Monday, November 17, 2008
Masculinity in Macbeth
There is much masculinity shown throughout Macbeth. Macbeth is a very violent play and there is much killing and murdering going on so the men can gain masculinity for each person killed. Men sometimes murder in order to show how powerful he can possibly be. Men also want to prove to their wives or loved ones how powerful they are. I think that there are other ways in which men can so masculinity, however Shakespeare doesn’t show how in this play. Instead he creates a play in which a man goes around murdering innocent people in order for him to have power and become king. By killing these men and not earning the power and becoming king Macbeth looks cowardly. Professor Britland said in lecture that blood binds men and they earn respect for each other. How can blood bind men if they are killing each other left and right? I think the only way that men can earn respect by killing is by self-defense. If someone attacks a man and that man kills the person going after him I would have a lot more respect for him. First of all by defending yourself when someone tries to kill you deserves the most respect. By doing this it shows toughness, alertness, and masculinity. I cannot see how one can have respect by killing someone behind their back, like Macbeth did to Duncan. If he wants to earn respect he should have challenged him to a fight. By doing this and winning he not only would earn respect and his masculinity, but he would have also earned to be king. We cannot say that Lady Macbeth has earned respect either. She helped the plot to kill Duncan. By doing this she also becomes cowardly. There are many different ways to earn respect, but killing in a cowardly way is not one of them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I definitely agree that the murders Macbeth commits are ultimately unfair and hardly valiant. But Professor Britland also had in her lecture that “Macbeth violates the warrior blood code that binds him to Duncan.” And she made it clear that Macbeth became “overly masculine” in the play, suggesting that the blood he spilled did not necessarily gain him the same ties that blood normally results in. I think she was right in saying that blood binds men. The play is about men who fight in war, and whether or not the killing they do is valiant or deserves respect, I can only imagine that the blood shed in war does indeed bind men to each other. It’s possible that I’m completely wrong in my interpretation of what Professor Britland was saying, but I don’t think she was saying that any sort of murder wasn’t bad or cowardly, but just stating a truth, if not only in the play, in life, as well. Blood signifies death and life and is a powerful symbol, especially for warriors, who gain their warrior identities with it, as Professor Britland said in lecture.
I find the idea of Macbeth’s “hyper-masculinity” a bit contradictory. Although it can be argued that Macbeth’s over-masculine nature is a direct result of his ambition to be king, his violation of “the warrior blood code that binds him to Duncan,” and the pressures from Lady Macbeth, it seems to me that all of these things make him very un-masculine. If honor and dignity designate a man as masculine, Macbeth is severely lacking in these qualities, and this makes his unworthy of being king despite his intentions. His orders to kill Duncan are also incredibly cowardly, as he mandates someone else kill his good friend and his son, and does not face Duncan himself. I also believe that his ambitious actions are a response of Lady Macbeth’s constant effeminizing comments, and his efforts to live up to her concept of masculinity. This drive to be masculine in his wife’s eyes, however, does not make him “hyper-masculine;” rather, Macbeth cannot live up to his wife’s horrible expectations because he is too cowardly and ultimately not masculine enough.
Post a Comment