Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Among the core insights of the Marxist theory is that the class struggle has characterized the history of societies development. Because art, both literature and theater, does not exist separately from society, it has become a crucial aspect of the historical process and peoples comprehension of the world. Thus, it is appropriate to examine pieces of art within the particular context of the time in which it has originated and juxtapose the work of art to the context or approach within it is being analyzed. When applying a Marxist approach to King Lear, it allows to dig deeper into the sociopolitical structure of society at the time when the play was written. In line with Marxist theory, King Lear is an absolute monarch whose focus is placed only on maintaining personal power, which enables him to exploit and neglect his subjects. The play illustrates that a person can only become powerful when they are stripped from the privilege and pomposity and go through the experiences of the lower class.
A Marxist reading of King Lear is expected to reveal that power and materialism significantly limit the worldview of the higher class. For them to understand the reality, they must put themselves in the place of the poor and unprivileged. Lear is an absolute monarch, the representative of a feudalist system. He has lost connection to his people and with his personal understanding of the world (Delany, 1977). Lears world is rooted in feudalism, a system in which a persons role in society is rigid and can never be changed (Ryan, 2017). The old order in which the royals have the highest position in society and expect loyalty and obedience from everyone else is represented by Lear and Gloucester.
Blindly believing in the obedience of their subjects, those in power are adamant about showing their superiority. This is exemplified in the love test in which King Lear challenged his daughters to participate. Cordelia did not give the desired answer and said, Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave My heart into my mouth. I love your majesty according to my bond, no more nor less (Shakespeare, 2006, Act I Scene 1). The quote shows that Cordelias attitude toward her father is purely transactional she acknowledges her bond to him according to social relations while he expects deep love, respect, and reverence. Not satisfied with Cordelias reply, Lear decides to disown her and banish from the royal society. Moreover, when Kent, Lears formerly loyal servant, supports Cordelia, he also gets banished. Similar to Lear, when Gloucester has a suspicion that his son Edgar cannot be trusted, he also gets enraged and dismisses his paternity.
From the Marxist perspective, it is essential to underline the fact that the influential individuals have not given enough care to the needs and expectations of others: poor naked wretches, whersoer you are [&] How shall your houseless heads and unfed sides Your lood and windowd raggedness, defend you from seasons such as these? (Shakespeare, 2006, Act 3 Scene 4). This example allows to expand on the Marxist perspective that would consider Lear as an absolute monarch who is only worried about extending his own power while neglecting relationships with his subjects.
In the play, the middle-class attitudes can be traced to such characters as Edmund, Cornwall, Regan, and Goneril, who challenge themselves to compete with the power exerted by the feudalist leaders. In line with the Marxist ideas, these characters have middle class characteristics and thus have a more realistic view of the world compared to the plays absolute monarch (Holbrook, 2010). For instance, in a conversation with Regan and Goneril, Lear says that he would like to get old with the dignity and respect he had as a king while also keeping his knights as they were the sign of his authority. However, the two say no need to show power in such a way, referring to Lears subordinates as riotous knights who did nothing of value for the kingdom (Shakespeare, 2006, Act 1 Scene 3). The kings daughters have a different view on power and the feudal system and ignore the outdated Effects of courtesy, dues of gratitude that their father hoped to use to influence them (Shakespeare, 2006, Act 1 Scene 1). Lear cannot believe that his elder daughters would give him so much disrespect. They show complete disregard for him and his dignity despite the fact that he has given away his power and the kingdom, which shatters his world entirely. This causes Lear to abandon the society as he has always known it; he enters the world of the lower social class as a person who has lost everything.
When looking at Cordelia from the Marxist standpoint, her character would be perceived as the most humane and well-natured among all others. Importantly, Cordelia knows her self-worth and is critical of those people who express themselves insincerely. Even though Lear treated her unfairly, she stuck to her sincere thoughts, remaining stoic throughout the play. This makes the audience sympathize with her because King Lear treated her unfairly despite the fact that other characters viewed her positively. Worried about the young womans fate, Kent prays for Cordelia, The gods to their dear shelter take thee, maid, That justly thinkst and hast most rightly said! (Shakespeare, 2006, Act 1 Scene 1).
Besides, the King of France, who later marries Cordelia, mentions that he would make her his wife even without the dowry: Fairest Cordelia, that art most rich, being poor, Most choice, forsaken, and most lovd, despisd! Thee and thy virtues here I seize upon, Be it lawful I take up whats cast away. (Shakespeare, 2006, Act 1 Scene 1). Therefore, Cordelias honesty and the desire for her life to be free of feudalist barriers is what makes her different from the rest of the characters. In the social affairs of that time, it was expected for a powerful man to marry a woman of a similar class and status, however, the King of France dismisses this social expectation for the sake of Cordelia.
Returning to the journey that King Lear experience, it is only when he gets away from the bourgeoise society that he can perceive the world as an entirely different individual. The tempest that occurs on the health symbolizes the inner struggles that Lear experiences. In the middle of the violent storm, when Lear is exposed to the world of the poor and the mad, Lead gets an in-depth understanding of the world in which the disposed exist (Lee, 2009). The exposure to this world allows the former king to realize what has been occurring in his kingdom while he did not pay any attention to the interests of the wretched (Tyson, 2014). Through plays development, Lear has come a long way and can make commentary on social injustices: A man may see how this world goes with no eyes. Look with thine ears: see how yond justice rails upon yond simple thief. Hark, in thine ear: change places; and, handy-dandy, which is the justice, which is the thief? (Shakespeare, 2006, Act 4 Scene 6).
The play concludes with the meaningless battle between Edmund and Edgar for the British throne. Even though, in the end, Lear reconciles with Cordelia, her subsequent death is senseless and plays no political role for the kingdom. Through such a conclusion, the author comments on the fact that the struggle for power is often absurd because it grounds on human ambition rather than the desire to improve the lives of others. In the end, Lears destruction entails the loss of a new understanding of the poor conditions in which the lower class exists. The King understands finally that human beings are inherently equal, making his death that more tragic. Even though being a monarch entails absolute power, it does not mean that it has to be abused, and King Lear is the example of how not to act in such circumstances. The irony of Lears fate is that he only begins to understand the meaning of power when it is taken away from him. An individual can become a true leader when they are stripped away from the pompous attributes of their power so that they understand what the lower-class representatives experience.
References
Delany, P. (1977). King Lear and the decline of feudalism. PMLA, 92(3), 429-440.
Holbrook, P. (2010). The left and King Lear. Textual Practice, 14(2), 343-362.
Lee, L. S. (2009). Allows itself to anything: Poor Tom familiarizing and enacting chaos in King Lear. Inquiries Journal, 1(10), 1-2.
Ryan, Michael, ed. (2017). Literary theory: A practical introduction. John Wiley & Sons.
Shakespeare, W. (2006). King Lear. Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers,
Tyson, Lois. (2014). Critical theory today: A user-friendly guide. Routledge.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.