Beyond the Bard: Why It’s Time to Rethink Mandatory Shakespeare
Let’s be honest. For countless students, the phrase “Shakespeare unit” doesn’t herald excitement, but a collective groan. It means wrestling with dense, archaic language, puzzling over unfamiliar metaphors, and trying desperately to grasp plots obscured by centuries of linguistic drift. The argument that “Shakespeare is timeless” often collides head-on with the reality of a modern classroom: We need to stop being taught Shakespearean texts and language as a compulsory pillar of the literature curriculum. This isn’t about diminishing Shakespeare’s genius, but about questioning whether forcing every student through this specific linguistic and cultural obstacle course truly serves their education best.
The Accessibility Barrier: Language as a Wall, Not a Window
The most immediate hurdle is the language itself. Early Modern English, with its unfamiliar syntax (“Wherefore art thou Romeo?” meaning “Why are you Romeo?”, not “Where are you?”), obsolete vocabulary (“wherefore,” “thou,” “doth,” “fain”), and complex poetic structures, creates a significant barrier to entry. For many students, especially those learning English as an additional language or those with reading difficulties, deciphering the text becomes the primary challenge, consuming immense time and energy. This process often overshadows any potential appreciation for character, theme, or plot. The “meaning” is obscured, hidden behind layers of translation and teacher explanation. Can we truly foster a love of literature when the first step feels like decoding an alien manuscript?
Questioning Relevance: Is 400 Years Too Far?
Proponents argue Shakespeare explores universal themes – love, jealousy, power, ambition – making his work perpetually relevant. This is true. However, the context in which these themes are explored – the rigid social hierarchies, the specific political intrigues, the deeply embedded cultural norms of Elizabethan England – feels incredibly distant to a 21st-century teenager. The immediate relevance often touted is less inherent and more imposed through teacher interpretation. Students are told why it matters, rather than organically connecting to the material because it reflects their world. Does the struggle of a Danish prince resonate more readily than, say, the complexities of identity in a contemporary immigrant narrative, or the societal pressures dissected in modern young adult fiction? Mandating Shakespeare often comes at the cost of exploring literature that speaks directly to students’ lived experiences and contemporary concerns.
The Problem with “Cultural Capital”
A common defense is that Shakespeare provides essential “cultural capital” – a shared knowledge base deemed necessary for being “educated.” Knowing Hamlet’s soliloquy or recognizing an “Othello” reference is seen as part of cultural literacy. But this argument is problematic:
1. Whose Culture? It elevates one specific, historically dominant cultural perspective (white, European, Elizabethan) as the essential one, often marginalizing other rich literary traditions and voices.
2. Surface-Level Engagement: Forced study rarely results in deep appreciation; it often leads to rote memorization of famous lines or plot points, quickly forgotten after the exam. True cultural capital comes from genuine engagement, not reluctant obligation.
3. Exclusionary Effect: Framing Shakespeare as the pinnacle of cultural literacy can alienate students from diverse backgrounds whose own cultural touchstones are absent from the curriculum, implicitly suggesting their heritage is less valuable.
Lost Opportunities: What Are We Missing?
The hours spent painstakingly translating “Romeo and Juliet” could be spent exploring diverse voices and perspectives. Imagine classrooms buzzing over:
Contemporary Global Literature: Engaging with powerful narratives from different cultures and continents.
Modern Playwrights: Analyzing the sharp social commentary of Arthur Miller, Lorraine Hansberry, Tony Kushner, or Lin-Manuel Miranda.
Rich Young Adult Fiction: Delving into complex themes in accessible, well-crafted novels that mirror students’ own challenges.
Non-Western Classics: Discovering epics, poetry, and drama from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Indigenous traditions.
Multimodal Texts: Critically analyzing graphic novels, film, digital storytelling, and spoken word poetry as valid literary forms.
Mandating Shakespeare inevitably squeezes out these vital explorations. It reinforces a narrow canon at a time when broadening perspectives is crucial.
Beyond Abolition: A Place for the Bard?
This isn’t a call to burn the First Folio. Shakespeare remains a monumental figure. His plays can be exhilarating in performance, and his influence on language and storytelling is undeniable. The goal isn’t erasure, but demotion from compulsory status and a reimagining of how he’s approached:
Electives, Not Requirements: Offer rich, engaging Shakespeare courses for students genuinely interested in drama, theatre history, or advanced literary analysis.
Performance-First: Prioritize seeing the plays performed (live or filmed) over laborious text decoding. Shakespeare wrote for the stage, not the page.
Thematic Connections: Use excerpts or adaptations to illustrate specific literary devices or themes within a broader, more diverse curriculum, rather than making his work the central focus for months.
Historical Context: Place Shakespeare firmly within his historical context as one important voice among many in literary history, not the singular apex.
Empowering Choice and Relevance
The core of the argument is student engagement and educational equity. A literature curriculum should ignite curiosity, develop critical thinking, foster empathy through diverse stories, and equip students with strong reading and analytical skills applicable to a wide range of texts. Forcing all students through the specific challenge of Shakespearean language often achieves the opposite: it frustrates, alienates, and convinces many that “literature” is something difficult, distant, and irrelevant.
By moving Shakespeare from a mandatory slog to an exciting option, and by centering the curriculum on a wider array of accessible, relevant, and diverse voices, we can create classrooms where more students discover the genuine joy and power of literature. We can stop treating Shakespeare as the sole gatekeeper to literary appreciation and open the doors wider to a world of stories waiting to be explored. It’s not about disrespecting the past; it’s about empowering the present and future of our students. Let’s choose texts that don’t just endure, but truly resonate and spark the love of reading we all hope to cultivate. That spark, not the mandatory decoding of 400-year-old syntax, is what changes everything.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » Beyond the Bard: Why It’s Time to Rethink Mandatory Shakespeare