<\/p>
Despite the distracting use of the opposition of of \u201cauthenticity\u201d and \u201cresponsibility,\u201d Terry Eagleton has some thoughtful observations on the tragic dilemma in Hamlet ( Shakespeare and Society <\/em> , 1967). <\/p>\n Hamlet\u2019s is a society of \u201creciprocal human definitions,\u201d that is to say, a man\u2019s identity is mirrored to him by society, and this social reflection of identity may be quite different from his own self-conception. What to do? Eagleton suggests there are three options: <\/p>\n 1)accept the social definition, also but find one\u2019s self at margins of society in non-official activities; Hamlet attempts this last way. <\/p>\n Society attempts to impose controls on Hamlet\u2019s authenticity, demanding that, for example, he surrender his desire for Ophelia, but he refuses to be a puppet. This leads to a \u201cdelight in resisting any kind of definition\u201d which is \u201csocially irresponsible, a merely negative response.\u201d This is the tragic tension of the story: to be individual means to be put on a collision course with the society. <\/p>\n Hamlet cannot find it in himself to kill Claudius despite the social responsibility of revenge, so he fails to act. But the \u201creal tragedy\u201d is that he is \u201cunable to find self-definition within formal society patterns\u201d and \u201ccan preserve his identity only in opposition to these patterns.\u201d As a result, his identity becomes unreal. Hamlet thus \u201cis described in terms of diffusion\u201d and he becomes ghostlike. This is a tragic stance, since even though society is false and its definitions \u201cdistorting,\u201d yet \u201cit is still the only available way for a man to confirm himself as real, to objectify and know himself in public action.\u201d He is caught in a contradiction between \u201cauthentic\u201d and \u201cresponsible\u201d action. Being true to oneself, Eagleton concludes, may prove false to others. <\/p>\n Reading Eagleton on Hamlet suggests the possibility of a Foucaultian spin: Hamlet lives in a literal panopticon, where spying and surveillance are the stuff of daily existence. \u201cDenmark is a prison\u201d \u2013 and more than thought makes it so. He is noble in his effort to escape detection and defintion, but that noble effort is doomed because the surveillance is inescapable. <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Despite the distracting use of the opposition of of \u201cauthenticity\u201d and \u201cresponsibility,\u201d Terry Eagleton has some thoughtful observations on the tragic dilemma in Hamlet ( Shakespeare and Society , 1967). Hamlet\u2019s is a society of \u201creciprocal human definitions,\u201d that is to say, a man\u2019s identity is mirrored to him by society, and this social reflection […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1456","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-literature"],"yoast_head":"\n
2)give one\u2019s self wholly to public definition, so that he becomes as he is valued (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and other hollow men); or
3)assert one\u2019s authentic life and risk destruction at hands of society. <\/p>\n
Hamlet is attempting to escape the definitions that society offers. Hamlet doesn\u2019t allow Polonius to assert mastery or to define him. He \u201ccarves for himself all the time\u201d: \u201cby evading the formal definitions society lays on him, by cutting through expected behaviour and approaching Ophelia with a directly personal appeal after the shock of the Ghost\u2019s announcement, he is acting counter to the patterns prescribed for him: his \u2018authentic\u2019 and \u2018social\u2019 selves, his own sense of himself and the way others see him, are at odds.\u201d <\/p>\n