ThAct: Power and Marginalization in Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead

Blog is given by Barad sir

Teacher's Link Click here

Introduction

In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are minor characters who are manipulated by the monarchy and ultimately destroyed by the system they serve. In Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, these same figures are reimagined as confused, powerless individuals trapped in a meaningless world. Both texts examine how social hierarchies and power structures marginalize “little people.” When seen through the lens of Cultural Studies, especially theories by Louis Althusser, Michel Foucault, and Antonio Gramsci, the two plays reveal how individuals are controlled by ideology, power, and institutions—ideas that also parallel the modern corporate world, where workers are often treated as replaceable.

1. Marginalization in Hamlet

In Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are childhood friends of the prince, summoned by King Claudius to spy on Hamlet. Their role is not shaped by their own will but by royal command. When Hamlet calls Rosencrantz a “sponge that soaks up the king’s countenance, his rewards, his authorities,” he exposes their dependency and expendability. Like sponges, they absorb the king’s favor but will be “squeezed dry” once they serve their purpose. This reflects Foucault’s concept of power/knowledge, where authority functions through control, surveillance, and obedience (Foucault, Power/Knowledge, 1980). The two friends are instruments of this control and remain unaware of their manipulation.

Their fate—executed by order of the very king they serve—shows that marginal figures in hierarchical systems have no true agency. Stephen Greenblatt’s idea of “self-fashioning” in the Renaissance applies here: individuals like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern attempt to fashion their identity within court culture, but their “selves” are shaped entirely by the dominant ideology of monarchy (Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning, 1980). Their individuality is erased by political necessity.

2. Modern Parallels to Corporate Power

In modern corporate systems, workers often face a similar marginalization. They are “assets” used for productivity but discarded when companies downsize or relocate. This mirrors Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s expendability. Althusser’s theory of Ideological State Apparatuses (ISA) explains this process: institutions like corporations, schools, or the state reproduce ideology to keep people obedient to capitalist power (Althusser, 1971). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, trained by the ideological “apparatus” of loyalty and duty to the crown, internalize obedience just as modern workers internalize corporate loyalty.

When multinational corporations restructure, workers lose jobs not because of personal failure but because they are part of a system that prioritizes power and profit over human value. Similarly, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are victims of a structure that values royal order over personal friendship or morality.

3. Existential Questions in Stoppard’s Re-Interpretation

Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead transforms Shakespeare’s minor characters into the main focus, deepening their existential crisis. The two wander through an absurd world, confused about their purpose and destiny. They constantly ask, “Who are we?” and “Why are we here?” Stoppard emphasizes their search for meaning in a world indifferent to them. This reflects Foucault’s idea that individuals are “subjects” produced and limited by systems of power and knowledge.

In today’s corporate environments, many people experience the same sense of powerlessness. Workers often feel that their lives are controlled by impersonal forces—corporate decisions, market pressures, or technological change. Stoppard’s play, through absurd humor and existential confusion, dramatizes this modern alienation.

4. Cultural and Economic Power Structures

Both Shakespeare and Stoppard critique systems that marginalize “little people,” but they do so in different cultural contexts. In Hamlet, Shakespeare portrays a feudal power structure—a monarchy where loyalty and hierarchy define identity. In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, Stoppard reimagines the same system in the light of 20th-century existentialism, where individuals confront the meaninglessness of modern bureaucracy.

Gramsci’s theory of hegemony helps explain both texts: dominant classes maintain power not just through force but through the consent of those they rule (Gramsci, 1971). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern consent to serve authority without question, believing in a system that eventually destroys them. Their tragedy becomes a metaphor for how ideology convinces people to accept their own marginalization. In today’s capitalist society, this is seen in how employees often accept insecurity, surveillance, and competition as “normal” conditions of work.

5. Personal Reflection

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s marginalization mirrors the modern experience of being seen as a disposable “asset.” Their confusion and helplessness resonate with workers today who face layoffs, economic instability, and loss of purpose. Studying their story through Cultural Studies helps us understand how literature exposes the invisible mechanisms of power that shape our lives. As Edward Said argues in Culture and Imperialism (1993), cultural texts reveal how human lives are caught in systems of domination. Similarly, John Storey (2018) notes that Cultural Studies gives voice to those excluded from power, showing that even minor figures—like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern—carry deep political meaning.

Conclusion

Through Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, Shakespeare and Stoppard reveal how individuals are trapped within systems of power that treat them as tools rather than humans. Using the insights of Althusser, Foucault, and Gramsci, we see how ideology, hegemony, and surveillance shape both the Elizabethan court and the modern corporate world. The “little people”—whether courtiers or employees—remain vulnerable to the same forces of marginalization. Stoppard’s existential reinterpretation turns this into a universal reflection on identity and power, reminding us that the struggle for meaning and dignity continues in every era.

References: 

Foucault, Michel. Power/Knowledge. 1980.

Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. 1971.

Greenblatt, Stephen. Renaissance Self-Fashioning. 1980.

Said, Edward. Culture and Imperialism. 1993.

Storey, John. Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An Introduction. 2018.

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Project Gutenberg, 1999.

Stoppard, Tom. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Grove Press, 1967.

Guerin, Wilfred L., et al. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. 2007.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog is given by Megha ma'am

 1)In Oscar Wilde's play The Importance of Being Earnest, the subtitle is a clever choice that gives us insight into Wilde’s themes and tone. Wilde originally considered calling it “A Serious Comedy for Trivial People,” but he eventually changed it to “A Trivial Comedy for Serious People.” Though these subtitles may seem similar, they carry distinct meanings and emphasize different ideas. Let’s explore what each means and why Wilde’s final choice is significant. Original Subtitle: “A Serious Comedy for Trivial People” If Wilde had kept the original subtitle, “A Serious Comedy for Trivial People,” it would suggest a comedy that deals with important or “serious” ideas but is meant for “trivial people.” In other words, it would imply that the play’s themes are deep, but the audience is shallow or doesn’t take life seriously. Wilde might have intended this subtitle to poke fun at his audience, suggesting they care about insignificant matters, like social status or appearances, more tha...
Read more

Blog is given by Prakruti Ma'am

 Analyze Pope's “The Rape of the Lock” as a Social Satire. Introduction: Poetic satire is a form of didactic poetry aimed at reforming human behavior and manners. The satirist takes on the role of a critic, boldly condemning vice and immoral behavior. As John Dryden famously stated, “The true end of satire is the ailment of vices by correction.” In essence, satire serves as a means to expose and critique human weaknesses, foolishness, absurdities, and shortcomings. To achieve this moral objective, satirists employ humor, wit, ridicule, and irony.  Alexander Pope's The Rape of the Lock, which critiques the aristocratic society of the 18th century. The poem opens with a playful observation that juxtaposes the "little" men who engage in "bold" tasks with the "gentle ladies" who can harbor such "mighty rage." This contrast serves to mock the trivial concerns and behaviors of the aristocracy, highlighting the absurdity of their social interact...
Read more

ThAct: War Poetry

Image
  Blog is given by Prakruti ma'am. - War Poetry  - Features of War Poetry  Provided details of life in the trenches Often questioned the need for war, combining it with anti-war argument. The individual located within a company of fellow-sufferers Did not romanticize or sentimentalize war A universal humanism A Injury - mental and physical - is a central theme. 1 )  Wilfred Owen's "Dulce et Decorum Est" from the English literary canon and Siegfried Sassoon's "The Hero." Both poems focus on the theme of war, but they differ significantly in style, tone, and perspective. However, they also share similarities in their critique of war’s realities. Introduction The poetry of World War I often reflects the disillusionment of soldiers who experienced its horrors firsthand. Wilfred Owen's "Dulce et Decorum Est" and Siegfried Sassoon's "The Hero" both challenge traditional, romanticized views of war. While Owen critiques the patriotic ...
Read more