As I read Greenblatt’s “The Circulation of Energy” chapter, I was reminded of how the Elizabethan theater was both a censored institution and a venue for political criticism. After reading Barry, I feel that Greenblatt is a cultural materialist (179) who scrutinizes the marginalized details of the text in order to uncover the overlooked histories of the English Renaissance. He focuses on the medium of the theater to flesh out the “half-hidden cultural transactions” and attempt to create a “whole-reading” of a work. (4)
Although artists at this time were censored (8) by their superiors (like the prohibition of using the name “God” in a play—p.10), the theater also became a place of political commentary (in the most disguised of ways—p.19) and also served as a propaganda medium for the powers in the control. Like churches and its art, the theater was often used to educate the illiterate and lower classes of the dominant ideology (Foucault’s discursive practices) and used these mediums to control the masses from rebellion (Williams structures of feeling): “An audience watching a play, Nashe suggested, would not be hatching a rebellion” (18). On the flip side, it was also used to reinforce monarchical power and secure the division of social classes. (i.e.: the term “Sirrah” used to generalize the name of a servant, just like the name “Mary” was used to generalize female slaves—Yeah Morrison class!)
Now, I am a lover of Shakespeare and have always used a political and social lens when interpreting his plays (obviously plays like MacBeth and Richard III scream political commentary or were created to please the superiors), but now I am interested to read such pieces like The Comedy of Errors (not mere slapstick, but perhaps a commentary on economics?) or even The Taming of the Shrew (feminists are pissed off, I’m sure).
It seems that the game is something that cannot be escaped. It is used to encourage people to be more than what they are; while, at the same time, it is used to keep people in their place. The complexities of figuring out what to write and how to write is also fairly ubiquitous. All sorts of groups (labeled subversive by the dominant class) use indirection and signifying in order to get their message to the initiated. Ultimately, it takes twice as much time (or more!) to create something when you have to hide the message, and I'd imagine that it takes a lot of theory and focus from critics in order to uncover the message. Perhaps this is the primary goal of the New Historians and the Postcolonialists; to decode the message.
ReplyDelete