This is an original engraving by Henry Fuseli that I was able to see at the Folger Shakespeare Library in D.C.
Texts discussed: “Poststructuralist & Deconstructionist Criticism” (1619 from Textbook); William Dodd’s “Impossible Worlds”; Shakespeare’s King Lear, Act I, Scene 3,4,5
Building on the critical approach of structuralism, the last critical lens we’ll look at is post-structural analysis (and more specifically deconstruction). This approach will hopefully help us with a deeper conversation about Lear, and your group project.
The big thinkers here are Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault. Although some complain this school of thought is existentialism and espouses the idea “nothing matters,” it actually grew out of the frustration of the lack of social change brought about by Marxism. In this way the exciting part about post-structuralist analysis is it goes beyond marxist analysis in opening up new and expanded possibilities for social action. Here are the major guidelines when trying to do a post-structural analysis, or deconstruct a text:
I. There is no transcendental signified
Truth and objectivity is invoked through religion, ethical norms, scientific methodology, etc., but since all truths are contextual and the result of relationships among other signs there can never be a “static” truth. It helps to look at a text and ask when does it assume an unassailable “truth”?
II. Although structuralism tells us we gather meaning from signs from their relationship to other signs, post-structuralism goes further in saying those relationships are never fully knowable because they’re always changing.
Derrida coined the term différence for this phenomena. The idea is that meaning is always deferred down a chain of signs. This is because meaning is made through differences among signs but never made certain and secure through those differences. So meaning never stops. Meaning is always being deferred.
III. Texts betray traces of their own instability
So in deconstructing a text we should ask:
-What meaning is textually attributed to a given sign?
-How is it defined in opposition to other signs?
-What relationship value is set up between those signs (dominant/less dominant)?
-Where and how do those signs and the text that surrounds them betray clues to their fragility and ambiguity?
-How, then, does a reversal of their superficial values lead to different conclusions about the meaning of the sign in question?
-What information must be energetically suppressed in the text in order for its meanings to remain even temporarily secure?
-Lastly, metaphors in a text are usually ripe for this line of questioning because they usually rely on “truisms,” or cliches. For example, if I say the metaphor “life’s a journey,” we’re making the assumptions that life has an end, and there should be a goal to it. This discredits people that might like to get lost, or wander through life. A deconstruction of this metaphor asks if those assumptions are fair?
IV. There is nothing outside the text
-Derrida also coined this important phrase. While this may seem limiting, Derrida is acknowledging that all texts are a system of signs in relation to other signs. So this actually opens up texts to just about everything in our system of language (and you can see how Foucault does this in the video below), but it also means that we can never escape language, and systems of signification. So post-structuralists need to figure ways of challenging it, or re-shaping meaning–what Derrida calls “deconstruction.”
V. The deployment of power is polyvalent
Foucault is responsible for this tenant. It’s a guideline in how he looks at the different institutions of society like hospitals, prisons, and even sexuality. His claim is that the exercise of power is inherently oppressive, but also creates new situations and relations. Another big post-structuralist, Michel de Certeau uses the idea of “strategies vs. tactics.” Institutions use “strategies” to exercise their power (think of a big army), but individuals use “tactics” to subvert those and create new ways of living (think more “guerrilla” type armies).
VI. Cultural & Literary criticism is a form of signification
So when a post-structuralist critiques, they must also acknowledge that their interpretation is also fragile and polyvalent. But this opening yourself up to critique, actually energizes writing by making it more of conversation instead of a dictum. Post-structuralists would argue this is what makes this critical approach so exciting because it is though discussion that real social change is possible.
And Lastly, we talked about Lear as a boring book, as a play, and as a comic book. Here it as a piece of great Japanese Cinema. This is also a great example of where we’re headed with your Personal Research Project. In this video, we see a comparison of King Lear and Akira Kurosawa’s film Ran:
Question Set:
- How does Edmund or Kent use language to deconstruct institutional power? To what extent do we place a value judgement on their actions?
- Using guideline III, how does the Fool deconstruct a metaphor to show how it’s implied truism might be false, or mean the opposite? (What is the metaphor, what is the truism, how does the fool show it to possibly mean the opposite?)
- How might you answer Terence Hawkes’ question at the end of this claim: “…is to propose that to some degree it is we who ‘produce’ King Lear, we who ‘construct’ it in whatever for the prejudices and pressures of our own time dictate. We, to that extent, and to stretch the point, for the sake of argument, almost to absuridity, are not far from being effectively the ‘authors’ of the play. As a result, the question ‘what does King Lear mean?’ makes much less sense than the more appropiate ‘what do we mean by King Lear?‘.
Have fun!
white bunny hole 
1. Both Edmund and Kent continually utilize language to deconstruct institutional power. In Edmund’s case, he directly challenges the way in which society treats bastard individuals and he describes his views and opinions via monologues/soliloquies. Specifically, Edmund emphasizes the unfair treatment he experiences due to his bastard classification by saying lines such as “Wherefore should I Stand in the plague of custom and permit The curiosity of nations to deprive me For that I am some twelve or fourteen moonshines Lag of a brother?” (1.2.2-6). By stating such lines that are in direct contrast with society’s customs, Edmund is able to effectively challenge society as a whole and express his perspective. Kent similarly uses language to speak his mind regarding certain issues and to go against institutional norms. Though it is inherently known to never challenge the King’s actions, Kent publicly tells the King that his treatment toward Cordelia is unjust. Speaking directly to the King, Kent states “What wouldst thou do, old man?” and “And in thy best consideration check This hideous rashness.” Thus, by speaking the truth instead of siding with the one in power, Kent effectively deconstructs institutional power.
2. The Fool mockingly states that “Thou hast pared thy wit o’ both sides and left nothing i’ th’ middle. Here comes one o’ the parings” (1.4.168-169). The metaphor is a comparison of the loss of the king’s power to the loss of his brain. The Fool is attempting to tell King Lear that the giving away of his kingdom is equivalent to the giving away of his brain cells (truism). Nonetheless, the Fool means the opposite because it were the daughters of King Lear that have ultimately caused his downfall. King Lear, the Fool suggests, is not the one at fault. He has done the right thing and attempted to reward his daughters, only to find out later on that his daughters possess evilness and do not sincerely love their father.
3. One’s outlook on fictional characters is shaped by one’s own personal experiences and encounters. While we read King Lear, we each form our own views in regard to each character and sympathize more or less with certain ones. As described by Terence Hawkes, we the readers are forming our own interpretations of King Lear (and all other characters) based upon our past value judgments. Therefore, the answer to the question ‘what do we mean by King Lear?’ will significantly vary from reader to reader. Although there is no finite answer, I would assume that the most agreed-upon answer to this question would be tragedy, malevolence, and betrayal. Thus, readers are inclined to sympathize most with King Lear not only because he is a victim of these innately negative qualities but also because he is the most affected in comparison with other victimized characters in the play such as Edmund and Kent.
1.Edmund and Kent both seem total part in using language to deconstruct institutional power. We see Kent take part when he is talking to Lear and giving him hell for the way he is treating his own daughter. Though Cordelia is not of Kent’s concern in a family or friend manner, Kent still knows how a father should treat his daughter and he makes it known to Lear that he is wrong to treat her in the ways that he has been just because of the events that had prior happened. We see Edmund take part when he is talking about how he is a bastard child and while he is talking about this, in the comic, we can see him checking himself out in the mirror attempting to look like someone he obviously isn’t. To me, I feel like he talks about it so in depth that I actually begin to feel pity for him. I find myself feeling bad for him because he wants so bad to be something and someone that he is not. We judge Kent by the fact that we know he is not a father and by the fact that he is judging Lear by the way that he see’s him treating his daughter. It is no secret to us how we perceive how families should treat one another. In Edmunds case, we judge him as pitying himself and seemingly wanting others to pity him and his state. He is not happy with himself or what he believes the world considers him to be which is a bastard, he knows it is a low term and he wants to show everyone that he is more than the title that he feels like the world gave him. We see this when he says, “I grow. I prosper. Now Gods, stand up for bastards.” (Act 1, Scene 2).
2.There is a quote in Act one, scene four where the fool is talking to Lear about giving his kingdom over to his daughters. The fool says, “e’er since thou mad’st thy daughters thy mothers. For when thou gav’st them the rod and put’st down thy own breeches.” The fool is basically saying that Lear is making his daughters look like his wife in it that the kingdom usually goes to the leading lady in the Kings life but Lear doesn’t have that so he is making it one of his daughters. By doing this, the “rod” and how he may as well all down his pants is merely a metaphor for Lear about losing his power and maybe having it come around to whack him in the ass at some point or it could be that he is giving up his power and by doing this he is giving up everything. What the fool is saying here is true, if he gives one of his daughters the power then he will not have it anymore and he would have to obey the higher power. It is true again what the fool says regarding the daughters basically being mothers because that is what Lear is implying that they are by his actions. It is opposing because the mother of the daughters is not around so therefore one of them has to step up to the plate which is what Lear is implying. Lear doesn’t necessarily have to give up his power just because he grants a new higher power, he could be of help, he doesn’t need to lose everything that he has structured and worked for.
3. I believe that what we get out of something that we are reading at any given time has to do a lot with what we are going through in our personal lives. It has to do with what is touching us in the moment. I think that King Lear was written in a way that allows many to get various messages from it. There is no static answer and there never will be. You could ask one person what they have got from it and then ask another and it will be different just because you are asking two different people who are at different places in their lives. Along with that, messages can range from being very vague and hardly touched upon to deeply thought about life messages. So, King Lear has something for everyone as long as one can read and somewhat interpret.
1. In Act 1, Scene 4, we see that Kent utilizes language to deconstruct institutional power. Upon his first new encounter with Lear, he claims to be as poor as the King. He continues and says to Lear that because he possesses authority, he will serve him in bluntness as most would be unfit. By being honest like this with the King, Kent had already broken that wall that most would not even dare to approach with Lear, that being honesty. He was honest with Lear regardless of either of the institutional power, therefore deconstructing that barrier.
2. In the beginning of of Act 1, Scene 4, the Fool says to Lear, “Why, this fellow has banished two on’s daughters, and did the third a blessing against his will..” (27). By saying this, the Fool is implying the exact opposite of what he said in this case. Though believing otherwise, Lear unintentionally gives his power to his two least deserving daughters. The Fool was right however, about giving the third daughter, Cordellia, a blessing. This is because she remained true and did not need to deal with her father’s wrath over his obsession with his authority.
1. Kent uses praiseful language in order to deconstruct institutional power and get into good graces with the King. Once banished, he disguises himself and uses his skillful language to con Lear into giving him back his old job as servant. He states, “If but as well I other accents borrow, that can my speech defuse, my good intent may carry through itself to full issue for which I razed my likeness” (23). Not only does he disguise his normal voice to trick the King, but when Lear asks him what he can do and how old he is, he answers in ways which the King will not recognize that it is him. He is honest but has a roundabout way of using language for his own benefit, he uses language to benefit himself and get back to his previous position of the King’s council. To a large extent I believe we place a value judgement on his manipulation of language but we don’t view it negatively. I actually find it quite clever that Kent is able to use language for his own benefit and manages to get the King to take him back, all while being quite truthful.
2. A metaphor used by the Fool can be found in Act I, Scene IV when Goneril is speaking to King Lear. He informs Lear and the audience “The hedge-sparrow fed the cuckoo so long, that it had its head bit off by its young” (31). The truism/cliche here is similar to ‘don’t bite the hands that feed you’ but in this case is the opposite, as he’s stating that Lear took care of his children too long and they betrayed him (head bit off) in the end. He is critiquing Lear for giving his children everything when they ultimately turned around and backstabbed him.
3. I agree with what he’s saying because like many things in our life, what we perceive is what we see. Looking at King Lear in a time period where Shakespeare did not intend for it to be looked at plays a big roll in what we make of King Lear. The language itself is interpreted in a completely different manner than he intended it to be seen. Likewise we don’t understand the full context that Shakespeare wanted us to see it in because of the evolution of language and the differences of our time periods and societies; so I would have to say that yeah, makes sense. I agree with you Hawkes.
1. Edmund uses language to deconstruct power by essentially having a new way to think. He emphasized on what society thinks of bastard sons. The describes how unfair he is treated only because he is the “bastard” son. He also continues to say that he can be just as good as the legitimate son, and he will not let others (society) that that away from him.
2. The fools metaphor is when he says ” thou hast pared thy wit o’both sides, and left nothing I’th’ middle” “here comes one of the pairings” his metaphor is directed towards the Loss of power the king will experience if he gives it away to the daughters that will at one point he will regret. The truism is that he will be giving away his power but not only that his sanity, his brain. The fool trying to say the opposite is telling him he’s not in the wrong for wanting to give his daughters the kingdom, but his daughters also don’t really love him as he thinks they do, giving them power will give them the power to ruin him.
1. Edmund uses language to deconstruct institutional power by stating that bastards are no different than anyone else. He claims that his dimensions, his mind, and his shape are the same as other peoples. Basically, explaining that there is nothing to differentiate bastards from others so why are they treated differently.
2. Referring to King Lear, the fool says, “this fellow has banished two on’s daughters and did the third a blessing against his will…” the fool means the opposite of what he says because Lear did not banish two daughters but banished only one, and he didn’t do any of it against his will. But it is true that he did one a blessing because by banishing her he kept her away from her malicious sisters. And it is also true that Lear is a fool because by giving his two oldest daughters his kingdom he screwed himself over.
3. I think that the meanings we take from the things we read are based upon our subjective experiences. King Lear has a lot of underlying messages and different individuals will have different opinions on which ones are the most prominent ones. Personally, the one that stood out to me the most is that not everyone is who you think they are.
1. Edmund uses language to deconstruct power by stating how society and the rest of the people that he knows treat him because they think he is a bastard. By others stating that Edmund is a bastard, they see the word “bastard” as a bad person, but in reality they’re just different from from the rest of society.
2.The metaphor the Fool constructs is near the end of act 1 scene 4 where he says ” thou hast pared thy with o’both sides, and left nothing I’th middle”. This means that king Lear is losing all of his power because he decided to divide his power to daughters that are manipulative and don’t care about him. Pretty soon the king will go from something to nothing. The fool is also saying that if the king was smart, he would keep his land and test his daughters to see if they’re actually loyal to him. This quote by the fool displays truism because the king left nothing for Cordelia because she was telling the truth about the king and for some reason, the king couldn’t handle the truth.
3. I think the play King Lear means to be honest and and have some integrity. Everyone will have a different point of view depending on what others get out of the text. My prediction about what King Lear means could be wrong because the meaning of King Lear is always changing because the text is complex and can interpret different things.
1.)Kent uses some kind of language that allows him to speak with more freedom to king Lear. By doing so he deconstructs institutional power. He uses honesty to show to king Lear that he deserves his position back. He allows himself to speak the truth about the king’s actions regarding his wrong behavior towards Cordelia. He goes against the king’s ideas. I don’t think it’s a good idea because he is risking the chance of being punished by the king.
2.)The Fool uses the metaphor: “The hedge-sparrow fed the cuckoo so long, that it had its head bit off by its young” (31, Act 1; Scene v). The truism is similar to Sigmund Freud famous quote: “give them a finger and they’ll take the whole hand.” King Lear gave more than needed for his daughters, but they were greedy and wanted more.
3.) Each person can interpret the meaning of king Lear Lear differently because it has changed over the centuries which, enabled it to be fixed/static and be evaluated according to one’s individual circumstances.
1. Kent demonstrates the use of deconstruction institutional power after being banished but later disguising himself as an old man to fool King Lear. Kent also convinces King Lear to give him his old job back as a servant as he uses a different voice and figure to trick Lear so he does not recognize that it is Kent.
2. The Fool says, “when a wise man give thee better counsel, give me mine again: I would have none but knaves follow it, since a fool gives it” (pg 54). When he said that, he was saying, since he is a fool, that’s the reason why anyone wouldn’t take him seriously and therefore his judgment on things don’t really mean much. In reality, he one of the wisest people there and means it should not matter if you are a wise man to give advice.
3. What do we mean by King Lear? Well, it was a play that a dead man had created and many people loved it. Throughout the years, many people have produced the play which some varied from others due to interpretation. When one produces the play, it shows the appreciation for the play write and adds variation so it is not the same as another production, or maybe people try to find the one, first interpretation of the play which could get it right or just create another interpretation. Over extended periods of time, it will change for cultural values and other reasons.
1) Edmund uses language to deconstruct institutional power when he shows he understands his position as the bastard son and still attempts to change it. He understands that as a bastard son he is looked down upon and not seen the same as the legitimate son. Despite this he intends to prove people wrong and show that he is just the same or even better then Edgar.
2) The metaphor that the Fool used can be found in Act 1 Scene 4 when he says “The hedge-sparrow fed the cuckoo so long, that it had its head bit off by its young”. By saying this he points out that King Lear gave his daughters too much and in the end he’ll be the one to pay for it.
3) It is undeniable that King Lear can be interpreted in many ways. This is due to the fact it has many hidden messages that we can learn from and must interpret ourselves in our own way and through our own personal experience. Which is why as time goes by and things change this play can still be learned from due to it’s various messages it leaves behind.