Bias and Self-Interest in “Richard II”

The first two acts of Richard II have proven just how complicated things can get when family and politics interweave. A concept which I found of particular interest was how bias unavoidably contributes to the decisions one makes. When the argument arises between Mowbray and Bolingbroke, Richard claims that he is “impartial” and “vow[s]” that the “the neighbor nearness to [their] sacred blood” will not “privilege” Bolingbroke in his eyes or “partialize” him to Richards “upright soul”. Richard explains that like Mowbray, Bolingbroke is his “subject,” a status which Richard claims puts both Bolingbroke and Mowbray on equal ground and allows Richard to be objective. However in Act 1, scene 3, Richard seemingly contradicts this statement by giving Bolingbroke a much less severe sentence than he does Mowbray: ten years in exile in comparison to the life banishment Mowbray receives. Richard gives no real reason for this decision, and from an outside perspective it seems unjust, after all it was Bolingbroke who started the dispute by first accusing Mowbray of treason causing Mowbray to cry slander. Moreover, after Mowbray leaves, King Richard further reduces his sentence to six years after seeing the “sad aspect” of Bolingbroke’s father, John of Gaunt. What has motivated Richard to be so lenient on Bolingbroke? At first it seems that Richard has taken pity on his cousin and has quickly gone back on his claim of being an impartial ruler. Richard seems to have been biased by his familial attachment to Bolingbroke, perhaps suggesting that it is impossible to be unbiased when dealing with family. This interpretation seems to be validated by John of Gaunt in 1.3, lines 229-35.4, whose decision is also colored by his bias as family relative. The saddened John of Gaunt wishes he could have “argue[d] like a father” but instead was forced to be “as a judge”. Although this at first seems to imply that he acted unbiased, he goes on to explain that he could not separate being a judge and father because fear of “slander” caused him to give his son a harsher sentence than he would a “stranger”. Thus, his attachment to Bolingbroke as is his son biased John of Gaunt to agree to a sentence he felt was too harsh for anyone. Perhaps Shakespeare is trying to demonstrate that is impossible for people to separate biases, be objective, and thus act completely just. Instead, Shakespeare may be illustrating that people unavoidably act self-interestedly. We fine that Richard is also not impartial. He gives Bolingbroke the sentence he did for very calculated political reasons which biased the way he handled the dispute. In 1.4 we learn that Richard fears that Bolingbroke is after his thrown and cites Bolingbroke’s “courtship to the common people” as reason for concern. Whereas Richard views his people “as slaves” it is clear that Bolingbroke respects and even loves the people of England. For these reasons, Richard postulates that Bolingbroke thinks that “England” is by “revision his” and that he is the “subjects next degree in hope”. Perhaps Richard sentenced Bolingbroke the way he did in order to balance not upsetting the people of England as well as the rest of the royal family (who show favoritism toward Bolingbroke) while still being able to get Bolingbroke out of his way. Richard seems to be constantly biased by his own political self-interest which keeps him from acting as a just ruler (other examples might be his plan to tax the poor to fund his war in Ireland, or his involvement in the murder of the Duke of Gloucester’s death). Any thoughts about what Shakespeare might be saying about the role of bias and self-interest in decision making?