The Politics of Teaching Shakespeare

The Politics of Teaching Shakespeare

Sean McEvoy Head of English, Varndean Sixth Form College, Brighton

The media debate about Shakespeare sparked off by Prince Charles’s speech earlier this year has already been referred to in several articles in this edition. Although all the media comment agreed that it is of paramount importance that students study Shakespeare, there was hardly any consideration of what such study might involve, beyond the development of a reverential “acquaintanceship”.’ In this article, Sean McEvoy discusses this blank reverence and proposes a more theoretically-informed, politically-aware pedagogy.

Why teach Shakespeare? An obvious answer to this question for those of us who teach A Level Literature is that we have to. All Literature syllabuses require it. Below A Level, many teachers still feel that they ought to teach Shakespeare, even if they don’t. The reasons for Shakspeare’s centrality are, however, far from self-evident, and based more on political than “literary” considerations. Our response should also be political.

The Professor of Poetry at Oxford University, Peter Levi, begins his recent biography of Shakespeare2 with what he claims in all seriousness to be an “astonishing prophecy”: that in the year of Shakespeare’s birth “the greatest living poet in any language”, Pierre Ronsard, wrote some verse which foretold the even greater poetic greatness of the Warwick- shire infant. Shakespeare’s “greatness” evidently transmitted itself to sensitive critics even before he began to write!

Professor Levi is clearly suggesting something mysterious about this writer; in fact “his great mystery” seems an important notion in explaining Shakespeare’s central place in literary studies. There is something unique, special, magical about Shakespeare which makes these texts the criterion by which all others are judged. He is a figure whose “greatness” transcends history. Critics tend to use heroic language to describe him: he is, according to Professor Levi, “the greatest . . . of the English poet^"^. What does this mean?

It all amounts to opinions held and values placed by particular people at particular times. But opinions are not held in a vacuum. In our opinions about literature we cannot help but look at what others have said, and what others will think about us for holding the opinions we do. Traditionally, to reject Shakespeare has been difficult for any student or teacher of English, so high has his status been among those with prestige

72 English in Education

and power. In other words, greatness in poetry seems to be a matter of ideology rather than poetry. It is the function of ideology to mystify rather than make plain political relationships and the exercise of power. The declaration of greatness is asserted, rather than explicitly justified. Shakespeare is great because anyone who reads and understands his work can see that this is the case. Greatness here becomes something intuited, mysterious, known only to the initiate - or in its other guise,

One argument which is often advanced for the greatness of the plays and therefore their importance in the curriculum is their timeless relevance. Kenneth Muir is one of many to have remarked that “the great poet never belongs entirely to his own age”4. John Hodgson, the distinguished enthusiast for educational drama, has suggested that “the universality of the value^"^ of the plays makes them as relevant to young people today as they were in 1600. This was the main argument in defence of Shakespeare in the school curriculum put forward by Kenneth Baker, when still Secretary of State for Education, in discussion with Professor Terence Hawkes on a Clive James BBC2 chat show a couple of years ago. Professor Hawkes pointed out that the vast majority of British people would find far more relevance, and a much more intelligible exploration of values, in an episode of the BBCTV drama series Making Out which had been broadcast that same evening.

The truth of this is difficult to dispute. Television drama obviously has a direct relevance for modern teenagers which Jacobean theatre cannot challenge. In arguing the plays’ relevance, Hodgson points out that “Parents still find it difficult to accept their daughter’s choice of boyfriend; there is still racial prejudice in the world; jealousy is still a powerful motive. . .”6 It has to be pointed out that Brookside handles these issues for most teenagers in a much more intelligible and “relevant” form than Romeo and Juliet, Othello or The Winter’s Tale, simply because the language and context is familiar. This argument amounts to treating the plays as curiosities: look, people were just like that then too.

Shakespeare lived in history; so did, and do, all of his readers and audiences. Whatever meanings his work might have are made by real people in real time. Exactly what a meaning which transcends time might be is distinctly mysterious. Vague statements about Shakespeare’s understanding of human nature are sometimes advanced to explain this notion. If there is such a thing as human nature, its definition will clearly be either too trivial to justify “greatness” (“human beings need affection”; “we all get jealous”) or politically controversial. “Human nature” and “common sense” are phrases used to avoid argument rather than offer justification. They are ideological formulations which mystify actual political relations.

Mr Baker feels that the plays contain eternal values which should be inculcated into young people. This explicit statement about the ideological use of Shakespeare’s plays is remarkable in its frankness. Their use as a means of passing on the values of a ruling group is usually hidden, “mystified”, behind a sense that they are our common national heritage and unquestionably great literature.

The plays are indeed used in a deeply ideological fashion, to propagate and naturalise a whole social perspective. They are filtered, and sometimes quite transformed, to

common sense”. ‘6

The Politics of Teaching Shakespeare 73

represent a class position that accords with an elitist notion of culture and a ruling-class view of the world.7

Texts do not contain values. Values are something we impose on, or extract from, the readings we make according to the historical and ideological circumstances of our reading. Powerful received political ideas about monarchy, patriotism, social class, national unity, the supernatural world and romantic love seem inextricably linked with those standard school texts Macbeth, Julius Caesar, Henry V and Romeo and Juliet. We could teach Macbeth as being about

. . . an unstable and violent society, vulnerable to internal rebellion as well as external invasion, [which] relies for its protection on the unleashing and control of brutal, bloodsoaked savagery . . . If a society bestows its highest commendations on acts of desperate courage and sacrificial violence, then how is it to stop its strongest members from continually daring “to do all that may become a man”?’

but generally we haven’t done so. Macbeth is usually about the evil of treason, about political ambition going too far and turning to tyranny, about loyalty; about a man knowing his place and not listening to the siren calls of women. This critical approach seeks to smooth over the contradictions within the text which Holderness has identified above. It makes femaleness a problem and threat for men, rather than looking at the contradictory social positions constructed for women in this very macho society, where they are both victims and eager proponents of that society’s values. But that is the function of criticism in liberal humanist ideology:

The role of ideology is to suppress these contradictions in the interests of the preservation of the existing social formation, but their presence ensures that it is always possible, with whatever difficulty, to identify them, to recognise ideology for what it is, and to take an active part in transforming it by producing new meaning^.^

We should be encouraging our students to find these new meanings by exposing these contradictions; we should look at Shakespeare as a construct of a social formation rather than rely on the traditional trinity


of character-plot-theme. Critical studies aimed at students take it for granted that there is an established, uncontroversial list of themes for each play, and broadly incontestable characterisation. So, very signifi- cantly, do examination boards when setting questions at A Level and GCSE.’O So do most teachers. But these readings are only readings, and others are possible. The imposition of nineteenth and twentieth century realist notions of character is the most notable ideological distortion performed by critics and teachers. If we can recover contemporary literary theory about typology and humour, for instance, we can call into question the desire of liberal humanist critics to construct an unproblematic unified subject with a fixed nature.

It is the ideological practice of traditional criticism to . . . construct two dichotomies: universal versus historical and individual versus social. In each case the first term is privileged, and so meaning is sucked into the universal/individual polarity, draining it away from the historical and social - which is where meaning is made by people in determinate conditions, and where it might be contested.

In allowing dominant ideology to dictate meanings which cannot be challenged, we are denying our students the right to contest the meanings ascribed to these texts, and hence the right to have any political power in an important part of their country’s culture.

The dominant values which have been projected onto the plays by the English educational system are recognised by most school pupils even before they have read a word of a text. Many pupils feel there is something elitist about Shakespeare and have considerable hostility towards it. Others welcome Shakespeare and approach it with an almost reverential seriousness. In my experience, in the 11-18 sector in Sussex, the former response is typical of all but middle-class “top stream” secondary school groups, and the latter of most A Level groups. The latter are, of course, actually an elite echelon containing those who are


themselves being prepared for a position of social privilege like that of the text before them. The former associate Shakespeare with comic sketches and TV adverts about effete men in tights ending every word in “eth”; the latter with being “educated” and “cultured”, and acquiring a qualification to take them onto a degree course or a better-paid job. The cultural hegemony of Shakespeare is not just the product of a particular dominant reading of the texts, but of a whole perception of a cultural institution and icon, from an (admittedly inadequately) state-funded “Royal” theatre company dedicated to the performance of his works, to the design of the di20 note.

I do not wish to see Shakespeare removed from the curriculum. On the contrary, as long as Shakespeare holds the high cultural status which he does in our society, it is crucial that he is studied. Indeed, it is because the texts are used in the way they are that we must not ignore them. They should become a site of conflict, a place where dominant readings are challenged and the ideological use of these texts is revealed by the production of oppositional readings.

I do not mean by this that we should simply aim to stimulate the “pesonal response” of the students in the way many exam boards seem to like - that response is, after all, not the innocent reaction of some tabula rasa but conditioned by ideological preconceptions about Shakespeare and about culture in general.

Similarly, some increasingly popular “progressive” classroom prac- tices often, in fact, tend to have a reactionary effect. Chief among these is the idea of improvising scenes based on the events of the plays. Pupils are asked to improvise scenes about parents’ disapproval of a new boyfriend as “a way into” Romeo and Juliet or to present tableaux which represent plot and action. To understand Romeo and Juliet is to understand the mercantile conflict between rich Renaissance families; to understand the code of courtly love and masculine honour which

A Hamlet with Street -Cred.


constructs their love. To pretend that the feelings modern teenagers might hold for each other are at all analagous is not to read the text closely and discover the dominant values, but to surrender immediately to the “timeless relevance” argument without reading the text at all’ ’. Approaches which take narrative and character as givens in this way will merely reproduce traditional values and interpretations.

Even more dubious is the vogue for getting primary school children to chant and play with passages from Shakespeare taken out of context, the meaning of which they can only guess at. This is mere hocus-pocus and treating the text as magic words: after all, no-one seems to think they should play with other writers in the same way. It is privileging the words, not because of what they mean, but because they are by Shakespeare.

Here then, finally, are some ideas for the study of Shakespeare in schools and colleges which seek to avoid these pitfalls. There are two key principles. Firstly, to encourage students to see the texts as the products of one particular time which are read in another; and secondly to see the texts as constructs produced within particular genres and institutions rather than the unique expression of a transhistorical genius. Students should be encouraged to make their own readings and at the same time be aware of the factors, historical and political, which prompt these readings.

I do not claim any originality for these approaches; my main point is that we should be aware of why we teach the plays as we do and of the hidden assumptions behind our work. By reading the plays in ways which foreground social action rather than the immutability of “human nature” and current power relations, we will offer students the chance to make a future rather than be made by a past. 1. Study texts which explicitly break with the conventions of realism: Titus Andronicus, Troilus and Cressida, The Winter’s Tale, Pericles, Measure for Measure, perhaps in contrast

/-


with those normally understood in traditional ways. Many A Level syllabuses now allow teachers more latitude with choice of texts. 2. Compile lists of genre conventions of revenge tragedy, pastoral comedy, etc. by comparing the traditional plot summaries of other contemporary plays from, for instance, the Oxford Companion to English Liferature. Work can then proceed on Shakespeare’s use of these conventions. This emphasises the text as a construct within an established genre, or series of genres. 3. Study the conditions of production of the text (theatres, companies, audience, acting style); build up a basic grasp of contemporary politics and ideas about the theatre. This emphasises the plays as products of their time. 4. Compare, where possible, the text with original sources to demonstrate derivation and speculate about contemporary intention. 5. Look for alienation effects as foci for political or artistic statement. 6. Look briefly a t the changing nature of the criticism and performance of the text over the centuries. 7. Use modern texts which present Shakespeare in different ways. Edward Bond’s Bingo is an excellent counter view to the “Swan of Avon” tradition and places Shakespeare firmly into the historical context of a divided country a generation away from civil war and revolution. 8. It’s important that students acquire the confidence to find meanings for themselves and don’t rely on summaries, study guides and paraphrases. Neither should they constantly rely on the teacher. Most decent editions will provide the help needed to explain allusions and difficult words. The teacher must encourage them to work with the text as spoken dramatic language, and to be aware that they are constructing meanings for themselves rather than communing with the mind of a distant genius. 9. By its very nature as spoken, dramatic language, the text becomes significant and more accessible when spoken, gestured and acted.I3 Choral readings of speeches, which require group decisions about meaning and stress, are a good introduction to this sort of work. 10. Avoid at all costs stumbling initial sight readings. Very few students can read the text meaningfully the first time they see it. A couple of sessions of this and they scurry off to buy Study Guides. Work where possible through dramatised presentations, with small groups reporting back on the decisions they made in order to bring the play to a meaningful performance. 11. Formal analysis of rhetorical features of speeches again emphasises the text as construct. 12. Use sound recordings rather than limiting meanings with fully staged TV versions.

I

\ ‘ A m ! POOR


Many of the BBC Shakespeare seems particularly to enforce traditional readings. 13. Use reading journals to examine process of reading. Students can express doubts and incomprehension, make speculations, and so on. Reading journals are an excellent way of working on those parts of the text not performed. 14. Summarise scenes or acts with spoken line collages from the text itself. 15. When visiting a performance, be ready to look closely at crucial passages whose interpretation may be integral to a reading of the text. Look closely at the significance of the period in which director and designer have chosen to set the play. 16. Study Shakespeare as a cultural institution using the techniques by which a media studies group might approach a soap opera or rock band. Pupils might study images of Shakespeare in the mass media, the production of the plays today, their audiences, use in schools and so on.

References 1.

2. 3. 4.

5.

6. 7.

8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

13. 14.

The one exception to this, Terry Furlong’s much-quoted description of arse-achingly boring traditional methods as “arse-achingly boring”, caused near-apoplexy in some quarters. See footnotes to Too Much Monkey Business for detailed references. Writing recently in the TES, Brian Cox says:

As a teacher I have always considered my main task to be very simple. I want my students to enjoy and understand great books . . . In my lectures I always read many poems, celebrating the music of words . . . When contemporary literary theorists tell me that Shakespeare’s greatness is culturally determined, that “literature” is only a cultural phenomenon of the romantic period, I feel sorry for them . . . When I watch a new production of The Tempest, I inhabit a world which is beautiful, mysterious and beyond rational explanation.

Peter Levi: The Life and Times of William Shakespeare Macmillan 1988 ppl-2. Levi pl. Kenneth Muir: Changing Interpretations of Shakespeare in Boris Ford e d The Pelican Guide to English Literature Penguin 1955 p294. John Hodgson, interviewed in Graham Holderness ed: The Shakespeare Myth MUP 1988 p161. Hodgson p161. David Margolies: Teaching the Handsaw to Fly in Graham Holderness ed: The Shakespeare Myth MUP 1988 pp42-53. I am indebted to this article for providing the stimulus and source for many of the ideas in this article. Graham Holderness: Are Shakespeare’s Tragic Heroes ‘Fatally Flawed 7 Discuss in Critical Survey 1.1 1989 pp61-2. Catherine Belsey: Critical Practice Routledge 1980 pp45-6. See Alan Sinfield: Give an Account of Shakespeare in Education . . . in Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield ed: Political Shakespeare MUP 1985 pp138-42. Sinfield p141. See David Hornbrook: Go Play, Boy, Play in Graham Holderness ed: The Shakespeare Myth MUP 1988 p149. See Cicely Berry: The Actor and His Text Harrap 1987 Chs 4, 6, 7. An Account of this method of working can be found in John Brown and Terry Gifford: Teaching A Level English Literature Routledge 1989 pp39-49.

Documents

The Politics of Teaching Shakespeare