Identity In Hamlet

4077 Words17 Pages
Jet Ryan P. Nicolas Mr. E.P. Salazar Composition IV 15 January 2014 The Hamlet of Identity Politics Identity is an essential part of an individual; it encapsulates the very definition, self-worth, sense of self, and firm continuity of individuals. This identity is often described by what it is not; the holders of it determine what their identity really is. They dictate the very essence of their identity, their description; they exclude people or groups of people from their identity, calling them different, dissimilar, opposite from them, being an ‘Other’. This very idea becomes a major component in a famous play of Shakespeare, Hamlet. The focus, when discussing the tragedy Hamlet, is usually centred on the main character, Hamlet, and his…show more content…
Claudius was a ‘foreign’ individual who boosted himself into ascendancy through force; he murdered the King and married the king’s wife to gain control of the Kingdom of Denmark. Claudius said it himself that he got the things that he really wanted: the crown, self-ambition, and Gertrude. In this situation, Claudius had the most to profit; he had gotten the rewards he really desired. Claudius has the Kingdom of Denmark in the palm of his hands; he has satiated his ambition and obtained Gertrude, a person he really wants. Through force, he imposed his authority over everyone, including the rightful successor to the throne, Hamlet. He imposes his superiority over Hamlet by his labelling and his control and manipulation of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and the convincing of Laertes to do his bidding in the rigged friendly fencing match. The power, the privilege is already in his hands, and he knows it is illegitimately obtained, but he will do whatever it takes to protect this power. He is a usurper, becoming the ‘Other’ the colonized depend…show more content…
When the natives were content with their current status, accepting the ‘othering’ being given to them by their colonizers, nothing happened. The system of oppression remained when the colonized simply accepted their fate and accepted their dependency on the colonizer. The societies in the colonies became stagnant for those natives, for the indigenous being abused and used by the foreign powers, but when the natives started to create one’s own identity, not completely dependent and based on the differences between them and the ‘Other’, situations started to change. An identity is and can be connected to other identities, but it does not have to be the complete opposite; it doesn’t have to be completely dependent on the ‘Other’. It is futile to stay within the realms of difference and exclusion; it is futile to remain in the realms of
Open Document