructive impulses that typically drive the kind of people who seek to rule. Modern thinkers have also hoped that the need to obtain the consent of the governed would moderate and if need be neutralize the schemes of bad rulers and even would-be tyrants. And yet modern political science has obviously not solved the problem of bad government, and tyrants have emerged from democratic politics with frightening regularity in the modern world. Shakespeare’s plays, including his portraits of the tyrannical soul in Richard III and Macbeth, remind us that ultimately there is no substitute for studying and judging human nature when trying to understand political life.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on January 29, 2021 at 07:11:46 am

I enjoyed reading the article. I work with young high school students. In my opinion, the most important "lesson" that I explore with my students is a reading of "The Merchant of Venice" (I am a History teacher). This play provides us with great vocabulary and themes that appear throughout the year (circumstances of "excess" and "moderation" are evident throughout human history). I observe, however, that not only students, but also peer teachers, contribute that these plays do not reflect priorities and experience of today. They would prefer to look at works more directly "relevant" to their lives. The plays are born of privilege. I will continue to make the case to uphold the urging of Portia: "Oh love, be moderate."

read full comment
Image of Gregory Dykhouse
Gregory Dykhouse
on January 29, 2021 at 22:11:44 pm

In the late 1950's my mother used the example of anti-Semitism in The Merchant of Venice as analog to explain the flaws in racial prejudice. And even as a child who had received no formal religious education or exposure, I could not understand how responsible adults could condemn a whole Jewish polity/ race/ group/ tribe for the "deicide" of Jesus when the crowd urging Pilot to crucify Him consisted perhaps of 30 or so bribed low life people, Jewish or otherwise. From my perspective as an adult, it makes more sense to continue blaming present day Germans for the "good German" acceptance of Nazism; there were presumably many more than 30 in that group.

read full comment
Image of R2L
on January 29, 2021 at 10:25:05 am

Bravo, bravo! I am absolutely overjoyed to see Professor Cantor grace this audience, and, in his inaugural address to Law and Liberty, defend the integrity of reading Shakespeare's history and tragedy canon, not darkly through the distorting lens of contemporary identity politics, or as twisted expressions of white male privilege and its victims, or as distortions of man's supposed natural right to a democratic state, but rather as refined portraits of individuals in a moral context of good and evil, portrayals which explore the hierarchy of stature and moral character and the individual, not generic, psychologies that are inherent in politics, and which highlight and vivify the aristocratic element of nobility requisite to good governance, and for Cantor to do all that (and more) so deftly by demonstration here from King Lear and the "sovereign trilogy of King Henry IV and King Henry V."

As for Frazer's new book: OH My God! How could anyone with a soul embodied in a brain and a heart "fastened to a dying animal" read Lear and then defend Goneril and Oswald, while denying dear, faithful Kent the honor he earns and the respect he is due? It's sheer, wicked, ideological projection, not literary criticism, and it's certainly not worth the price and time of a book. (The New York Times might wish to include Frazer's book in a revisionist Shakespeare campaign, "The 1589 to 1613 Project.")

Cantor is a national treasure. Every lecture he has delivered which I have seen (and I have seen 2 or 3 dozen) is a trove of learning. Everything he has written which I have read ( and that's a lot) is well worth reading. And that would include not just his writing on Shakespeare. Check out, just for example, "Hyperinflation and Hyperreality: Thomas Mann in Light of Austrian Economics," which can be found on the website of the Mises Institute.

Professor Cantor's erudition is so convincingly written, warmly spoken and pleasingly received as to make it all the more amazing that so much of it is free for the watching on Al Gore's amazing internet:


read full comment
Image of Paladin
on January 29, 2021 at 22:22:52 pm

Your enthusiasm for Shakespeare and Dr. Cantor is infectious (in a good way). But engaging Professor Cantor's video series looks like a project that may take at least all of 2021 to visit. A journey of a 1000 miles begins with a single step.

read full comment
Image of R2L
on January 31, 2021 at 04:57:14 am

Paul Cantor would find in the life of Paul Nitze his man of taking literature seriously. Our major diplomat and strategist of the post World War II era till the 1989 fall of communism would go to disarmament meetings reading a Shakespeare play beforehand. His work led to a foreign affairs program at Johns Hoopkins and the Aspen Institute. His work with team B was exceptional in showing the deficits of the CIA. Charles Hill in Grand Strategies writes of Nitze in the first pages and of Professor Cantor's work before Professor Cantor.

read full comment
on February 05, 2021 at 12:09:17 pm

I entirely agree with your assessment but will add that the U of Virginia should be commended, especially in these troubled times, for retaining Prof. Cantor in the English Dept., and not firing him or, perhaps worse, mandate that he attend "re-education" seminars.

read full comment
Image of Daniel Farber
Daniel Farber
on January 29, 2021 at 11:32:30 am

Superb criticism and a wonderful essay in itself. For those who are inclined to read more in the vein of Mr. Cantor, I suggest for starters "Shakespeare's Politics" by Allan Bloom and Harry Jaffa. Similarly, Dame Claire Asquith has written two books, "Shakespeare and the Resistance" and "Shadowplay," which are about Shakespeare and the politics of his own time. Those of Asquith demonstrate his acute awareness of political issues as lifelong recurring ones that all men in all ages face. I am so impressed with Cantor's observations and keen judgement, rarely seen by denizens of modern political science departments - an atrophied subset of modern democratic man, that I intend to read more from this professor of English.

read full comment
on January 29, 2021 at 12:39:26 pm

Prof Cantor has three lecture series on Shakespeare at thegreatthinkers.org, fyi. They are excellent.

read full comment
Image of Forbes
on January 29, 2021 at 19:16:51 pm

I did not know this article was a book review of an author who espouses "....fundamentally democratic politics, and a left-wing, social-justice brand of democracy at that".
Instead, I was attracted to this very informative article by its title: "Can Shakespeare Survive Woke?" for one reason. I was wondering if it was a purging of a Shakespearean phrase so antithetical in these days of "systemic" inequality and identity victimhood: "The fault....is not in the stars but in ourselves that we are underlings"

read full comment
Image of Ed McMERTY
on January 29, 2021 at 10:48:08 am

[…] Source link […]

on January 29, 2021 at 11:20:08 am

[…] Paul Cantor wonders if Shakespeare can survive woke. […]

on January 29, 2021 at 12:07:06 pm

[…] Paul Cantor wonders if Shakespeare can survive woke. […]

on February 22, 2021 at 10:01:21 am

[…] not schooled in a Upper West Side co-op knows why the Founding Fathers feared direct democracy. Majoritarianism does not build consensus; it encourages factionalism and strife, with […]

on February 22, 2021 at 10:04:05 am

[…] not schooled in a Upper West Side co-op knows why the Founding Fathers feared direct democracy. Majoritarianism does not build consensus; it encourages factionalism and strife, with […]

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.