The Importance of Being "Manly"

It is hard to believe that this is my last blog post of the semester!  Where did the time go?  Being that the majority of my posts explore the characteristics of a patriarchal society, I am going to revisit the topic of gender in this final entry.  I cannot help but note that the characters in Macbeth frequently refer to gender issues, especially regarding the power of one’s masculinity.  Through an examination of its major characters, it becomes evident that there is a strong connection between cruelty and masculinity throughout the play.  What is Shakespeare trying to exhibit through this link?  Is he further questioning a patriarchal society?

In order to get her way, Lady Macbeth manipulates her husband to kill by questioning his manhood.  As she questions Macbeth, “Art thou afeard to be the same in thine own act and valour as thou art in desire?” (1.7.39-41).  Her technique works, and Macbeth carries out the murder.  According to Macbeth, “I dare do all that may become a man; who dares do more is none” (1.7.46-47).  Perhaps this portrays the significance of one’s masculinity during Shakespeare’s time.  I am guessing that the male members of Shakespeare’s audience would have been able to relate to Macbeth.  More than likely, just like a woman’s chastity, a man’s masculinity was extremely important.  Interestingly enough, in the exact same way that Lady Macbeth provokes her husband to murder, Macbeth also instigates his hired murderers to kill Banquo by questioning their manhood.  He states, “Now, if you have a station in the file, not I’th’ worst rank of manhood say’t, and I will put that business in your bosoms whose execution takes your enemy off” (3.1.103-106).  This further validates my inference that one’s masculinity was highly valued during Shakespeare’s time.  Similarly, as illustrated during the scene where Macduff learns of the murders of his wife and child, Malcolm consoles Macduff by encouraging him to take the news in “manly” fashion.  This involves seeking revenge upon Macbeth.  As Malcolm suggests to Macduff, “Dispute it like a man” (4.3.221).  Macduff replies, “I shall do so. But I must also feel it as a man” (4.3.222–223).     

On another note, it is evident that women are also sources of violence and evil in the play. The witches’ prophecies spark Macbeth’s ambitions, and then consequently encourage his violent behavior.  Furthermore, Lady Macbeth provides the intelligence and the motive behind her husband’s plotting. Arguably, Macbeth traces the root of chaos and evil to women.  Thus, perhaps this is one of Shakespeare’s most misogynistic plays.  While the male characters are just as violent and prone to evil as the women, the aggression of the female characters is more striking because it goes against prevailing expectations of how women were expected to behave.  As illustrated when she instigates Macbeth to kill, Lady Macbeth’s behavior certainly shows that women can be as ambitious and cruel as men.  Whether it is due to the constraints of her society, or simply because she is not fearless enough to kill, Lady Macbeth relies on deception and manipulation rather than violence in order to achieve her goal.  Therefore, with that said, it is difficult to understand Shakespeare’s message.  Is he equating masculinity with violence, or is he validating a patriarchal society by portraying women as the source of evil?  I would love to have a chat with Shakespeare about this play!  It is truly a fascinating, mind-boggling piece of literature.    

Language & Violence

With the character of Iago we find that language becomes an instrument of violence. He does this by prompting the de-signification of language. He tells us “I am not what I am,” and explains that the day his actions (and therefore his speech) reflect his true intentions is the day he’ll be dead, signaling to us that anything he says cannot be trusted, as it will be a lie. He is not only lying to the other characters in the play, he is lying to us, the readers, which further complicates the contradictions and paradoxes found in the play. 

Language can be described as the ultimate marker of humanity: we think in it, we understand ourselves and the world  through it, and it enables/constrains knowledge. Iago, then, disrupts the  fundamental organizing tool of reality. He turns language from a tool that facilitates communication and understanding, from a tool of designation and  denotation with which human beings can identify and construct their realities, to a tool of obfuscation. His language brings ambivalence and uneasiness to the world of the play. For example, the speech Othello gives to the Duke in act 1  illustrates his mastery of the medium: he uses pathos, false modesty, and elements of performance and storytelling to lure his audience to his side. His language is concrete, and it is fecund in that it promotes empathy, which is how he gets Desdemona to fall in love with him. When he speaks to Iago at 4.1.34-41, however, his ability to speak has completely disintegrated because he has been so thoroughly led astray by him. He speaks in short, furtive sentences. At times he doesn’t even use full sentences and just spits out nouns: “Handkerchief--confessions--handkerchief,” and “Pish! Nose, ears, and lips!” which is interesting because it reminded me of cubism and how post WWI artists used it to depict the violence that occurs when the world becomes fragmented--which is essentially what happens to Othello. His emotional world was constructed on the basis that Desdemona was virtuous and faithful to him (“Honey,” “O my sweet,” “It gives me wonder great as my content to see you here before me,” “My dear love,” “I do love thee”) so when he believes that this is untrue, then everything around him unravels. Othello mimics the unravelling of his world with what wishes to do to his wife, which is to “chop her to messes” (4.1.190.) He wants to cut her up into pieces the way language and his identity have been. Not only does this show how Iago has fractured language, it also shows that his language is not fecund: it is the exact opposite of Othello’s and leads to death. If language is an indicator of humanity, then Othello’s inability to speak signals that he is being dehumanized--he is turning into the beast that Iago compared him to at the opening of the play and his killing Desdemona serves as a justification for the xenophobia and racism Iago advances. Ironically, Iago tells Othello to “keep time in all,” or to maintain control. He is referring to Othello’s passion, which he claims is “most unsuiting to a man,” but because his passion is one of the things that differentiates Othello from the other ‘civilized’ Venetians, Iago actually wants him to lose control of it--another instance of the bastardization of language.

Through the de-signification of language, Iago creates a world in which there is a total eradication of truth, but only he is aware of that. What does this mean for the characters of Othello? It means that Iago is  a tyrant, of sorts, who manipulates people and impels them to do as he wishes. His tyranny is of the worst kind, however, because it is insidious; he forces people to do as he dictates while allowing them to believe that they are acting of their own volition. By giving people wrong information he forces them to make decisions according to a script that he has laid out. A cruel joke is being played on the other characters: they no longer recognize the rules of the game. Each character believes that he or she is making a decision for a reason: Othello kills Desdemona because she has committed adultery; Roderigo tries to kill Cassio because that will help him “get” Desdemona--but the truth of the situation is that all of their decisions are based on nothing. Desdemona’s adultery is a complete fabrication (much like this play: ironically Othello says that “It is not words that shakes me thus” but it is. It is the power of words that “shakes” him, just as they “shake” the audience--it’s as if Iago is putting on a play, but instead of being in the audience Othello is in the middle of it.) All the destruction and devastation their actions inflict, then, is for nothing. The tragedy of the play is overwhelming in its thoroughness because there is no point to it; it is totally devoid of meaning. This is emphasized by the fact that Iago never gives us a real reason for his actions. He tells us first that it is because he has been passed over for a promotion, then that it is because he suspects Othello has slept with his wife. But we cannot trust his “reasons” and even if we do, there still remains an imbalance: surely the obliteration of Venetian military power  (which is what Othello’s death means) cannot be tantamount to adultery or workplace advancement? Even at the end of Lear there is a bit of hope in the form of Edgar: I’m not sure where the hope is going to come from at the end of this play.