Decolonization: To Be or Not to Be? Shakespeare Through the Alexander Lens.

 

The image that I have chosen represents the current dialogue pertaining to the ‘decolonization’ of Shakespeare’s work. Shakespeare has been a point of contention in the modern era of academia. Many scholars believe that academic curricula prioritizes Shakespeare’s work over others and in turn, promotes dominant colonial perspectives. However, others believe that Shakespeare’s discography promotes ideas of colonial resistance and social deviance. Discussion around the decolonization of Shakespeare’s work echoes components of Alexander’s The Civil Sphere that we analyzed in class. 

An evident component of Alexander’s writing that reflects in this discourse is the binary moral coding in society. In Shakespeare’s work, there is a strong presence of binary moral coding in relation to racial distinctions. The portrayal of the Jewish man in his playwriting is almost exclusively synonymous with negative stereotypical views of Jewish culture and people. For example, Shylock from The Merchant of Venice is depicted to be unclean, immoral, and untrustworthy. Though race is directly mentioned in these plays, these characters are separated commonly into categories of the sacred and the profane. Instead of the plot being the Christians vs. Jewish people, it would be between those motivated by faith vs. those motivated by money, or the clean vs. the dirty. Shakespeare also had rational vs irrational moral coding between women (Alexander 2006:53-67). 

Women with independent thought and confidence were made out to be threats to social order, often being the antagonist or antihero of the play. A perfect example of this in the title alone is The Taming of the Shrew. However, the negative responses to Shakespeare's work in today's social climate highlight a larger subset of moral social binaries. Kenan Malik from “The Guardian” argues that Shakespeare’s work challenged aspects of colonialism during its time. He states that many great academics that were not distinctly highlighted in his work appreciated his greatness within the context it was produced (Buontempo 2025). He directly quotes W.E.B Dubois’ The Souls of Black Folk, where Dubois remarks “I sit with Shakespeare and he winces not” (Du Bois 1903). Dubois' overall message of this quote is that race is socially constructed in modern civilization and can not be applied to the entirety of human history. The debate over Shakespeare stems directly from the shift in civil society after social movements occur. This directly relates to Chapter 8 of Alexander's book.

Chapter 8 of The Civil Sphere discusses how social movements present their cause as an issue of morality (Alexander 2006:192-209). In the context of this topic, decolonization is the social movement and it expands far beyond Shakespeare. This movement has led to the deconstruction of American statues, additions to curriculum, and the condemning of previously revered historical figures. The chapter also makes the distinction between expansive and restrictive movements (Alexander 2006:192-209). Decolonization would fall under the category of an expansive movement because the ultimate goal is to include minority perspective and content into historical narrative and curricula. There are valid arguments on both sides of this discourse, and I see it as a valuable conversation to consider through the Alexander lens.

Alexander, Jeffrey C. 2006. “From Chapter 4: The Discourse of Civil Society” and “From Chapter 8: Social Justice and Civil Repair.” Pp. 53–67 and 192–209 in The Civil Sphere. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved March 26, 2025.

Buontempo, Fabiana. 2025. "'De-colonizing' Shakespeare: Experts Blame 'White Supremacy' for Playwright’s Fame." New York Post, March 16. Retrieved from https://nypost.com/2025/03/16/lifestyle/de-colonizing-shakespeare-experts-blame-white-supremacy-for-playwrights-fame

Du Bois, W.E.B. 1903. The Souls of Black Folk. Chicago: A.C. McClurg & Co.