A common practice that William Shakespeare employs in many of his works is the experimentation with gender politics. Shakespeare often shows how notions of gender become unstable due to social forces. To discuss Shakespeare's treatment of gender in his plays, it is useful to use Joan Wallach Scott's definition of gender, which she presents in her book, Gender and the Politics of History. Scott defines gender as “an element of social relations based on perceived differences between the sexes, and gender is a primary way of signifying power relations.” She notes that gender is constructed in part through relationships, including kinship, as well as broader gender relations grounded in politics and economics. Scott also argues that the binary system between men and women is unstable and that gender is constructed and reconstructed as conditions in society change. This phenomenon plays out in one of Shakespeare's most complex plays, King Lear. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayA historical event in the context of King Lear that influenced relationships and reconstructed gender roles was the decline of feudalism and the emergence of capitalism. In his article "King Lear and the Decline of Feudalism", Paul Delany explains how the shift from feudal politics to capitalism brought a corresponding change in relationships, which represented a period of crisis for the aristocracy. Delany suggests that the division of Lear's kingdom is symbolic of the emergence of capitalism and the decline of feudalism, and that the play's tragic ending shows "Shakespeare's attachment to traditional, aristocratic values, combined with a distaste for the fear of the buyer, of unscrupulous bourgeois values… which take their place. » To expand on Delany's premise, I will argue that, while using King Lear as a vehicle to criticize the fundamental tenets of capitalism and promote feudalism, Shakespeare also uses the fate of King Lear to express his fear that aggressive women are capable to assume roles of power within the state. the new political structure and male authority will thus be threatened. Before continuing this argument, it is important to examine gender roles as they exist within the overall realm of King Lear. In a book chapter he titled “The Situation of Women,” Russ MacDonald describes how gender and power relations in feudal society evolved from primitive societies, where men's greater physical strength led to the belief that men were superior to women. MacDonald notes that "the fact that women occupied a subordinate position to men in the early modern period is indisputable." In the larger cultural context of the play, this gender/power relationship (i.e. male superiority) is highlighted, especially as the women in King Lear are defined in relation to their husbands. This is clear from the first line of the play, spoken by Kent: "I thought the king affected the Duke of Albany more than Cornwall" (1.1.1-2). Note that he doesn't say "I thought the king affected Goneril more than Regan". The girls do not actually receive the kingdom – although they must have “earned” it through Lear’s games of flattery; it will truly belong to their husbands. Furthermore, as Cordelia does not have a husband, her share of the kingdom is intended to serve as a dowry. Thus, the woman is at the beginning of the play as a marginal figure in a world dominated by men. However, asAs the play progresses, the women (i.e. Lear's daughters) become more empowered, undermining traditional patriarchal notions already threatened by the new capitalist order and the loss of feudal values ​​previously enjoyed by King Lear. The first scene is representative of Lear's story. attachment to feudal values, such as accommodation of patriarchal wishes and the importance of honor and obedience in feudal relations. Furthermore, Shakespeare immediately connects Lear's loss of feudal and aristocratic traditions to gender change and power dynamics. King Lear is depicted as a traditional aristocrat who values ​​the submission of his daughters. Although he relinquishes power by dividing his kingdom, he clings to his position of authority and demands that his daughters publicly express their love and affection for him. Cordelia makes him angry because she refuses to play the game of love. When asked to express her love for her father in flattering words, she says: "Unhappy with what I am, I cannot lift / My heart in my mouth." I love Your Majesty / According to my bond, neither more nor less” (1.1. 92-93). Because Cordelia refuses to play Lear's flattery game, Lear feels that she is usurping his patriarchal authority, so he reprimands and banishes her. Two different readings of Cordelia's remarks support the notion that is at the heart of the play's ongoing critique of capitalism: the new political order brings about the instability of gender roles, as well as the degradation of relationships. Recognizing both interpretations helps illustrate the clever intertwining that Shakespeare makes of these two implications of the emergence of capitalism. First, there is Paul Delany's reading, based on the Marxist theory of cash nexus, according to which capitalism reduces all relationships to economic rates of exchange and establishes the only human connection based on monetary value. As Delany puts it: “The new order… having established cash payment as the sole measure of social obligation, ruthlessly attacks all customary obligations…”. . He notes that Cordelia's remarks serve to remind Lear, Regan, and Goneril, whose relationship resembles that of a monetary bond, that relationships should not be based on exchange rates, such as relying on flattery to obtain financial security. Rather, relationships should be based on natural relationships, associated with feudal economics and politics. In this context, Cordelia appears to approve of traditional feudal bonds and relationships and reject new capitalist relationships. Second, Cordelia's refusal to flatter her father could also be read as a rebellion against the gender role prescribed for her and a direct challenge to her father's expectations. . As Catherine Cox points out, she contradicts her own silence and becomes rebellious to the patriarchal order when she attempts to justify her silence and questions her sisters' flattery, claiming that they would not have the opportunity to love their husbands if they loved King Lear as much as they proclaimed. Cordelia said: Good my Lord, you fathered me, you raised me, you loved me. I render these duties to you as is due, I obey you, love you and honor you most. Why do my sisters' husbands say they love you all? Perhaps when I marry, this lord whose hand must take my fate will carry half of my love with him, half of my care and my duty. Of course I will never marry like my sisters To love my father all (1.1.95-104) Cordelia's statements can be seen as aggressive, and therefore threatening to Lear's patriarchal power. As Cox notes, "when Cordelia betraysher own silence, she abandons her identity as a girl; seemingly offended at having to compete with her sisters in such a ridiculous game, she demonstrates a masculine sense of entitlement, as if the "connection" she has and Lear's part should rightly guarantee her place as successor to Lear and exempt him from all public exposure. As a result, her act of rebellion against Lear can be seen as an attempt to reverse the social structure in which she lives. This reading emphasizes the threat of female power that emerges with the new political order. By recognizing both readings of Cordelia's opening remarks concomitantly, one can see that a dual context for the critique of capitalism is immediately established: (i) how it reduces relationships with exchange rates; and (ii) how it destabilizes gender roles. This double game of negative results of capitalism continues throughout the text. While condemning the new order, Shakespeare simultaneously criticizes the effects of changing society on gender roles. It shows how Lear's downfall is partly due to the rebuilding of power and gender destabilization resulting from the change in political order and the collapse of Lear's kingdom, the end of its natural patriarchal stability. This develops further through Lear's relationships with his daughters after Lear's kingdom is divided. Before the kingdom is divided, Lear's daughters provide a sense of stability through their affection and loyalty, which Lear sees as their duty. His daughters were submissive to him when he was king, but this is no longer the case once they claim the title of queen. Lear expected his daughters to meet his needs and depended on their gratitude and affection. They have not met Lear's expectations, and he becomes furious. Lear's dependence on them depended on their mutual trust in him, since he was the source of their power. When the situation changed and his daughters gained more power, Lear, with his patriarchal values, could not emotionally handle the new power dynamic. He even considers returning to his kingdom, during his conversation with his Fool, when he says: “[to] definitely return! Monster of ingratitude! (1.5.37). Lear's statements reinforce the idea that a return to feudalism would allow him to regain his power, which would create a return to his previous relationships with his daughters, when they fulfilled their role of giving him pleasure through obedience and affection. Thus, the collapse of his kingdom perpetuates a shift in gender dynamics and results in the deterioration of Lear's power and the destruction of his most important relatives, his daughters. In this way, Shakespeare connects the decline of strong feudal relations to the threat of female power, both phenomena that followed the emergence of capitalism. We see a similar connection in Act II, when Lear's daughters deny him his entire retinue of knights. Paul Delany explains how the new social order created "the opposition between a feudal-aristocratic ethic which promotes display, generosity and conspicuous consumption, and a bourgeois ethic which values ​​thrift because it promotes accumulation rather than the dissipation of capital. Lear's insistence that he maintain his full retinue of knights shows his reliance on such feudal values, and it is interesting to observe that Shakespeare makes Lear's daughters, with their greed and ambition, the source of power which deprives Lear of his knights. Lear expects that, more than anything, his own daughters will grant his wish, and when they tell him that his retinue and his power will be further reduced, his remarksserve to express his anger at his daughters' disobedience, and also to provide an endorsement of feudal consumption: O, reason is not necessary! Our vilest beggars are superfluous in the poorest things. Do not allow nature more than it needs, the life of man is as cheap as that of the beast (2.4.259281). Lear's justification for his knights illustrates his connection to strong feudal and patriarchal values. He says humans would be no different from animals if they didn't need more than the basic necessities of life to be happy, a feudal value, and a strong opposition to capitalism, which supports practicality and frugality. Lear needs knights and servants not only because of the service they provide him but also because of what their presence represents: namely his identity, both as a king and as a patriarchal figure. Furthermore, Goneril and Regan's refusal to comply with Lear's demands infuriated him because, once again, women were challenging his authority, and not just any women, but his own daughters. Despite his attempt to assert his authority, Lear finds himself powerless; all he can do is vent his rage and, ultimately, go mad. Once again, capitalism is criticized and the harmful effects of female power are simultaneously depicted. This intersection of gender, power and politics adds to the complexity of the play and shows the genius of Shakespeare. Interestingly, just after his daughters undermine Lear's authority by refusing his requests for knighthoods, Lear seems to find himself in a female role. He associates himself with the feminine gender through his discussion of crying, a device he attributes to women. He fearfully declares: “And let not the weapons of women fall with water / Stain my man’s cheeks” (2.2.456-457). Lear fears that the new power dynamics will strip him of his masculinity and patriarchy and make his daughters the new hierarchy of power. Furthermore, just as Lear associates himself with weakness and femininity, he later aligns his daughter, Goneril, with masculinity and seniority, when he says of her, “Ha! Goneril with a white beard? (4.6.96). With these remarks, Lear himself acknowledges the reversal of gender and power roles that resulted from the abandonment of his kingdom and the granting of kingship to his daughters. At this point in the play, the whole patriarchal order of Lear's world to which he had been so long accustomed has become for him, a world of disorder and chaos. Lear expresses his disgust at the reversal of authority roles and the broken order of the world during the mock trial scene. He talks about authority and how it is full of deceptions and confused roles: And the creature runs away from the dog there, you can see the big picture of authority: a dog obeyed in his office. You, scoundrel, hold your bloody hand; Why did you whip that whore? Strip yourself of your own back, you long to use it in the kind for which you whip it. The usurer hangs the cozener (4.6.153-159). Here, Lear criticizes capitalism and the new societal order by describing a world turned upside down, and where images of authority are disconnected from reality. The harsh language of this passage shows how disturbed Lear is by the current order of England, an order now controlled by a capitalist society as opposed to the stable, feudal hierarchical order that Lear initially represents. When feudal values ​​collapse, disorder seizes the kingdom. The theme of disorder and reversed roles in this scene parallels Lear's previous references to gender inversion, particularly because he then returns to his discussion of crying. He declares: “We, 2000.