A postcolonial reading of Shakespeare

FullTermsConditionsofaccessandusecanbefoundathttp:www.tandfonline.comactionjournalInformation?journalCode=rjls20Downloadby:[EastChinaNormalUniversity]Date:26April2017,At:02:12JournalofLiteraryStudiesISSN:02564718(Print)17535387(Online)Journalhomepage:http:www.tandfonline.comloirjls20ApostcolonialreadingofcolonialstrategiesinShakespeare'splaysCleopasThosagoTocitethisarticle:CleopasThosago(1998)ApostcolonialreadingofcolonialstrategiesinShakespeare'splays,JournalofLiteraryStudies,14:12,194212,DOI:10.108002564719808530195Tolinktothisarticle:http:dx.doi.org10.108002564719808530195Publishedonline:06Jul2007.SubmityourarticletothisjournalArticleviews:378ViewrelatedarticlesAPostcolonialReadingofColonialStrategiesinShakespeare'sPlaysCleopasThosagoSummaryThispaperaimsathighlightingthepostcolonialfeaturesinherentinsomeofShakespeare'splaysbyadoptingwhatAshcroft,GriffithsandTiffincallsymptomaticreadingintheirseminalworkonpostcolonialdiscourse,TheEmpireWritesBack(1989).Insteadofconcentratingonthemetaphoricmeaningofthetexts,aninterpretationofShakespeareanplayswillbesuggestedwhichrevealsnotonlythecolonialideologiesandotherdiscursiveformationsthattheplayscontain,butalsothepostcolonialstrategieswhich,thoughattimesimplicit,featureprominentlyinthesetexts.OpsommingHierdieartikelwildiepostkolonialeeienskappebeligwatinherentisaansommigedramasvanShakespeare.DitwordbewerkstelligdeurdietoepassingvanwatAshcroft,GriffithsandTiffinsymptomaticreadingnoeminhullebelangwekkendeboekoorpostkolonialediskoers,TheEmpireWritesBack(1989).Inplaasdaarvanomopdiemetaforiesebetekenisvandietekstetekonsentreer,sal'ninterpretasievanShakespearesedramasvoorgestelwordwatnienetdiekolonialeideologiesenanderdiskursiewestrategieëontblootnie,maarookdiepostkolonialestrategieëwatalhoewelsomsnetgeïmpliseerprominentinhierdietekstevoorkom.1IntroductionForalongtimemanycriticsreadShakespeare'splays,particularlyTheTempest,asfablesofimperialism,thusfirmlylocatingShakespeareinthemouldofcolonialdiscourse(see,forexample,Kuhl1962;Mason1962;James1967;Mannoni1964;Greenblatt1976).CriticalfocuswasoftenonthewaysinwhichtheShakespeareantextenactsandperpetuatescolonialismbyalienatingtheOther(Caliban),bybeinginvolvedinantiSemitismandracism(ShylockandOthello)andinitsovertdefenceofimperialism(JuliusCaesar).Insimpleterms,suchcriticismseesShakespeareasastaunchdefenderofcolonialism,becausehedeployscolonialcategoriessuchashegemony,language,centreandperiphery,aswellassavageandciviliseddichotomies,tonamebutafew.ThosepropoundingthisviewobviouslyseeJLSTLW14(112),JuneJunie1998ISSN02564718194APOSTCOLONIALHEADINGOFCOLONIALSTRATEGIESINSHAKESPEARE'SPLAYSthecontinuedpresenceofShakespeareintheuniversityandschoolcurriculaasapossiblethreattoreaders.JosephSherman,forexample,concludesthatShakespeareinourschools,sofarfromenrichingpupilswithpearlsbeyondprice,notonlywastestheirtime,butdoesthempositiveharm(1984:3).ThemostdiscernibleharmpointedoutbycriticsisShakespeare'sincomprehensibleandarchaiclanguage(Wright199091)whichisalientothecontemporaryworld.ThisarticleaimsathighlightingthepostcolonialfeaturesinherentinsomeofShakespeare'splaysbyadoptingwhatAshcroftetal.callsymptomaticreading.Intheirseminalworkonpostcolonialtheory,TheEmpireWritesBack,Ashcroftetal.describesymptomaticreadingsasthosealternativereadingswhicharenotconcernedprimarilywithevaluatingonetextagainstanotherinsomeprivileginghierarchyorcanon,norwithdiscoveringtheiressentialmetaphoricmeaning,butratherwithidentifyingandarticulatingthesymptomaticanddistinctivefeaturesofpostcoloniality.(Ashcroftetal.1989:115)Followingtheaboveassertion,aninterpretationofShakespeareanplayswillbesuggestedwhichrevealsnotonlythecolonialideologiesandotherdiscursiveformationsthattheplayscontain,butalsothepostcolonialstrategieswhich,thoughattimesimplicit,featureprominentlyinthesetexts.2(Anti)RacisminShakespeareOneofthemostoutstandingcharacteristicsofShakespeare'splays,whichhasbeenasubjectofmanyarticlesandessays,isracism.Althoughregardedasoneofthemajorplaywrightswithanunequalledandprofoundabilitytounderstandandanalysehumanexperience,Shakespeare,mostofhisdetractorsclaim,perniciouslydistortstheimagesofOthernonEuropeanracestothepointthatcriticssuchasTerenceHawkes,inhisShakespeare'sTalkingAnimalssuggestthatheisacolonialist:Heimposestheshapeofhisownculture,embodiedinhisspeech,onthenewworld,andmakesthatworldrecognizable,habitable,natural,abletospeakhislanguage.(Hawkes1974:211)TheMerchantofVenicehasbeenusedasaparadigmforemphasisingShakespeare'sracistattitudes,particularlyantiSemitism,inhisplays.One195JLSTLWsuchcriticisRobertWistrichwhofirmlybelievesthatShakespeare'sstereotypicaldepictionofShylockservedtocrystalliseandreinforceanantisemiticstereotypeforcenturiestocome(1991:102).ItisanovergeneralisationandoversimplificationtostatethatShakespeareisantiSemitic,becauseinrealityheattemptstounderminethebasisofthisverystereotypewithwhichheischarged.Inanappropriatelytitledessay,TheModificationoftheStereotypeinTheMerchantofVenice,J.B.Thompson(1983)refutesthestereotypeofJewishmoneymindednessattachedtoShylockasopposedtotheChristianvaluesembodiedincharacterssuchasAntonio.ThompsonarguespointedlythatChristiansinthisplayinadvertentlyenactthestereotypereservedforJewsbecausetheyareperpetuallydrivenbyaninsatiableandalmostobsessiveloveformoney,andthismakesthemmercilessandinhumane.ShakespeareproblematisestheissueofantiSemitismbypittingitmercilesslyagainstthegenerallyacceptedprinciplesofChristianitywhich,infact,aresubverted.IntheplayShylock,aJewandthereforeaforeigner,experiencesbothracialandreligiousalienationatthehandsofAntonioandtherestoftheChristiancommunity.Shylock'shatredofAntonio,basedonreligiousdifference,issummarisedinanaside:HowlikeafawningpublicanhelooksIhatehimforheisaChristian(I.iii:3637)1andissustainedbyracialdifference:IfIcancatchhimonceuponthehip,IwillfeedfattheancientgrudgeIbearhim.Hehatesoursacrednation,.(I.iii:479)Inanotherparticularlyinterestingincident,Shylock,liketheVenetians,isclearlypreparedtoprotecthisbackgroundnotonlyonthebasisofreligion,but,andevenmoresignificantly,onracialterms:IfaJewwrongaChristian,whatishishumility?Revenge.IfaChristianwrongaJew,whatshouldhissufferancebebyChristianexample?Why,revenge.ThevillainyyouteachmeIwillexecute,anditshallgohardbutIwillbettertheinstruction.(H.i:7378)196AP0STC0L0N1ALHEADINGOFCOLONIALSTRATEGIESINSHAKESPEARE'SPLAYSThisspeech,JamesO'Haraargues,hasShylockdefendinghisrace'shumanitytotheChristianSalerio(1979:12)becauseitexposes,andeventhreatens,biasandprejudiceincourtrulingsemanatingfromreligiousandracialdifferences.Inatypicalpostcolonialvein,ShylockquestionsandsubvertsChristianpracticebyhighlightingthevicesinherentinit.ToregainhisdowntroddendignityShylockispreparedtouseChristianityasacounterdiscourseagainsthisChristianenemies.Thompsonpointsoutthathewasindeeddeterminedto'execute'the'villainy'taughthim'byChristianexample'andevento'bettertheinstruction1(1983:5).Shylock'sdeterminationcouldbesaidtobecounterdiscursiveforitisabolddecisiontoexposeanderode[thebiases]ofthedominantdiscourse(Tiffin1987:18)Christianityinthiscasewithnoapparentaimtotakeitsplace.Christians,normallyseenastrueepitomesofmoralvirtues,areportrayedastheworstperpetratorsofcolonialistvice;theyhave,accordingtoShylock,manyapurchas'dslave,Whichlikeyourasses,andyourdogsandmules,Youuseinabjectandslavishparts,Becauseyouboughtthem.(IV.i:9093)Somecritics(e.g.Charlton1938)haveaccusedShylockofhavingaSataniclust:forhumanfleshcannibalism,inotherwords.Thisviewfalselyconsignshimtotherealmofsavagery,untouchedbycivilisation.Tobreakoutofthisstereotype,ShylockisencouragedtobetotallyassimilatedintoChristianitybydenouncingallthatistypicallyJewishabouthim,whichherefuses.Instead,heisatpainstoasserthisidentityasahumanbeing,whichheshareswiththeChristians,andasaJewbyactingthemonster.ThatShylockisarealmonster,acannibal,isunthinkablebecausehebelongstotheraceofthosewhosincethebeginningoftimehaveneverknowncannibalism(Fanon1995:325).InTheMerchantofVenice,Shakespeareevocativelydramatisesthesubversionoftheartificialityandshallownessofstereotypes,particularlythosebasedonreligiousandracialdifferences.Antonioisasignificantcharacterinsofarasheservesasarepresentativeofproimperialism,thegoodOtherwhohasunquestionablyassimilatedVenetiancultureandtheChristianreligion;hispurposeistoexposetheunconsciousacceptanceoftheOtherbythecoloniserwhileShylockrevealsthedeniedaspect.Thesetwoantagonisticcharacters,whosharethesameracialandreligiousbackground,helptodemonstratevividlynotonlytheuncertaintyofthecoloniserabout197JLSTLWhisownidentity,butalsothecontradictoryperspectivesthecoloniserhasabouttheOther.AccordingtoPaulGilroy,thisservesasanimportantreminderthat'race'isarelationalconceptwhichdoesnothavefixedreferents(Fanon1995:409).CriticalinterpretationsfocusingonthevirulenceofracisminShakespeare'splays(e.g.Baldensperger1938;Whitney1922)oftentakeOthelloastheirparadigmatictext;theeponymousprotagonistisablackman,aMoorspeciallyendowedwiththepositivevirtuesofbraveryandloyaltybefittingacolonialsubject.Notwithstandingthesedesiredanddesirableattributes,theChristianCommanderofCyprus,Othello,suffersbecauseofhisdifferentracialbackgroundandidentityandyetenjoystheequivocalprivilegeofbeinganobleruler.Forexample,Brabantio,Desdemona'sfather,isappalledwhenherealisesthathisdaughterwasable,inspiteofNature,Ofyears,ofcountry,credit,everythingTofallinlove,withwhatshefear'dtolookon.(I.ui:9698)OthelloisinformedbywhatAbdulR.JanMohamedcallsManicheanallegorybecauseitdepicts,throughbinaryoppositionsbasedonracialdifference,thecoloniser'snegationofhisprimitivenaturebyprojectingtheundesireddarkersideontothecolonised.ThisisimmediatelyevidentinthemarriagebetweenOthelloandDesdemona.Forsomecritics,therelationshipbetweenOthelloandDesdemona,aladyofaristocraticbackground,isclearlyinconceivableonpurelyracialgrounds.Intheinterestofbuildingaraciallyundefiledempireandevidentlyindefenceofmiscegenation,mostcritics,notablyColeridge,finditunthinkablethatOthellocouldhavebeenblack.HeproclaimsthatitwouldbesomethingmonstroustoconceivethisbeautifulVenetiangirlfallinginlovewithaveritableNegro(Hawkes1969:188),thusreinforcingthestereotypicalviewoftheOtherasunsuitedtocourtawomanofEuropeandescent.GrahamBradshaw'sopinionthatBrabantioandDesdemonawereattractedbyOthello'sexoticuniqueness(1993:183)reinforcesthecolonial'sstereotypedviewoftheOtherasexoticbeforeprojectingonhimthecoloniser'sownvaluestorealorimaginarydifferencesinordertojustifytheformer'sownprivilegeoraggression(Memmi1968:186).Iago'sunrelentingemphasisonOthello'sblackcolourissurelyawayofmakinghisculturaldifferencestandoutpositivelyagainstthewhiterace.Insimilarvein,theduke'sstatement(Ifvirtuenodelightedbeauty198APOSTCOLONIALREADINGOFCOLONIALSTRATEGIESINSHAKESPEARE'SPLAYSlackAVoursoninlawisfarmorefairthanblack(I.iii:28990),issubtlyantiracistinitsManicheanjuxtapositioningoffairwithblack.Theoveremphasisonracialidentityissignificantinthiscase,becausethepositiveterms,fairness,honesty,loyaltyandbraveryarehighlightedincontrasttothesecondimagewhichblindlyseesOthelloasinherentlyevil,barbarousandgrimvisage.AgaininOthello,Iago'sdeepseatedantagonismtowardsOthello,particularlyhismarryingDesdemona,isunquestionablyaproductofracialintoleranceandhasnothingtodowithOthello'sinferiorpersonalityasaracialOther.Drawingontheblackwhitebinarismtostrengthenhiscase,IagomaliciouslyimploresBrabantiotoannultheengagement:Zounds!sir,you'rerobb'd;forshameputonyourgown;Yourheartisburst,youhavelosthalfyoursoul;Evennow,now,verynow,anoldblackramIstuppingyourwhiteewe.Arise,arise!Awakethesnortingcitizenswiththebell,Orelsethedevilwillmakeagrandsireofyou.Arise,Isay.(I.ii:8692)ThisstereotypicaldepictionofOthelloasanoldblackram,aimedatdenigratinghisidentity,meritsseriousattentionbecauseitreflectsthefutilityandcontradictorynatureofthecivilisingmission.ReferencetoOthello'sinsatiablelibidoisasignificantstereotypeinpostcolonialdiscourse,becauseitimplicitlydepictshimaspossessingasexualityhighlydangeroustothesecurenightcapsofwhitehusbands,aparanoidcomplexmostevidentinIago'simagination.(Salway1991:121)Takenatthislevel,asSalwaydoes,Othello'ssexualityisindicativeofthecolonised'slatentpotentialtoconqueranddominatethecoloniser.Othello'smarriagetoDesdemonaissimilartotheappropriationandsubversionofcolonialistdiscourse,becausecolonialandimperialdiscourseimplicitlydrawsuponsexualparadigmstorepresentitself(Chrisman1995:193).Inthiscase,itistheambiguousOthello,simultaneouslyembodyingcolonialcolonised,andnotIago,noranyoneelse,whoposesathreattothetemporarystabilityofthecolonialcentrebecausethereisanirreconcilabledualityinwhiteideasabout[his]attractiveness(Salway1991:121).InitiallycommandingrespectandgloryathisfirstarrivalinVenice,Othelloisperceivedasavillainandnaturalsavageonlyafteritbecomes199jLsmwpublicknowledgethatheissecretlymarryingDesdemona.TheambivalenceofOthello'spositionasbothapowerfulrulerandablackamoorintheVenetianstateissymptomaticofaconfusionwithinimperialismaboutitsownidentityinrelationtoAfrica(Chrisman1994:511).TheimplicationofOthello'sbelatedincivilityisthatthemarriagestimulatestherepressedanxietiesofthecoloniser,especiallythedeeplyentrenchedfearofmiscegenation.OneconclusionmightbethatOthellohashissavageryandlackofcivilisationerodedbyconstantcontactwiththecoloniallyconstructedimageofhim,contrastedwithhisrealself.Thisparadoxstemsfromthecolonialideaofblacknessasarepresentationofwhatismysteriousandfearsomeinthehumanpsyche.OthelloseemstohaveslavishlyassimilatedcolonialistattitudestoapointwherehetreatsracialOthers,thatis,theTurksandCypriots,withcontemptseeminglyforgettingtheimportantfactthatheisalsoperceivedstereotypicallyasOtherbythecolonisingVenetians.Forexample,Othello,who,accordingtoMartinOrkin,representsthemasterfulcivilsocietywhichmustdealwithboththesubmissiveCypriotpopulationandwiththealienTurkishpower(andculture)(1986:34),explainshowhedealswiththeelementofsavageryinthecolonised:Setyoudownthis;Andsaybesides,thatinAleppoonce,Whereamalignantandaturban'dTurkBeataVenetianandtraduc'dtheStateItookbythethroatthecircumciseddog,Andsmotehimthus.(V.ii:350355)However,andinspiteofhisundoubtedloyaltytoVenetianlife,thecoloniserscannotaffordtoassimilatehimcompletelyintotheirowncultureforfearthatifsuchactionshavepassagefree.Bondslavesandpagansshallourstatesmenbe.<LU:9899)Thisdebilitatingfearculminatesinthepainfulrecognition,onthepartofthecoloniser,ofhisownirrationalityandanacuteawarenessoftheeffectsofoppression.ThetotalinclusionofOthelloinVenetianstateaffairs,especiallythefearofthemiscegenousconsequencesofhismarriagetoDesdemona,wouldactuallyconstituteanactofsubversiontocolonialruleintheeyesof200APOSTCOLON1ALREADINGOFCOLONIALSTRATEGIESINSHAKESPEARE'SPLAYSBrabantio;animminentthreatwhichdeservestobeurgentlycounteracted.OthellohasnotassimilatedVenetiancultureandvaluescompletely,forhestillbelieves,thoughvaguely,inhisindigenousbeliefs.Hevalues,asopposedtohisnewlyacquiredChristianity,thetraditionalsignificanceofthehandkerchief,agiftfromhismother,whichhegivestoDesdemona.Thehandkerchiefservesasatenuousumbilicalcordwhichtieshimtenaciouslywithhisdiminishinghistoricalpast.ThehandkerchiefassumesaparticularsignificanceforDesdemonaand,accordingtoEmilia'stestimony,shelovesthetoken.ForhehathconjuredhersheshouldeverkeepitThatshereservesitevermoreaboutherTokissandtalkto.(m.iii:290293)Throughthesubtleassociationofthehandkerchiefwithhislostandunattainablepast,orhistory,OthelloisactuallyresistingcompletedominationbyVenetianculturewhileatthesametime(re)constructingor,morecorrectly,affirminghisindelibleindigenousidentity.Othelloisnotashamedofhisidentityasablackman.Inacontentiousstatement,whichseemstopointtohisselfoppressionandatthesametimetoselfaffirmation,hesays:HernamethatwasasfreshAsDian'svisageisnowbegrimedandblackAsmineownface.(m.iii:383385)Thisstatement,aswellasotherrelatedstatements,doesnotnecessarilyindicateOthello'sselfnegation;rather,heusesthemasterdiscourseofthecolonisersubversivelytoasserthisidentityandhislatentpotentialtoexercisecontroloverthecoloniser:IfetchmylifeandbeingFrommenofroyalsiege(I.ii:2122).Inthequestforidentity,postcolonialismoftenhasrecoursetohistorybyinvertingandrewritingtheunreliablecolonialhistory.Theinversionofhistory,especiallyahistorywhichisinherentlybiasedagainsttheculturesofthecolonised,inordertocreatealternativehistories,isrelevanttopostcolonialliterature.Colonialismthrivesbyfalselyassumingthatthecolonisedterritoryhadnoinhabitantsorhistorypriortothearrivalofthecoloniser.ThehistoryoftheislandanditsinhabitantsinTheTempestiswrittenbyProspero,thoughnotwithoutopenresistancefromCaliban.EdwardSaidstressesthepivotalsignificanceofCalibanicresistancewhenhesays:201JLSTLWNeverwasitthecasethattheimperialencounterpittedanactiveWesternintruderagainstasupineorinertnonWestemnative;therewasalwayssomeformofactiveresistance,andintheoverwhelmingmajorityofcases,theresistancefinallywonout.(Said1993:xii)Prospero'snarrationofthehistory,foregroundedinActISceneii,formsasubtextoftheplay.Salwayexplainsthesignificanceofnarratingthishistory:Hisownstory,hisversionoftheisland'shistory,hisknowledgeandpreoccupations,althoughonlymarginallyrepresentedinthemanifesttext,bubbleirrevocablybeneaththestructureoftheaction.(Salway1991:114)Prospero'sspeech,togetherwithhisirrationaldimension,constitutesthedominantcolonialistdiscourseoftheplay,becauseitenablestheassembledcharacterstorecognisethemselvesassubjectsofhisdiscourse,asbeneficiariesofhiscivillargesse(Brown1985:59).PracticallynoneoftheothercharactersinTheTempesthaveanypositivehistoricalidentity.ThisidentityisingeniouslyinventedandnarratedbyProspero,whoseessuchanarrationofhistoryashistask.OnlyCaliban,oneoftheindigenousinhabitantsoftheisland,hashisownhistory,andthisisalwaysmarginalisedandsuppressedbythecoloniser,Prospero:Thisisland'smine,bySycoraxmymother,Whichthoutak'stfromme.(I.ii:331332)Prospero'sresponsetothischargeisostensiblyawayofrepudiatingCaliban'sidentityandthehistoryoftheislandbyshiftingthemainthrustofthediscourseandstressingCaliban'sallegedintentiontorapeMiranda:Thoumostlyingslave,Whomstripesmaymove,notkindness!Ihaveus'dtheeFilthasthouart,withhumancare;andlodg'dtheeInmineowncell,tillthoudidstseektoviolateThehonourofmychild.(n.ii:344348)Ironically,andperhapsforunstatedcolonialistreasons,Prosperoobviouslychoosestoforgetthathehasalsopenetratedandrapedtheisland!Asadefencemechanismforhiscolonisingoftheisland,Prospero,the202APOSTCOLONIALREADINGOFCOLONIALSTRATEGIESINSHAKESPEARE'SPLAYSfalseliberator,seekstoinduceguiltfeelingsofungratefulnessinCaliban,whenheclaimstohavesavedArielfromthetyrannyofSycorax,torenderlegitimatehiscolonialmissionofconquestwhich,indeed,hasfollowedafamiliarcolonialistpattern(Salway1991:112).Colonialdiscourseismaintainedandsustainedthroughtheemphasisonhierarchicaldifferencesbetweentheculturalpracticesofthecoloniserandthecolonised.ThisisparticularlyrelevantinTheTempest,wherebothProsperoandCaliban'smother,Sycorax,aredepictedasmagicians,thoughofdifferentbreeds.Prospero'smagic,whichheputstogoodusethebetteringofmymind(I.ii:90)issharplycontrastedwithSycorax'swhichispresumablyterribletoenterhumanhearing.Similarly,inOthello,theMoorisalsounfairlyaccusedofwinningDesdemona'shandthroughblackmagic.Suchdescriptionsareimportantbecausetheyactuallycastintostarkcontrasttheculturaldifferencesbetweenthecoloniserandthecolonised.Prosperobecomesamaguslikefigure,whilethecolonisedSycorax,whomiscegenouslygavebirthtothedeformedCalibanbycopulatingwiththedevil,isseenasawitchandtyrant.Prospero'staskasacolonisermagus,tocivilisethedegeneratecolonised,isnotentirelysuccessful,becauseCalibanendsupresistingdominationbyProspero.Typicalofacolonialistwithhisinsecurities,ProsperomaintainshispoweroverCalibanthroughthreatsofphysicalpainandcoercion.AftertheabortiverapeofMiranda,whichissymbolicofCaliban'sresistancetocolonialism,andbyextensionacrudedenialofcivilisationanditsconcomitants,Prosp