Introduction
William Shakespeare is considered a conservative at heart, perhaps because he firmly believed in the stability of a certain social order. He also had a sense of mistrust regarding the capability of crowds to govern and be the authority within society. Additionally, he lacked confidence in the ability of groups of individuals to govern others or even themselves.
For the most part of Shakespeare’s thinking, a society that is secured from danger and stable against both external and internal forces is one that grants full recognition to the hierarchy within it. Such a society not only acknowledges social hierarchy but also takes it up as its core precept. Shakespeare also ascribes several consequences to a society if it does not abide by the principle of social hierarchy. Inevitably, anarchy, mayhem, and murder will occur without the existence of a hierarchy within the social system.
Therein also lies a common strand between Machiavelli and Shakespeare in their works. Machiavelli’s Prince and Shakespeare’s Antigone and Hamlet all display a keen eye for maintaining the belief in the strength of harsh actions to further advance the existing social hierarchy (Forester).
Shakespeare’s works, particularly Hamlet and Antigone, reflect the notions of social hierarchy and social power. These concepts overlap and have derivative consequences on one another.
Hamlet and Antigone provide insights into social hierarchy.
In Hamlet and Antigone, social hierarchy is clearly portrayed. The inclusion of kings or a monarchic system as the ruling order in society indicates the prevalence of a social hierarchy in both works. This provides insight into societal hierarchies. It’s unclear why Shakespeare chose to incorporate a monarchial system into his works, as there are debates surrounding this topic.
However, the inclusion of such a system in both plays is significant enough for us to gain insights into Shakespeare’s views on social order and hierarchy in Hamlet and Antigone.
The conflicts and struggles that revolved around the seizing of monarchical power give us, for the most part, an understanding of the significance of such a position in society. The conflict staged to occupy the prime position in the monarchical system indicates the immense benefits one can acquire from seizing the king’s throne (McDonald).
In essence, the role of social hierarchy in Shakespearean works serves only as insight into a broader scope of the entire social hierarchy. The insights provided are simple means of granting us basic tools for a more detailed analysis of the contributing role of hierarchy in acquiring social power, either among groups or individuals. Beyond the fleeting illustrations provided in Hamlet and Antigone, a larger picture of social hierarchy and power emerges. This leads us to an interesting analysis in the proceeding discussion.
Hierarchy and power.
In almost all hierarchical systems within various societies, those who are at the top of the social ranks usually hold power, whether through legitimate or illegitimate means. There are also various forces that contribute to the definition of a social hierarchy”. This hierarchy can be broken down into component parts, ranging from economic or financial status to political status. Examining these aspects reveals how hierarchy grants power to individuals or groups.
Before discussing the delegation of power to upper ranks in society, it is important to understand how hierarchy is determined. In many countries, social rank is defined by both financial and political status. Those with greater wealth have access to more resources, which can help them achieve their goals with fewer financial obstacles. While money cannot buy everything, it can provide necessary resources for success.
On another note, a person’s political status can also contribute to their placement in the higher echelons of society. Political power plays a primary role in the development of any society and comes with special functions that are not easily accessible to ordinary citizens. Therefore, having political status can be advantageous to some extent.
Thus, having either political or financial status (or both) can propel one to the upper ranks of the social hierarchy, unlike those who lack such foundations. If this is the case, the next concern would be how to attain power once one reaches the top of the hierarchy.
The reasons for this are quite apparent. If someone is already at the top of the hierarchy, it becomes relatively easy to acquire power without actually having to climb up the social ladder. With proper financial and political backgrounds, one can easily slide past obstacles with minimal effort and reach for power.
Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Antigone both explore the theme of a change in hierarchy.
It is notable in both Hamlet and Antigone that there is a change in authority through the classic means of replacing the king, oftentimes through violent measures. This act of replacing the standing authority can be taken to mean, in the context of the two Shakespearean works, that the author is advocating for a change in hierarchy. This change can be seen as an extension of a system” overhaul in society. However, it remains that Shakespeare’s attempts are crude or partial reinforcements of the social order and should not be entirely interpreted as an infusion of total disorder into the system since this would amount to anarchy for Shakespeare (Chaney).
On another point, it can be argued that the author challenges the existence of a social hierarchy. The stories depict a usurpation of power, which puts the hierarchical system to the test. The author insists that although the non-existence of a social hierarchy is non-beneficial as it amplifies mayhem and disorder, slight changes in the system itself can still be made to eliminate unwanted elements (Wilson).
Without hierarchy and power.
It has been proposed that a world without hierarchy and power is a world of equality in its strictest sense. This can indeed be the case. However, even in such a scenario, it can hardly be imagined that there will be social order. Granted that all individuals are on equal footing and that no social ranking exists, it cannot necessarily follow that there will be a relatively harmonious existence among the people. The primary reason is that, as Hobbes puts it, the life of man in the state of nature is “solitary, poor, short, brutish and nasty” (Hobbes).
In the context of Hamlet and Antigone, the characters would have experienced a significant change in their daily lives and roles due to the hierarchical system being central to the plot. Removing this hierarchy would have resulted in drastic changes for the characters, ultimately altering the story as a whole.
Conclusion.
William Shakespeare believed in the relevance of a social hierarchy and its role in preventing or at least diminishing mayhem within society. Hierarchy and power are crucial forces in constructing and maintaining both society as a whole and individuals within it.
Works Cited
Chaney, Joseph. From Madness to Responsibility: Shakespeare’s Machiavellian Princes.” 2005. Retrieved May 8, 2007 from http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:5hlM8sUDCMgJ:thinkingwithshakespeare.org/Shakespeare/SAA/SAA%2520Papers/Chaney.doc+Shakespeare+Hamlet+social+hierarchy&hl=tl&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=ph.
Forester, Ann. “Machiavellian Precepts in Shakespeare’s Plays”. 1995. Education Resources Information Center. Retrieved May 8, 2007 from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED392047&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&objectId=0900000b80137f08.
Hobbes, Thomas. Of Speech.” Leviathan: With Selected Variants from the Latin Edition of 1668. Edited by Edwin Curley. New edition. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1994, p. 19.
McDonald, Russ. “Town and Country: Life in Shakespeare’s England.” The Bedford Companion to Shakespeare: An Introduction with Documents. 2nd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001. p. 232.
Wilson, J. Dover’s Eclipse” is featured in the third edition of the book What Happens in Hamlet, published by Cambridge University Press in 1951. The work can be found on page 258.
