Shakespearean Plays and The Law as an Instrument of Good Governance or Oppression

Introduction

Law is an integral part of most Shakespearean plays and this is especially considering that many of these involve various aspects of the law. Most plays by Shakespeare show that he was an individual that was significantly fascinated by a diversity of legal aspects that are addressed in the way that the characters act. In addition, Shakespeare is an individual that seeks to show that law is an important part of the lives of individuals in society and that it is essential to ensure that they take notice of it. This is especially the case where in Shakespearean plays, law is an integral part of promoting both good governance and oppression because of the numerous legal technicalities that are involved in the process. In this paper, there will be an attempt to show that while law is supposed to be an instrument of good governance, it can also be used to bring about the oppression of certain individuals in society.

Law as an instrument of good governance

In certain Shakespearean plays, law appears to be an instrument of good governance because it enables them to defend themselves from false accusations. Law is an essential aspect of promoting good governance in society and this is a case that is advanced in Shakespearean plays, where individuals are required to be obedient to laws in order to ensure that there is a level of social order (Cunningham, 2017). Plays such as the Merchant of Venice and Julius Caesar show that adherence to the law is an important part of making sure that there is the advancement of social order as well as the avoidance of unnecessary conflict. It also promotes the advancement of means through which to ensure that there is the creation of initiatives that promote solution to problems without resorting to violence. The achievement of these goals through the use of law cannot be underestimated because it shows that it is a means of advancing the interests of good governance. Furthermore, law in Shakespeare can also be used in order to ensure that the interests of the weak are protected against the strong while at the same time helping those in positions of power to promote the advancement of justice in their own societies. A consequence of such a situation is that individuals come to the realization that it is only through the pursuit of law that it becomes possible to not only promote good governance, but also justice in the societies within which they live. 

 Law ensures that there is the advancement of justice in society since the individuals involved are provided with an opportunity to make sure that they are able to advance their individual interests without hurting those of others. One of the most significant cases of law as an instrument of good governance is seen in The Merchant of Venice, where despite Bassanio being maliciously accused of owing Shylock a debt, he is eventually proven to be innocent of the charges that have been brought against him and is acquitted (Hadfield, 2016). Bassanio’s acquittal comes about because of the actions of his wife, who disguises herself as a lawyer and successfully defends her husband against the charges that have been brought against him. That Bassanio is found not to be guilty following the trap that is set to ensnare him by Shylock shows that the law actually works and that it can be a means of ensuring that justice is achieved at all times. The capabilities displayed by Shakespeare in these play show that despite the attempt by certain individuals to make use of the law as an instrument of oppressing their fellows, the law can be made use of as a means of promoting social justice. Bassanio’s acquittal also allows for the development of a perspective concerning the motivations behind why certain individuals are capable of making use of law as a means of advancing their own interests to the detriment of that of others. In the end, as in the case of Shylock, these individuals end up being considered to be the villains of the plays and justice is served when they gain their just punishment.

The pursuit of law is essential for good governance in Shakespeare plays because it promotes the idea that individuals have to set aside their personal interests for the sake of their societies. One of the most important instances is seen in Julius Caesar, where the title character repeatedly refuses to be crowned king of Rome because it is against the laws of the state. Caesar is an individual that, despite his personal ambitions, is still willing to ensure that he attains them through the workings of the law rather than forcing them on the population (Jenkins, 2016). He is shown not to want to shake up the republican order that has been instrumental in governing Rome for centuries; resulting in a situation where despite his popularity and the desire by the population to have him crowned king, he refuses to be crowned in favor of retaining the status quo of the city. A consequence of his actions shows that there is need to ensure the advancement of law as a means of promoting good governance because it creates a situation where Caesar is put in circumstances where he is tempted to assume a role that could do away with the good governance of the city of Rome. However, his refusal to undertake the tempting task of being a king shows that Caesar is an individual that, despite being a dictator, seeks to ensure that there is the promotion of good governance in his home city. Therefore, in this play, Shakespeare promotes the idea that law can be used as a means of ensuring that there is good governance even though the instances where the society is willing to give up its interests because of the popularity of certain individuals.

Law as an instrument of oppression

Despite law being an instrument of good governance, there are instances where it can also be used as a means of promoting oppression. In Shakespeare plays, law is an important aspect of showing that situations arise where law ends up being a means of bringing about either the destruction or oppression of other individuals. One of the most significant parts of law is that it leads individuals towards taking advantage of it to ensure that their individual interests are protected over those of the weak (Omrani, 2016). Using law as a means of advancing individual interests at the expense of others often leads to the oppression of the latter. The result is that many of these individuals end up in situations where they are not able to undertake actions with as much freedom as they would like because to do so could bring about the ire of their oppressors. The role of oppressors in Shakespearean plays tends to be given to villainous rulers, as seen in the case of Claudius in Hamlet. However, there are instances where this role is given to individuals that are considered to be outsiders in their societies, as seen in the case of Shylock, a Jew living in Italy at a time when there was wide mistrust of Jews. Therefore, in Shakespeare plays, when law is addressed, it is done in such a way as to show that despite its being considered a source of good governance, it is also a means through which oppression can be brought about in society; essentially being an instrument of injustice.

Hamlet is one of the most significant Shakespearean plays that address the issue of law as an instrument of oppression. This is especially the case considering that the title character, Hamlet, is a victim of oppression despite not only being from the ruling class of his country, but also the son of the previous king (Thomas, 2014). Despite the privilege that he grows up with, Hamlet is shown to be a weak individual, whose uncle takes advantage of in order to assume the throne. Claudius, his uncle, is shown to be a conniving individual that makes use of every means possible to ensure that he not only kills his brother, but also pushes aside his nephew, who is the legitimate successor to his father, and instead assumes the throne himself. In this situation, Hamlet is depicted as being an extremely weak individual that is taken advantage of by his uncle in such a way that he ends up being denied his rights as the heir to the Danish throne. When his mother marries his uncle, it seems that Hamlet has essentially been pushed aside and he is shown to be an individual that harbors a lot of resentment for the injustice that he has suffered. The way that Claudius takes the throne is not only suspicious, but also goes against the law because the succession was supposed to go to the legitimate successor, Hamlet. Claudius’ succession to the throne shows that he has no regard for the law and that he can twist it in such a way that suits his own purposes to the detriment of his nephew.

The Merchant of Venice is another play that shows that law is an instrument of oppression rather than good governance. The case of Shylock’s false accusations against Bassanio shows that the law can be used as an instrument of oppression. Shylock’s malicious nature is brought forth through his desire to use the law as a means of destroying the life of Bassanio, an individual towards whom he holds considerable hatred for unexplained reasons. A consequence is that Shylock ends up seeking to ensure that he makes use of the law as a means of attaining his malicious objectives. When he requires that Bassanio pays him a debt by giving him a pound of flesh, Bassanio’s hands are tied because the orginal agreement between these two individuals stated that it was a requirement (Nam, 2015). Therefore, Bassanio’s hands are legally tied and Shylock makes use of this advantage over an individual that he considers his adversary to ensure that he seeks to end Bassanio’s life legally because the extraction of a pound of flesh would only mean death. The legal process that Bassanio is subjected to as a result shows that law can be made use of as an instrument of oppression rather than of good governance.

In Hamlet and The Merchant of Venice, there is a sense that law is an instrument of oppression rather than as a means of promoting good governance. Individuals are shown to be extremely vulnerable to the law to such an extent that it leads to a situation where they are placed in unjust situations. They essentially become victims of the malicious machinations of others who feel that they can take advantage of the situation for their own benefit. A result is that some characters are not only able to advance their selfish interests using the law, but there are instances where others are duped into undertaking actions that are illegal, leading to the mental oppression of the individuals involved. The case of the title character in Othello is an essential theme because it involves Othello being duped by Iago into killing his wife because of suspicion of infidelity and jealousy (Myers, 2013). Othello can therefore be considered to have committed a crime because of a moment of madness caused by Iago’s influencing him into breaking the law.

Conclusion

Law is an extremely important part of Shakespearean plays and in most cases, it dominates entire plays. A result of this situation is that it leads to the development of means through which to ensure that there is recognition of the various ways of how law can be both an instrument of good governance as well as that of oppression. The contrasts that are displayed in law show that it is essential for individuals to read Shakespeare with a mind open to the the way that legal matters end up affecting the lives of the characters within the plays. In this way, it becomes possible to make a connection of how Shakespeare is relevant to the lives of individuals in everyday life.

A Small Place by Jamaica Kincaid

Jamaica Kincaid in her novel can be said to be structured into four sections each of which is meant to address the diverse issues concerning the island nation of Antigua. Throughout the novel, one will come to the conclusion that the beauty of Antigua that is described by the author is not what it seems. This, it can be argued, is due to the fact that while the island may be full of beauty, it is also ridden with a corruption so great that it has become an integral part of the society. It can further be argued that the main them of the novel is corruption, which is so rife in the Antiguan society that it has led to its underdevelopment. Kincaid describes the beauty of Antigua and makes a sharp contrast of this beauty to the harsh realities which plague this island. When one considers the argument to support this view of her country, one comes to the conclusion that it is all indeed true. One of the arguments that Kincaid makes in support of her argument that Antigua is a corrupt society is based on the fact that while the island has many expensive Japanese vehicles, most of them seem not to be working properly (Kincaid, 7). She further makes the observation of there being various mansions all over the islands, most of which were gained through illicit means. The corruption in the government is so bad that ten years after an earthquake, the public library that was damaged in the event has yet to be repaired. The example of the library’s dilapidated nature, it can be argued, is a symbol of the moral and ethical corruption that is prevalent in Antiguan society.

It can be argued that Kincaid, in her novel, is against tourism as it is packaged by the government and businesses of Antigua because of its insincere depiction of life on the island. While tourists are only shown the beautiful aspects of Antigua, they are not normally shown what has come to be the reality among most of the people on the island; that they are living in deplorable conditions because of the mismanagement of their economy. Kincaid’s arguments seem to be overly critical of the government and all of those who are involved in it, because of their massive corruption which has led to the destruction of the country. In the novel, there is even speculation concerning whether the colonial day may have been better than the present, where everything seems to be going wrong. It can be argued that Kincaid looks upon the government and the people of Antigua in general as being too complacent and accepting of the moral ugliness that it taking place in society, slowly destroying it. In addition to this, Kincaid seems to be highly critical of the culture that the people on the island seem to be practicing and this is because of the fact that most of them practice English culture, which is not their original culture (Kincaid, 12). While the people of the island hated the English treatment of them during the colonial period, they seem to have gone against all logic by abandoning or creating their own culture and have instead adopted the culture of their former oppressors. The latter argument seems to be highly critical of the people of Antigua because it seems to show their feeling of inferiority towards the English despite their resentment towards their treatment of them. It seems that Kincaid is attempting to display the irony that exists in Antiguan society, that while the people hate the oppressor, they love the oppressor’s culture.

Among the most prominent issues that are discussed in the novel is concerning the library, which, despite the ability of the wealthy members of the Mill Reef Club to fix it, they choose not to do it. They instead demand that the library be rebuilt first before they can offer any assistance of their own. It can be argued that the Mill Reef Club, being an all-white establishment does not consider the current state of affairs in the country, being out of their control, to be undesirable, and that they are only being nostalgic for the colonial days, when they were the ruling class of Antigua (Kincaid, 24). The neglect of the library is also a sign, it can be argued, of the state of affairs of the education sector of the country since it has also come to suffer a lot of neglect from the government. Books, it is well known, are the means through which culture is preserved and the fact that the minister of culture has allowed the library to remain as it is ten years after the earthquake is deplorable. In fact, an argument can be made that the minister of culture, despite holding onto a ministry responsible for the cultural development of Antigua does not seem to know what he is doing. In fact, it can be said that he is only in his position because of the pay as well as the prestige that goes with it, not knowing exactly what his docket stands for. It can also be argued that this is a testament of the corruption in government that has made it possible for the development of a lack of the preservation of Antiguan culture in favour of others.

In conclusion, it can be said that Kincaid makes many pertinent arguments concerning culture in the Antiguan society, and how it has come to be affected by the government as well as the people themselves. The depiction of the government in the novel is highly unfavourable because of the fact that many of the government officials seem to be extremely corrupt and because of this, they have made Antigua to be an underdeveloped country. The neglect of the library, which has been given a lot of prominence in the novel, can be said to be a symbol of the destruction of the culture of Antigua in favour of the English culture, which has created a situation of cultural loss within its population. It can therefore be concluded that Kincaid’s novel is about the loss Antiguan culture and the need to maintain this culture for future generations.