Shakespeare's Cleopatra and White Fragility
- Prof. Shaw
- Dec 2, 2020
- 4 min read
By Thea Mouzakes
I went into this course dreading a semester full of Shakespeare. However, I was happily surprised by how these plays can serve as a lens to view our contemporary world. As systemic racism thrives under police brutality or other systems of oppression, having conversations about race within the context of a classroom is vital. We are not going to be able to create a just world without critiquing the ways we create dominant groups by othering based on solely constructed factors. While racism is reinforced in Antony and Cleopatra, viewing whiteness and especially white men as the only dominant force is dangerous, and we must always be critical of literature that enforces this.
Although written and performed over four centuries ago, the critiques that Shakespeare makes of society are, unfortunately, contemporary issues. The social constructs of race and gender allow for dominant groups to separate and control those within minority categories by creating a sense of otherness. As Shakespeare can display, and modern readers can relate to, race and gender must be addressed to create a just society.
Sociologist Robin DiAngelo describes the concept of white fragility as the “state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves,” (DiAngelo 54). In other words, white fragility is the inability to talk about or engage with the realities of race. Shakespeare’s work engages in these topics, with displaying racial othering, as well as gender-related othering, but not directly addressing the underlying issues of white supremacy. As characters are othered, or separated from the dominant narrative of White men, conversations must be addressed by modern readers regarding how Shakespeare critiques society, especially in the context of race. “The belief in objectivity, coupled with positioning white people as outside of culture (and thus the norm for humanity), allows whites to view themselves as universal humans who can represent all of human experience,” (DiAngelo 59). As Shakespeare can position his white characters as the dominant group, he is also able to critique how race is avoided by his readers. DiAngelo discusses how white people only notice “raced others”, therefore positioning non-Whites as the other. Reading the two together, the contemporary audience can see how race is constructed, displayed by the author, and avoided in modern conversations.
Shakespeare's tragedy Antony and Cleopatra displays intersectional otherness with his representation of Cleopatra. Setting Cleopatra as the “other” against Caesar as the “norm” reinforces this racial othering, as Egypt is seen as exotic and distant from the setting of Rome. Through consistently referring to Cleopatra’s Egyptian background, Shakespeare sets the Queen apart from the rest of the characters. As Enobarbus describes Cleopatra as an “Egyptian dish,” (2.7.126), Antony eventually others Cleopatra as well, describing her as a “foul Egyptian,” (4.12.10). Either as place or heritage, Egypt is mentioned 54 times throughout Antony and Cleopatra, emphasizing how Cleopatra is viewed as an outsider in her own country. With place, Egypt being positioned against the idea of Rome that sets Whites as the dominant group, as the majority of the characters are from Rome rather than the "exotic" Egypt. DiAngelo’s concept of white fragility is important to understand in this context, as race is described yet avoided at the same time. Consistently, whiteness sets the dominant narrative and continues to display groups like Egyptians as outsiders. This reinforces the ability to discriminate against groups based on skin color.
The intersection between race and gender is evident as Cleopatra is undermined for her gender as well as her race. Despite being the Queen of Egypt, she is not seen as a worthy partner for Antony from the eyes of Rome. Cleopatra is characterized as a “lustful gipsy”, “wrangling queen”, “slave”, “Egyptian dish”, “whore”, as well as labeled “Salt Cleopatra”. During the opening scene, Antony’s power is questioned, as he is seemingly distracted by “a cool gipsy’s lust,” (1.1.10). Not only is Cleopatra othered by her race, but she is also questioned and her power is reduced by the ways the dominant characters describe her. Although not a dominant narrative, the comparison between Octavia and Cleopatra can show the way race and gender intersect. Even with the power Cleopatra holds, Antony’s relationship with Octavia is beneficial for Rome and wanted by the rest of the Romans. “If beauty, wisdom, modesty can settle the heart of Antony, Octavia is a blessed lottery to him,” (2.2.251-3). As the Romans understand Octavia as beautiful, smart, and modest unlike Cleopatra, her Whiteness is also a major reason why she is chosen over Cleopatra. Women are set beneath men, but Cleopatra’s racial otherness allows readers to position her even further beneath characters like Caesar, who represents the epitome of Whiteness and therefore power.
Any conversation about Antony and Cleopatra that ignores topics of gender, race, or the intersectionality between the two reinforces DiAngelo’s concept of white fragility. These conversations, although potentially uncomfortable from the dominant perspective, allow insightful dialogues regarding the constructive nature of gender and race. There are many ways in which readers can understand race and gender as social constructs, and relate the issues relevant in Shakespeare’s work to today. As we avoid these conversations about race in terms of Shakespeare, we avoid these conversations in how they relate to our contemporary world. Antony and Cleopatra serves as a critique of society, with White men set as the dominant group, and any other group set as the “other”.
Even with the way we describe various ethnic groups, whiteness is always the center of the universe. “Person of color” is used, inferring that someone without color, or a white person, is the norm. We must continue to have these potentially uncomfortable conversations to create a just society. Continuing to read Shakespeare while avoiding these conversations is dangerous, and enables these social constructions to thrive under unjust systems.
Commentaires