Literary Study, Politics, and Shakespeare: A Debate

This article summarizes the opposing perspectives that George Will and Stephen Greenblatt have on the emphasis of politics and ideology in the study of literature, particularly Shakespearean literature. Debate was sparked in 1991 after Lynne Cheney, a chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), nominated Carol Iannone to join the board as well. The Executive Council of Modern Language Association (MLA) opposed the nomination, saying that she didn't have "scholarly credentials," but its criticized that the real reason had to do with her conservative political background. So? Who cares, right? Well the NEH has the wallet to fund academic humanities research, and if they're choosing members based on politics, someone is bound to get the short end of the stick. To add to the issue even more, the NEH/MLA dispute isn't the first; similarly, The National Endowment for the Arts has had conflicts on whether to fund "controversial or offensive" art.

Will, a Pulitzer-prize winning political commentator, and Greenblatt, a Cogan University Professor of the Humanities at Harvard University, both claim to "speak for no one but themselves;" however, they each make a convincing argument on the debate that just about any other individual could take a "side" on.

Will understands the Average Joes out there in the world. Basically, he thinks that analyzing literature, Shakespeare or not, through a post colonialist or feminist "lens," for example, is unnecessary, being that most people don't. He says that doing so is "rendering the plays unrecognizable to the ordinary reader and playgoer." Will clearly shows what side of the fence he falls on in the NEH issue, saying that "all literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political." He uses The Tempest as a prime example of the "imperialist rape of the Third World," in which a "literary canon" is used as an "instrument of domination...which is, by definition, irreducibly political." He parallels the analysis of literature through those lenses with "political decoding," which "[strips] literature of its authority." Will argues that this "decoding" creates a snow-ball effect, resulting in "amnesia and deculturation," which, he says, achieves the "political goal."
Greenblatt counters Will's argument, saying that "these preoccupations with political power" are something that Shakespeare and audience that his works were written for know well. He elaborates, saying that examining literary works through lenses like post colonialism or feminism will deepen "the ordinary reader's pleasure rather than undermine it." He doesn't deny Will's claim of The Tempest being about imperialism, since it is "very difficult to argue that [it isn't] about imperialism." Greenblatt says that "a love of literature...is a community founded on freedom...and scholarly honesty," but the best way "to kill literary inheritance" is the "celebration of new world order." He's saying that things like politics, religion, and history will influence a written work regardless and should therefore be analyzed to determine what the author was trying to portray. "Literary inheritance," according to Greenblatt, can be kept alive through the analysis of literary works through those different lenses, a "risk" that is necessary to take.

I'm sitting on the fence right now. I think that both Will and Greenblatt make valid points on how literature is emphasized when studied. Yeah, maybe most people don't analyze every piece of literature through a lens, but it doesn't mean that others who WANT to find a deeper meaning to those said pieces shouldn't be able to analyze through whatever lens they please. While one could "politically decode" that piece of literature, one could just as easily avoid "deculturation" by focusing on another aspect of that work. Greenblatt summarizes this concept well, mentioning that while The Tempest does focus on imperialism, "forgiveness, wisdom, and social atonement" are also recognizable attributes of the play. I do agree that literature can reflect political ideology, but I also think that that one can read a book or watch one of Shakespeare's plays without having to touch on that issue. I don't think that there is a specific right or wrong way to analyze literature and each person's perspective is going to be different as is. With that being said, I agree with points that both Will and Greenblatt make.

Night!