theory wrap up

7/31/2019 Theory Wrap Up

1/7

Theoretical Wrap-

UpGetting you a little versed in all of the theories


2/7

Psychoanalysis - Paul A.Cantor

What he ultimately discovers is that there is a fracture between wisdom and power.

In Act One, Lear is a commanding leader and his subjects follow him without question. Kents

devotion to him is testament to the power and authority he has built for himself

As Lear works through the play, his power is undermined and he goes through an extensive process

of self-learning, or developing self-knowledge. It is this process that ultimately gains him wisdom,but reduces him to a state where he can no longer have authority.

Once he sees all humanity as beastly, he can no longer separate criminals from authority, and

therefore can no longer properly act as a political authority himself

The Lear of the storm sees humanity in natural terms, not political terms. This is why the clothing

imagery in the play is so important.

So, politics and authority can no longer matter when the natural order requires no politics or

authority things just exist in a natural state.

Beyond this though, what we get in Act 4 Scene 7 can be seen as a representation of human

perfection.

So, Shakespeare provides us with both base humanity and perfect humanity, Lear experiences both.


3/7

Psychoanalysis - Paul A.Cantor

Lear can no longer rule because the way he sees humanity

has fundamentally changed he sees it as either beastly or

angelic, and neither need figures of authority to guide them.

That as humans, we need figures of power for the very fact

that we are not animals or angels. As Cantor says: man is a

composite being, a perplexing mix of body and spirit. It is

precisely for this reason that human beings require political

life: to deal with the problems created by the tension between

body and spirit. Unfortunately, Lear is unable to see this, but

the play helps us see this and perhaps reassures us as the

reason why we allow ourselves to live in systems of power and

authority.


4/7

Marxism - Paul Delaney

Marxist approaches are interested in how a text is dominated by the underlying attitudes and values of the time inwhich it was written. Marxist critics would argue that a text cannot exist outside of the social structures under whichit was made

Within this, we can consider a Christian reading of the play as a Marxist one, as what we are doing is looking at howthe core religious system of the time finds its way into the play.

What Delaney is ultimately interested in is how the play represents the social conditions of Elizabethan England.

The feudal system was dying during the 16th Century (when Shakespeare was writing) and was slowly being replacedby a capitalist style of system.

The 16th Century was a time of changing attitudes, and what Delaney argues is thatKing Lear is representative ofthis shift in values and attitudes towards power and wealth.

The older characters in the play such as Lear and Gloucester represent the old guard; a more feudal approach to the

distribution of wealth.

Lears story then shows him dividing up his land so that his legacy might live on.

This is the same with Gloucester he is the central point of power and wealth

Goneri, Regan, and Edmund represent the new capitalist order.

Edmund is probably the best representation of this - ultimately selfish, but ambitious and ingenious in methodology


5/7

Marxism - Paul Delaney

It could be argued then that Shakespeare is representing atime that is resistant to this kind of change and it stillinsistent on keeping wealth and power centralized in theform of God and Queen/King.

We get an insight into how Elizabethans felt aboutcapitalist modes of power and wealth distribution and weget a pretty good prediction of the type of world wed exist

in if things were left to capitalist forces.

If anything, Edmund is a prophecy for big business.


6/7

Feminist - KathleenMcKluskie

McKluskie is particularly interested in the relationship between women andpower in the play.

We see men capable of embracing what are traditionally feminine qualities care, compassion, love, gentleness, etc.

We also see woman as capable of embracing the masculine. Both Goneril andRegan do this. However, McKluskie argues that when women take on thesemasculine traits they are despised and seen as monstrous.

And so this leads to McKluskies belief that women in power in the play are

only able to bring disgrace upon themselves.

The only woman with any sense of positive power in the play is Cordelia.However, McKluskie argues that this too is undermined.

Finally, McKluskie would argue that the tragedy of the play exists becausegender norms are undermined or devalued.


7/7

Feminist - KathleenMcKluskie

She is able to illuminate how the play is representative of Elizabethanpower relationships and is able to show how the play works to reinforce

the patriarchy that existed at the plays time of writing.

We get to see that feminine power is always compromised in the play,

which ensures that the audiences belief that power should reside in the

masculine isnt challenged.

While an interpretation of the play that stresses this interpretation would

probably be poorly received today, McKluskies work helps us to see the

enormous battle women had to (and still have to) fight in order to berespected as figures of power and authority.

We should also remember that every time the play is read or

performed, it is capable of reinforcing these attitudes towards women

and so McKluskies work is important if we are to deconstruct thosebeliefs.

theory wrap up

Documents