To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
William Shakespeare's Macbeth has long been analyzed and appreciated for its portrayal of power, ambition, and the human psyche. However, when stripped of Shakespeare's poetic style and intricate characterization, the core of Macbeth reveals a story of a petty tyrant, echoing the themes of power-seeking that resonate throughout history. In this essay, we will explore Macbeth's journey as a power-hungry individual, drawing parallels between his quest for authority and the broader concept of power in society. We will also delve into the new historicist conception of power, emphasizing its decentralized nature and its pervasive influence on individuals and communities.
Ultimately, we will examine how Macbeth's subversion of authority inadvertently reinforces the existing power structures, leading to the reaffirmation of the monarchy and its values under Malcolm's rule.
Macbeth, the titular character of Shakespeare's play, emerges as a representation of the archetypal petty tyrant. Similar to Machiavelli's depiction of the ideal prince, Macbeth's primary objective is to attain power for its own sake, and he views any means as justified if it serves to advance his ambition (Machiavelli, The Prince).
Verified writer
Proficient in: Criticism
4.7 (657)
“ Really polite, and a great writer! Task done as described and better, responded to all my questions promptly too! ”
This thirst for power is a recurring motif throughout history, manifesting in various forms, such as power-hungry politicians, charismatic cult leaders, or ruthless business magnates. Macbeth's character embodies the timeless archetype of an individual or a small group seeking to impose their will upon others from a position of authority.
The new historicist conception of power departs from traditional notions of authority as a top-down force emanating from specific individuals or institutions.
Instead, this perspective posits that power emanates from all directions, permeating society in myriad subtle and diverse ways. This decentralized view of power owes much to post-structuralist philosophy, particularly the works of Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, which emphasize the complex and intangible nature of power (Derrida, Specters of Marx; Foucault, Discipline and Punish).
In this view, power is not something controlled or manipulated by identifiable individuals; instead, it seems to operate autonomously, sustaining and influencing society independently. It works as a self-perpetuating force, maintaining the status quo and strengthening existing power structures, often without any overt orchestration by those in authority.
The new historicist notion of decentralized power finds resonance in Macbeth, particularly in the way Macbeth's subversion of authority ultimately leads to the re-establishment of a similar form of authority under Malcolm's rule. The play's narrative arc showcases a transition of power from one ruler to another, with Malcolm succeeding the ruthless Macbeth.
However, this transition does not signify a radical change in the nature of authority; instead, it demonstrates the resilience of established power structures. While Malcolm may be a less brutal king than Macbeth, his benevolence does not signal a reform of the monarchy or a significant shift in values. Rather, it is a temporary disruption that reinforces the existing order. The play suggests that the events leading to Macbeth's downfall, orchestrated or not, ultimately strengthen the monarchy and its authority.
An essential point to grasp about the new historicist notion of power is that it does not require explicit manipulation or orchestration to perpetuate itself. Duncan, the king at the beginning of the play, does not intend to be murdered so that Malcolm can secure the crown more firmly. Likewise, the witches, who play a mysterious role in the story, do not appear to be motivated by a desire to increase the power and authority of the Scottish crown.
Instead, power operates in a circular and indirect manner within society, maintaining and reinforcing itself without the need for conscious manipulation. It thrives on disruption, as disruptions can actually strengthen the existing power structures. Consider the scenario of a military or political leader who fears losing power due to peace and stability. In response, they create a perception of impending external threats, whether real or imaginary, to instill fear and insecurity among the populace. Consequently, people clamor for the leader to retain or expand their authority in the name of protection.
The more menacing these perceived enemies become, the more justified aggressive responses seem, and the more the leader is viewed as a valiant protector. Military or political power, far from being weakened by such disruptions, often emerges stronger. The circular and indirect manner in which power operates can paradoxically strengthen it when it faces apparent subversion (Greenblatt, Shakespearean Negotiations).
Theater, particularly the Renaissance theater, serves as a poignant example of how cultural institutions can both draw energy from and legitimize existing power structures. The theater of Shakespeare's era was intricately connected to the court, public affairs, and the socio-political landscape. It derived its vitality from the ceremonies, royal pageants, and public events of the time, including public executions.
In turn, the theater played a role in legitimizing and reinforcing societal hierarchies. Aristocracy and royalty were portrayed as superior classes worthy of having their stories told on stage, while common people were often depicted as unworthy subjects for serious drama, relegated to the roles of fools or scoundrels. This inherently theatrical aspect of the court and state affairs risked undermining the authority of the ruling class. If actors on stage could portray kings and queens, lords and ladies, then the audience might question whether real nobility deserved their positions of wealth and privilege.
However, the theater also provided a controlled space for the expression of otherwise unacceptable ideas and behavior. It allowed people to mock actors playing kings while preserving the sanctity of actual monarchs. The theater provided a legitimate outlet for subversive thoughts and was an effective tool for regulating dissent (Mullaney, The Place of the Stage).
Shakespeare's Macbeth is a reflection of these power dynamics, as it navigates the complex relationship between authority and subversion. The play, which deals with themes of treason and murder , effectively transforms potentially subversive subject matter into support for the reigning monarchy of James I. In historical context, Queen Elizabeth's death without a direct heir created a power vacuum that could have led to domestic turmoil or even war. Macbeth's narrative serves as a cautionary tale, illustrating the disruptive consequences of regicide and tyranny, thus emphasizing the importance of a peaceful and legitimate succession to the throne, as exemplified by James, the son of Mary, Queen of Scots.
Shakespeare's alignment with these cultural conventions was not necessarily driven by external coercion or censorship. While there was official censorship during his time, Shakespeare's awareness of societal norms and his ability to craft stories that were both acceptable to those in authority and desirable to his paying audience likely guided his creative choices. He understood the types of narratives that would be well-received and those that might challenge existing power structures.
Whether or not Shakespeare felt constrained by these conventions, or even consciously recognized them, is not the crux of the matter. What is crucial is that he operated within a framework of conventions and conditions that relied on and reinforced the prevailing power relations of his era. Consequently, there was no need for external manipulation or censorship, as Shakespeare voluntarily adhered to established norms and, in doing so, became a successful playwright.
According to the new historicist perspective, our relationship with power mirrors that of Shakespeare's era: we actively collaborate with the power that governs us. Even without conscious awareness, we contribute to its creation and sustenance, thereby diminishing the necessity for authority figures to overtly dictate our thoughts and behaviors. Once we accept the cultural limitations placed on our actions and thoughts, once we internalize the belief that the boundaries of the permissible define the extent of the possible, we become complicit in our own regulation.
This self-policing mechanism perpetuates the status quo and strengthens existing power structures. We become the enforcers of the very limitations we accept, eliminating the need for external forces to remind us of what is acceptable or desirable. Our collaboration with power, often unconscious, is what keeps the system intact and prevents subversion.
William Shakespeare's Macbeth serves as a compelling lens through which to explore the dynamics of power and authority. Stripped of its poetic veneer, the play reveals the character of Macbeth as a representation of the petty tyrant—an archetype of an individual driven by an insatiable thirst for power. This portrayal resonates with historical and contemporary power-seeking figures in politics, cults, and business.
Furthermore, the new historicist perspective on power sheds light on the decentralized, intangible nature of authority, rooted in post-structuralist philosophy. In Macbeth, we witness how Macbeth's subversion inadvertently reinforces existing power structures, culminating in the reaffirmation of the monarchy under Malcolm.
Power operates in a circular and indirect manner, often strengthened by disruptions, without the need for overt manipulation. The Renaissance theater, as a reflection of power dynamics, illustrates the controlled expression of dissent within established norms.
Shakespeare's compliance with cultural conventions, driven by an understanding of societal expectations, highlights the collaborative nature of power. Just as in his time, we continue to collaborate with the power structures that govern us, perpetuating the status quo and policing ourselves.
In the end, Macbeth serves as a timeless exploration of power, authority, and our role in sustaining the systems that shape our lives.
Power and Authority in "Macbeth": A New Historicist Perspective. (2016, Jul 03). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/new-historicist-criticism-macbeth-and-the-power-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
