The idea of conversion in Shakespeare's Othello is apparent on a number of levels, and is a deep concept that goes way beyond the changes that occur to the characters in the play. The article assigned for today "Turning Turk in Othello" proved to be an interesting read that clarified a lot for me in terms of the history of the image of Islam and the “Turk” in early British society. Shakespeare draws on the fears that protestant England had about conversion, which they associated with sexual deviance, aggression, and poor overall moral character, in order to create a negative and contagious image of the Turk that stuck for centuries.
The article describes the transformation of Othello’s character from a “virtuous lover and Christian soldier” to “ an enraged murderer”. This conversion serves as a metaphor from turning “good” or Christian, to “evil” or “Turk”.
When first reading Othello, what was interesting to me about the transformation of Othello was the actual cause for the transformation itself. Othello himself is not directly responsible for his “conversion”. In fact, Iago is mainly to blame for most of the negative outcomes in the tragedy. He seems to be obsessed with manipulation and destruction, and his reason for wanting to ruin Othello is fairly weak. This obsession ultimately drives Othello to his murderous actions and his overall demise. This had me asking the question, so who or what does Iago represent? This question was also answered in the article for on page 156: “Iago is the evil angel who communicates a false message to Othello, inspiring him with distempered passion, urging and justifying acts of cruelty and violence…Iago brings the “conversion” of Othello, and that conversion is dramatized as a fall into a bestial, sex obsessed condition.” Putting it plainly, Iago serves as a representation of those who aim to convert Christians to Islam, using manipulation, falsities, and plays on the obsession with sex being powerful enough to change his nature.
You make a very interesting point, one that builds upon the overall argument that "Turning Turk in Othello" makes, but also one that introduces an entirely new perspective on Iago: that he, rather than Othello, is meant to represent the Turk. I had never thought of Iago from this perspective, but it makes a great deal of sense to me after considering the context of this play presented in Vitkus' article.
In the seventeenth century, there was a crisis of "British subjects- men, women, and children- being captured and enslaved by "Turkish" privateers operating in the Mediterranean and northeastern Atlantic." (146) Once captured, many Christians would "Turn Turk" in order to regain their freedom.(152) It was as if Christians equated the strength of the Ottomans both on land and at sea with the power to convert them to the religion of the anomaly they feared most- Turks.
What's interesting in the case of Iago and Othello is that Iago doesn't possess more power that Othello, in fact, it was Othello's fault that Iago didn't receive more power after Othello chooses Cassio for the promotion. However, because Othello isn't considered to be strong in his Christian faith because he himself was a convert, Iago is able to overcome Othello by means of psychological manipulation, "turning him Turk" like himself.
Though I agree Iago represents the Christian idea of the "Turk", I believe that Othello does as well because he is made out to be someone who very easily renounces his faith in favor of evil, violent ways.
Upon reading Turning Turk in Othello: The Conversion and Damnation of the Moor, I began to see how the events that go on within a society influence its representation of those considered “others”. At the high points in societies, the “golden ages,” there are great exchanges of ideas and goods. Tolerance is built up rather than deconstructed. However, Turning Turk shows us how fear infests itself into daily productions such as writing and prayers of a society. The text states that “perhaps… English fears of ‘the Turk’ were not entirely paranoid or hysterical (pg. 151) Instead, Daniel Vitkus the author, tells us that Othello was written in context of the expansion of English commerce in the Mediterranean and were threatened by Muslim pirates who would capture English ships and force Christians into slavery (151-152). However, it wasn’t just the degradation of its citizens that irked the English, but the conversion from Christianity to Islam. It is from this fear of conversion that religious leaders and followers began to alter writings regarding the Turks. As Vitkus writes, “Faced with the growing problem of Christian captives who ‘turned Turk’ in order to gain their freedom, the English authorities adopted a strategy to prevents such conversions, using sermons to condemn the practice of conversion to Islam” (152). But, as I read on, I began to see that this fear was more about the argument that emerged in In the Lands of the Christians were Muslims and Christians are in argument over the “best” religion, constantly having to redefine how one is better than the other. In Othello, it is observed how Othello goes from a well-respected military leader to a man of little worth as he is reduced by the schemes of others towards him (Roderigo and Iago). This is similar to the manipulation of Christian authorities by their anti-Muslim and Catholic sermons. Vitkus states that “the Flesh, the Church of Rome, and the Turk were all believed to material means for the Devil to achieve his ends” (145). Therefore, by using the scare tactic, Protestants in England were able to divide the religions further apart, fostering abhorrence over tolerance. This is seen in Othello, in how despite the plot of Roderigo and Iago being revealed, it is too late for Othello. The Moor is stripped of his glory, and the peaceful co-existence and appreciation between the Moor and the Italians is damaged beyond repair- to the point that Othello resorts to suicide. This is indicative of the time period in which Othello is written. Rather than repairing the relationships, and building a “golden age” through the expansion of trade, trade lead to further conflicts between religions.
Othello presents the very uncomfortable scenario of a man brainwashed into believing that his own people are animals, thanks to the bard himself. Othello's character is a man who is written as a traitor from the very beginning, notorious for waging war against a land that he called his home in order to get his status and title. Shakespeare seems to show here a character that was supposed to act as a form of foreshadowing simply by being who he was, and that because he was a Turk turncoat, the audience should have been able to expect his own demise. In other works by Shakespeare, foreshadowing is done more delicately through language and subtle hints, but in Othello, he makes the lead character's nationality the way to send a red flag to the audience about the events of the play. Also, the fact that Othello speaks ill of the Turks in the opening of the play, as well as his final words towards himself, shows the extent of the brainwashing that Venetian culture has done to him. Also, one of the most racist characters, Brobanzio, makes incredibly racist predictions, and Othello, who is so entrapped by this culture that Shakespeare has created around him that he ends up fulfilling the expectations that have been dictated to him. Overall it is truly disappointing to see how Shakespeare can take a character that could be as interesting as Othello is, a man who has been taken in by a society that despises his home nation, and uses him as a weapon against the Turks, and turns him into nothing more than a man who believes that he and his people are no more than animals.
It's really interesting that you use the term brainwashing to describe the way Othello is put against his own people. I definitely agree with your point. I find that throughout the tragedy, Othello is constantly undergoing some form of brainwashing. From the very beginning, Othello is brainwashed into view his own people as animals. As the play goes on, Iago brainwashes Othello into believing that his wife is cheating on him, which in turn leads Othello to brainwash himself into thinking his true colors are shown and that he is an animal like his own people--leading to his suicide. Although Shakespeare takes his audience on an emotional ride as far as constantly changing up where their sympathy lies, he ultimately is against the moor. Shakespeare shows Othello as this easily manipulated character; he tries to make Othello look foolish for being consistently easily played by the other characters. Being that Othello is representative of the Ottoman Empire, Shakespeare seems to mean for the English to view all Turks as easily manipulated. On many occasions Othello comments about how he may not speak eloquently nor be scholarly, but he is good at combat. In a way, Shakespeare is making Othello self-slander in the way he calls himself uneducated; he wants his audience to believe that all the Ottomans can do is fight. Shakespeare is saying, "Look at this Turk. All he has is brawn and no brain to back it up with. See how he is easily manipulated? All Ottomans are like this one."
For the last seven years of my education, with the help of my teachers, I have viewed William Shakespeare as nothing but a brilliant and imaginative writer. I still believe this for the most part, but for the first time in my formal schooling his flaws and blemishes of his character have become apparent to me. I never thought into race very much the first time I read Othello; perhaps this because the last time I read the play was when I was fifteen and my class was not prepared for such a critical analysis of the play. Either way, Shakespeare makes many jabs at the Turkish culture throughout the play. Early on, the entire Turkish fleet was destroyed by a mighty storm, which coincidentally spared every character sent from Venice. Furthermore, the concept of orientalism holds true when Shakespeare develops an association of magic with Othello, as Brabanzio accuses him of seducing his daughter with witchcraft, and later we learn that Othello’s handkerchief is charmed with magic from a gypsy. All that aside, until the final acts of the play, Shakespeare does suggest that Othello is a respectable and level-headed man; it is not until Othello strikes Desdemona that his character is questioned by Ludovico: “Is this the noble Moor whom our full Senate / Call all in all sufficient? Is this the nature / Whom passion could not shake? / Whose solid virtue / The shot of accident nor dart of chance / Could neither graze nor pierce?” (IV.i.269-273). Ultimately, Othello’s fall and relapse to the Turk’s supposed barbarous ways is Shakespeare’s implication that there is no escaping his inherent savagery.
I had a very similar experience when I first read Othello. In my high school class, not much consideration was given to issues of race. We tended to focus on much more general themes. But since reading Othello for the second time last year and the third time this year, issues of racism and discrimination in the play have become much more apparent. As you point out with Brabanzio's accusations of witchcraft, Orientalism is very present in the play. This is also reflected in Othello's superstition regarding the handkerchief. This and other subtle (and not so subtle) racial comments are seemingly ever-present throughout the play.
I completely agree with your points. Throughout my educational experience, Shakespeare has always been viewed as a great. He is seemingly untouchable, only to be praised by teachers as one of the greatest literary minds that has ever existed. Yet, as a female, I have always found him extremely off-putting and offensive. While I realize the time in which Shakespeare wrote, I don't believe this should excuse his bigotry. First of all, I believe America's near obsession with Shakespeare is a primary example of orientalism. Despite the welcoming of diversity that is supposed to exist in America, there is always this strong association between America and Christian Europe. Our schooling, as we have already discussed, is entirely euro-centric. Therefore, this class has provided us with an entirely new perspective on who Shakespeare actually is. As you mention, he is perpetually taking jabs at the Turkish culture throughout the work. This is the beginning of the perpetuating cycle of middle eastern stereotypes that infiltrates society even today. We watched the comedy skit in class on Thursday, and while we all enjoyed a good laugh as the comedian poked fun at societal stereotypes, it is exactly these "harmless" laughs that continue to perpetuate these ideas. While it's admirable to be able to laugh in the face of adversity, we need to stop accepting these jokes as entertainment. If we want society to change we have to start at the root.
Today in class we talked about the employment of Othello to fight against the Turks was a way in which the Florentines attempted to fight against the enemy by using the enemy's counterpart so to speak (a supposed Turk turned Christian/westernized would be better equip to fight off the "barbaric" and "unpredictable" Turks). I thought this notion was extremely interesting, and I began to think of it more in the context of Othello's identity within the play. I was always taught that Othello's reaction to Desdemona in the wake of her supposed infidelity was a comment on Othello's insecurity as a "Moor" and his rage could also be attributed to the actions of his manipulators. However, I see that this is just a surface interpretation, and does not do justice to the complicated identity of Othello. Othello is constantly portrayed as "other" both symbolically and deliberately within the dialogue, but the idea that he was championed as a warrior and asked to fight against the Turks complicates this identity, as he has become a sort of "pseudo" Florentine. He recalls his younger years in which his relationship with Brabantio flourished, but even in these scenes it is clear that Othello has always been seen as a commodity-a sort of "token convert" that the Florentines were able to use to their own advantage. This idea is carried throughout the entire play, as we realize that Desdemona's love for Othello is merely a reaction to his war and travel stories. Othello is this novel figure in the lives of the "civilized" westerners, only respected for his warrior abilities (and his ability to fight off the Turks) and immediately questioned and accused of witchcraft when he attempts a romantic relationship with Desdemona.
Furthermore, I see Othello's relationship with Desdemona as a sort of metaphor for the relationship between western Christianity and Islam associated with the Ottoman Empire. Othello, despite the original respect that Brabantio and other characters had for him, is immediately denounced and accused once his relationship with Desdemona is discovered. He is seen as a threat (for many reasons-one of them being race). Desdemona is constantly referred to as a "fair maid" and a "white ewe" while Othello is nothing but a "thick lipped" Moor with the qualities of a "black ram." This can be paralleled with the well known relationship between Europeans and Ottoman Turks, as the Europeans took from the Ottomans what they found to be of value (textiles, innovative ideas, etc) but simultaneously denounced Islam as a threat to Christianity. The "otherness" of Othello is both what the Florentines like about him and also what they criticize him for. In the context of Islam in the Ottoman Empire, western Christians (Italians being a prime example) demonized Islam ultimately for its otherness (as we already know that Muslims and Christians lived in harmony within the Ottoman Empire and thus western hatred towards Islam was nothing more than a groundless attack on the "other."
There is no doubt at this point that Shakespeare is a racist. He simply is. And even if Doctor Akman’s classroom is the first time you ever realized this it doesn’t truly matter; Shakespeare is still a racist. This thought has been plaguing my mind for a few days now. It is amazing that I never actually saw this before. But what hasn’t been going through my mind until today is that despite Shakespeare being very rude, and dehumanizing Turkish people, the fact remains that he is still a genius.
Let me explain. In class today I was literally flabbergasted when Doctor Akman pointed out that what Iago and Brabanzio said in the beginning of the play was actually “true.” Othello did have some sort of “spell” over Desdemona the entire time. In the start of the play, one truly is rooting for Othello. You dismiss Brabanzio’s claims that Othello bewitched his daughter, and believe that he is simply just being ridiculous. And yet, towards the end of the play, one gets so mad at Othello and honestly (maybe it just was me) didn’t mind that he finally came to his demise. While I thought that this was just the natural progression of the play, I had no clue that Shakespeare was setting me up to turn against Othello the whole time. Othello starts off so innocent, saying how he doesn’t know how to phrase words correctly, and that it’s not his fault Desdemona fell head of hells (or should I say corsets?) in love with him. But as you turn each and every page you get more and more frustrated with him. And at the end you almost hate him for everything he’s done, and for his supposed “innocence” he claimed. Shakespeare is terrifyingly good at doing this.
With a more critical approach to the play I can easily see now how I was sucked into the story. After our class discussions, and reading a little bit up on my own, I only now know that I was being played to purposely hate him. But what upsets me the most is how people back in the 1600s watching this play be performed had no clue. And it wasn’t even their fault! If I was fooled, then I know that they too were fooled. However, there was no one around telling them the truth. There was no one around to tell them after the performance that “Moors” were not actually like this at all. They went in believing that this fictional play had nonfictional truths attached to it.
How scary is that? This can certainly be applied to today’s media as well. There are countless movies I have seen that portray a “Middle Eastern” man as pure evil. There are a plethora of TV shows that show Muslims as people not to mess with. And, for many people, they watch these things without blinking an eye. They take these fictional stories and believe that every real (again) “Middle Eastern” person or Muslim is bad, and wants to kill us Americans. Stepping back with a perspective lens one knows that this is not true, but a lot of times people don’t step back and think about it rationally. Even if during this alleged movie or TV show they are not thinking, “Oh all of these people are so cruel” it perhaps might be subconsciously planted in the back of their mind. Next time they actually see someone of the Islamic faith, they might not even realize they are giving into the stereotypes they saw through the media.
If people today are still doing this, then I know that people in Shakespeare’s day did this as well. There is nothing to be done about the typecasts people back then believed in, but hopefully today people will not be fooled by any false media message, and try and think for themselves about what is correct, and what is not.
As others have said, there are clearly many instances of racism in Othello. However, too many English professors have strayed from mentioning this to their students - not just in Othello, but in numerous other works by Shakespeare. We tend to idolize the "classic" writers, and keep them in the most flattering light possible. But looking at them realistically, we see they aren't always what they're cracked up to be. Our close reading of Othello personally brought to my mind the ideas of New Criticism and Old Criticism in regards to literary theory. In the case of Othello and other Shakespearean works, New Critics might look at them from a self-contained, stand-alone perspective. However, I think Old Critics would ultimately see the works for what they really are.
I think Othello really suggests the importance of historical context - without it, their deeper messages might ultimately go undetected. For instance, from a purely literary perspective, a reader of Shakespeare might see Othello as anything but racist - though negative comments are made by certain characters, the plot is essentially a white man tricking Othello into doing all of the wrong things. However, if one keeps in mind the historical context of Othello, they would know that the Elizabethan stage often used theatre to tarnish the success of Islam and Turkish civilization - and thus, that the text of Othello had a very specific mission in terms of falsely representing the "Other." In the future, I think that it's important that teachers show their students the entire scope of Shakespeare and his works, rather than what we'd like it to be.
Upon reading "Turning Turk in Othello: The Conversion and Damnation of the Moor", a couple elusive elements woven throughout the play "Othello" by Shakespeare became a bit more apparent to me-- the first of these being the ever so sudden and changed nature and disposition of the Moor. In 1604, when the play was first performed, Christian dealings with Muslim pirates grew increasingly prevalent. As a result many anxieties in the West surfaced concerning the ever growing possibility of cultural domination from that of the Turks as well as, among their greater if not greatest concern and/or fears, conversion to Islam. Othello is a character that is shaped and brought to life as a direct result of this climate that Shakespeare as an English writer at the time was undoubtedly a part as well as a product of. Why did such precipitous changes take place within the Moor and what might this symbolize? While Iago may have been the overarching villain of the play, it is Othello who is once a well-respected Christian soldier in love with Desdemona that suddenly undergoes rapid transformation into that of a enraged murderer. In following this line of thought Vitkus in reference to Othello, goes on to say that rather than being identified with a specific racial category he is "a hybrid who might be associated, in the minds of Shakespeare's audience, with a whole set of related terms-- Moor, Turk, Ottomite, Saracen, Mahometan, Egyptian, Judean, Indian-- all constructed and positioned in opposition to Christian faith and virture," and that, "Othello is a theatrical embodiment of the dark, threatening powers at the edge of Christendom," (159-160). Therefore, we can see that he is a direct result of the desire in the Christian West or rather the need for this antithetical figure brought to light as contrast to the European standards of the "civilized white Christian." Shakespeare, whether conscious or not, casts Othello in a demonizing, monstrous shadow, which not even the Moor himself can shake off once his furies have been thoroughly awakened. Even amidst the readers desire to see some final act or hope of redemption for him, they are nonetheless unfulfilled as this emblematic figure and symbolic "enemy of Christendom" is not only brought to his end by a series of tragic, unforeseen circumstances but is as a direct result of his suicide and taking of his own life, according to Christian theology, forevermore deemed "eternally damned."
I have never been very interested in Shakespeare, and other English classes have really disillusioned me from the canon. If you had asked me last semester, I’d have said the canon really isn’t worth studying anymore at all, as if everything that has to be said about Shakespeare and the English canon has been said already. However, with the postcolonial approach of this class, that allows us to explore the racism, sexism, Eurocentrism and complex contemporary politics in Shakespeare alongside his gifts with plot and form, I think there is a lot of fresh material to be taken from Othello in our modern age of fear and mythology towards Islam. For example, many of us never realized that Barbantio was right about Othello’s witchcraft, and that Othello’s mask of civility does fall away to reveal a savage within, suggesting that the Moor, and the Muslims he represents, truly are monsters no matter how hard they try to cover it. While on one level this is simply racist, it is a bigger deal that this play remains a crucial part of the English canon, even after it is known to be racist. Vitkis and critics like him have drawn connections between this inherent racism and the imperial jealousy and paranoia that the British felt for the Turks at the time, making it sadly clear that there are deep political reasons that Muslims and Turks should be demonized in this way in theater, and why it should sell so well. Yet Shakespeare remains. This says a lot about canonicity and how it develops over time, and how hard it is to uproot an author or school of authors once they come into vogue.
In our current post 9/11 period of imperial paranoia about Islam, is it really responsible to read, produce and teach a play that characterizes the Muslim as a monster in disguise, and not talk about the implications of this message, both to Muslims and Christians? I think it would have benefitted me a lot to have had at least one frank discussion of Othello as a racist, anti-Islamic text in high school.
I like the way you put this. I think it is important to note your final point specifically. The fact that as we move through our pre-college primary education, we do not learn of the implications of literature and history. This whole semester, I have been coming to a stronger realization in my belief that everything is subjective; the canon of literature and history included. When we read texts such as Othello in the lens that Akman has provided, it works to break the illusions of canonization. I think that primary schools should at least address that what they are teaching is only a specific chunk that fits American societies. If I had to implement one reform upon the education system, it would just be an awareness of the material for the students. No high school student right now would be able to tell you why they are studying what they are studying; there is a disillusionment about the materials, and it leads students who don't have the appetite that most english majors have to not develop a well-rounded approach to any writing that they have to read in college. This is one of my largest pet peeves with the education system, especially in this era when it is so important to understand perspectives from all around the world because we are fed information from government and media and corporate sources that are meant to disillusion us.
The idea of conversion in Shakespeare's Othello is apparent on a number of levels, and is a deep concept that goes way beyond the changes that occur to the characters in the play. The article assigned for today "Turning Turk in Othello" proved to be an interesting read that clarified a lot for me in terms of the history of the image of Islam and the “Turk” in early British society. Shakespeare draws on the fears that protestant England had about conversion, which they associated with sexual deviance, aggression, and poor overall moral character, in order to create a negative and contagious image of the Turk that stuck for centuries.
ReplyDeleteThe article describes the transformation of Othello’s character from a “virtuous lover and Christian soldier” to “ an enraged murderer”. This conversion serves as a metaphor from turning “good” or Christian, to “evil” or “Turk”.
When first reading Othello, what was interesting to me about the transformation of Othello was the actual cause for the transformation itself. Othello himself is not directly responsible for his “conversion”. In fact, Iago is mainly to blame for most of the negative outcomes in the tragedy. He seems to be obsessed with manipulation and destruction, and his reason for wanting to ruin Othello is fairly weak. This obsession ultimately drives Othello to his murderous actions and his overall demise. This had me asking the question, so who or what does Iago represent? This question was also answered in the article for on page 156: “Iago is the evil angel who communicates a false message to Othello, inspiring him with distempered passion, urging and justifying acts of cruelty and violence…Iago brings the “conversion” of Othello, and that conversion is dramatized as a fall into a bestial, sex obsessed condition.” Putting it plainly, Iago serves as a representation of those who aim to convert Christians to Islam, using manipulation, falsities, and plays on the obsession with sex being powerful enough to change his nature.
You make a very interesting point, one that builds upon the overall argument that "Turning Turk in Othello" makes, but also one that introduces an entirely new perspective on Iago: that he, rather than Othello, is meant to represent the Turk. I had never thought of Iago from this perspective, but it makes a great deal of sense to me after considering the context of this play presented in Vitkus' article.
DeleteIn the seventeenth century, there was a crisis of "British subjects- men, women, and children- being captured and enslaved by "Turkish" privateers operating in the Mediterranean and northeastern Atlantic." (146) Once captured, many Christians would "Turn Turk" in order to regain their freedom.(152) It was as if Christians equated the strength of the Ottomans both on land and at sea with the power to convert them to the religion of the anomaly they feared most- Turks.
What's interesting in the case of Iago and Othello is that Iago doesn't possess more power that Othello, in fact, it was Othello's fault that Iago didn't receive more power after Othello chooses Cassio for the promotion. However, because Othello isn't considered to be strong in his Christian faith because he himself was a convert, Iago is able to overcome Othello by means of psychological manipulation, "turning him Turk" like himself.
Though I agree Iago represents the Christian idea of the "Turk", I believe that Othello does as well because he is made out to be someone who very easily renounces his faith in favor of evil, violent ways.
Upon reading Turning Turk in Othello: The Conversion and Damnation of the Moor, I began to see how the events that go on within a society influence its representation of those considered “others”. At the high points in societies, the “golden ages,” there are great exchanges of ideas and goods. Tolerance is built up rather than deconstructed. However, Turning Turk shows us how fear infests itself into daily productions such as writing and prayers of a society. The text states that “perhaps… English fears of ‘the Turk’ were not entirely paranoid or hysterical (pg. 151) Instead, Daniel Vitkus the author, tells us that Othello was written in context of the expansion of English commerce in the Mediterranean and were threatened by Muslim pirates who would capture English ships and force Christians into slavery (151-152). However, it wasn’t just the degradation of its citizens that irked the English, but the conversion from Christianity to Islam.
ReplyDeleteIt is from this fear of conversion that religious leaders and followers began to alter writings regarding the Turks. As Vitkus writes, “Faced with the growing problem of Christian captives who ‘turned Turk’ in order to gain their freedom, the English authorities adopted a strategy to prevents such conversions, using sermons to condemn the practice of conversion to Islam” (152).
But, as I read on, I began to see that this fear was more about the argument that emerged in In the Lands of the Christians were Muslims and Christians are in argument over the “best” religion, constantly having to redefine how one is better than the other. In Othello, it is observed how Othello goes from a well-respected military leader to a man of little worth as he is reduced by the schemes of others towards him (Roderigo and Iago). This is similar to the manipulation of Christian authorities by their anti-Muslim and Catholic sermons. Vitkus states that “the Flesh, the Church of Rome, and the Turk were all believed to material means for the Devil to achieve his ends” (145). Therefore, by using the scare tactic, Protestants in England were able to divide the religions further apart, fostering abhorrence over tolerance. This is seen in Othello, in how despite the plot of Roderigo and Iago being revealed, it is too late for Othello. The Moor is stripped of his glory, and the peaceful co-existence and appreciation between the Moor and the Italians is damaged beyond repair- to the point that Othello resorts to suicide. This is indicative of the time period in which Othello is written. Rather than repairing the relationships, and building a “golden age” through the expansion of trade, trade lead to further conflicts between religions.
Othello presents the very uncomfortable scenario of a man brainwashed into believing that his own people are animals, thanks to the bard himself. Othello's character is a man who is written as a traitor from the very beginning, notorious for waging war against a land that he called his home in order to get his status and title. Shakespeare seems to show here a character that was supposed to act as a form of foreshadowing simply by being who he was, and that because he was a Turk turncoat, the audience should have been able to expect his own demise. In other works by Shakespeare, foreshadowing is done more delicately through language and subtle hints, but in Othello, he makes the lead character's nationality the way to send a red flag to the audience about the events of the play. Also, the fact that Othello speaks ill of the Turks in the opening of the play, as well as his final words towards himself, shows the extent of the brainwashing that Venetian culture has done to him. Also, one of the most racist characters, Brobanzio, makes incredibly racist predictions, and Othello, who is so entrapped by this culture that Shakespeare has created around him that he ends up fulfilling the expectations that have been dictated to him. Overall it is truly disappointing to see how Shakespeare can take a character that could be as interesting as Othello is, a man who has been taken in by a society that despises his home nation, and uses him as a weapon against the Turks, and turns him into nothing more than a man who believes that he and his people are no more than animals.
ReplyDeleteIt's really interesting that you use the term brainwashing to describe the way Othello is put against his own people. I definitely agree with your point. I find that throughout the tragedy, Othello is constantly undergoing some form of brainwashing. From the very beginning, Othello is brainwashed into view his own people as animals. As the play goes on, Iago brainwashes Othello into believing that his wife is cheating on him, which in turn leads Othello to brainwash himself into thinking his true colors are shown and that he is an animal like his own people--leading to his suicide. Although Shakespeare takes his audience on an emotional ride as far as constantly changing up where their sympathy lies, he ultimately is against the moor. Shakespeare shows Othello as this easily manipulated character; he tries to make Othello look foolish for being consistently easily played by the other characters. Being that Othello is representative of the Ottoman Empire, Shakespeare seems to mean for the English to view all Turks as easily manipulated. On many occasions Othello comments about how he may not speak eloquently nor be scholarly, but he is good at combat. In a way, Shakespeare is making Othello self-slander in the way he calls himself uneducated; he wants his audience to believe that all the Ottomans can do is fight. Shakespeare is saying, "Look at this Turk. All he has is brawn and no brain to back it up with. See how he is easily manipulated? All Ottomans are like this one."
DeleteFor the last seven years of my education, with the help of my teachers, I have viewed William Shakespeare as nothing but a brilliant and imaginative writer. I still believe this for the most part, but for the first time in my formal schooling his flaws and blemishes of his character have become apparent to me. I never thought into race very much the first time I read Othello; perhaps this because the last time I read the play was when I was fifteen and my class was not prepared for such a critical analysis of the play. Either way, Shakespeare makes many jabs at the Turkish culture throughout the play. Early on, the entire Turkish fleet was destroyed by a mighty storm, which coincidentally spared every character sent from Venice. Furthermore, the concept of orientalism holds true when Shakespeare develops an association of magic with Othello, as Brabanzio accuses him of seducing his daughter with witchcraft, and later we learn that Othello’s handkerchief is charmed with magic from a gypsy. All that aside, until the final acts of the play, Shakespeare does suggest that Othello is a respectable and level-headed man; it is not until Othello strikes Desdemona that his character is questioned by Ludovico: “Is this the noble Moor whom our full Senate / Call all in all sufficient? Is this the nature / Whom passion could not shake? / Whose solid virtue / The shot of accident nor dart of chance / Could neither graze nor pierce?” (IV.i.269-273). Ultimately, Othello’s fall and relapse to the Turk’s supposed barbarous ways is Shakespeare’s implication that there is no escaping his inherent savagery.
ReplyDeleteI had a very similar experience when I first read Othello. In my high school class, not much consideration was given to issues of race. We tended to focus on much more general themes. But since reading Othello for the second time last year and the third time this year, issues of racism and discrimination in the play have become much more apparent. As you point out with Brabanzio's accusations of witchcraft, Orientalism is very present in the play. This is also reflected in Othello's superstition regarding the handkerchief. This and other subtle (and not so subtle) racial comments are seemingly ever-present throughout the play.
DeleteI completely agree with your points. Throughout my educational experience, Shakespeare has always been viewed as a great. He is seemingly untouchable, only to be praised by teachers as one of the greatest literary minds that has ever existed. Yet, as a female, I have always found him extremely off-putting and offensive. While I realize the time in which Shakespeare wrote, I don't believe this should excuse his bigotry. First of all, I believe America's near obsession with Shakespeare is a primary example of orientalism. Despite the welcoming of diversity that is supposed to exist in America, there is always this strong association between America and Christian Europe. Our schooling, as we have already discussed, is entirely euro-centric. Therefore, this class has provided us with an entirely new perspective on who Shakespeare actually is. As you mention, he is perpetually taking jabs at the Turkish culture throughout the work. This is the beginning of the perpetuating cycle of middle eastern stereotypes that infiltrates society even today. We watched the comedy skit in class on Thursday, and while we all enjoyed a good laugh as the comedian poked fun at societal stereotypes, it is exactly these "harmless" laughs that continue to perpetuate these ideas. While it's admirable to be able to laugh in the face of adversity, we need to stop accepting these jokes as entertainment. If we want society to change we have to start at the root.
DeleteToday in class we talked about the employment of Othello to fight against the Turks was a way in which the Florentines attempted to fight against the enemy by using the enemy's counterpart so to speak (a supposed Turk turned Christian/westernized would be better equip to fight off the "barbaric" and "unpredictable" Turks). I thought this notion was extremely interesting, and I began to think of it more in the context of Othello's identity within the play. I was always taught that Othello's reaction to Desdemona in the wake of her supposed infidelity was a comment on Othello's insecurity as a "Moor" and his rage could also be attributed to the actions of his manipulators. However, I see that this is just a surface interpretation, and does not do justice to the complicated identity of Othello. Othello is constantly portrayed as "other" both symbolically and deliberately within the dialogue, but the idea that he was championed as a warrior and asked to fight against the Turks complicates this identity, as he has become a sort of "pseudo" Florentine. He recalls his younger years in which his relationship with Brabantio flourished, but even in these scenes it is clear that Othello has always been seen as a commodity-a sort of "token convert" that the Florentines were able to use to their own advantage. This idea is carried throughout the entire play, as we realize that Desdemona's love for Othello is merely a reaction to his war and travel stories. Othello is this novel figure in the lives of the "civilized" westerners, only respected for his warrior abilities (and his ability to fight off the Turks) and immediately questioned and accused of witchcraft when he attempts a romantic relationship with Desdemona.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I see Othello's relationship with Desdemona as a sort of metaphor for the relationship between western Christianity and Islam associated with the Ottoman Empire. Othello, despite the original respect that Brabantio and other characters had for him, is immediately denounced and accused once his relationship with Desdemona is discovered. He is seen as a threat (for many reasons-one of them being race). Desdemona is constantly referred to as a "fair maid" and a "white ewe" while Othello is nothing but a "thick lipped" Moor with the qualities of a "black ram." This can be paralleled with the well known relationship between Europeans and Ottoman Turks, as the Europeans took from the Ottomans what they found to be of value (textiles, innovative ideas, etc) but simultaneously denounced Islam as a threat to Christianity. The "otherness" of Othello is both what the Florentines like about him and also what they criticize him for. In the context of Islam in the Ottoman Empire, western Christians (Italians being a prime example) demonized Islam ultimately for its otherness (as we already know that Muslims and Christians lived in harmony within the Ottoman Empire and thus western hatred towards Islam was nothing more than a groundless attack on the "other."
There is no doubt at this point that Shakespeare is a racist. He simply is. And even if Doctor Akman’s classroom is the first time you ever realized this it doesn’t truly matter; Shakespeare is still a racist. This thought has been plaguing my mind for a few days now. It is amazing that I never actually saw this before. But what hasn’t been going through my mind until today is that despite Shakespeare being very rude, and dehumanizing Turkish people, the fact remains that he is still a genius.
ReplyDeleteLet me explain. In class today I was literally flabbergasted when Doctor Akman pointed out that what Iago and Brabanzio said in the beginning of the play was actually “true.” Othello did have some sort of “spell” over Desdemona the entire time. In the start of the play, one truly is rooting for Othello. You dismiss Brabanzio’s claims that Othello bewitched his daughter, and believe that he is simply just being ridiculous. And yet, towards the end of the play, one gets so mad at Othello and honestly (maybe it just was me) didn’t mind that he finally came to his demise. While I thought that this was just the natural progression of the play, I had no clue that Shakespeare was setting me up to turn against Othello the whole time. Othello starts off so innocent, saying how he doesn’t know how to phrase words correctly, and that it’s not his fault Desdemona fell head of hells (or should I say corsets?) in love with him. But as you turn each and every page you get more and more frustrated with him. And at the end you almost hate him for everything he’s done, and for his supposed “innocence” he claimed. Shakespeare is terrifyingly good at doing this.
With a more critical approach to the play I can easily see now how I was sucked into the story. After our class discussions, and reading a little bit up on my own, I only now know that I was being played to purposely hate him. But what upsets me the most is how people back in the 1600s watching this play be performed had no clue. And it wasn’t even their fault! If I was fooled, then I know that they too were fooled. However, there was no one around telling them the truth. There was no one around to tell them after the performance that “Moors” were not actually like this at all. They went in believing that this fictional play had nonfictional truths attached to it.
How scary is that? This can certainly be applied to today’s media as well. There are countless movies I have seen that portray a “Middle Eastern” man as pure evil. There are a plethora of TV shows that show Muslims as people not to mess with. And, for many people, they watch these things without blinking an eye. They take these fictional stories and believe that every real (again) “Middle Eastern” person or Muslim is bad, and wants to kill us Americans. Stepping back with a perspective lens one knows that this is not true, but a lot of times people don’t step back and think about it rationally. Even if during this alleged movie or TV show they are not thinking, “Oh all of these people are so cruel” it perhaps might be subconsciously planted in the back of their mind. Next time they actually see someone of the Islamic faith, they might not even realize they are giving into the stereotypes they saw through the media.
If people today are still doing this, then I know that people in Shakespeare’s day did this as well. There is nothing to be done about the typecasts people back then believed in, but hopefully today people will not be fooled by any false media message, and try and think for themselves about what is correct, and what is not.
As others have said, there are clearly many instances of racism in Othello. However, too many English professors have strayed from mentioning this to their students - not just in Othello, but in numerous other works by Shakespeare. We tend to idolize the "classic" writers, and keep them in the most flattering light possible. But looking at them realistically, we see they aren't always what they're cracked up to be. Our close reading of Othello personally brought to my mind the ideas of New Criticism and Old Criticism in regards to literary theory. In the case of Othello and other Shakespearean works, New Critics might look at them from a self-contained, stand-alone perspective. However, I think Old Critics would ultimately see the works for what they really are.
ReplyDeleteI think Othello really suggests the importance of historical context - without it, their deeper messages might ultimately go undetected. For instance, from a purely literary perspective, a reader of Shakespeare might see Othello as anything but racist - though negative comments are made by certain characters, the plot is essentially a white man tricking Othello into doing all of the wrong things. However, if one keeps in mind the historical context of Othello, they would know that the Elizabethan stage often used theatre to tarnish the success of Islam and Turkish civilization - and thus, that the text of Othello had a very specific mission in terms of falsely representing the "Other." In the future, I think that it's important that teachers show their students the entire scope of Shakespeare and his works, rather than what we'd like it to be.
Upon reading "Turning Turk in Othello: The Conversion and Damnation of the Moor", a couple elusive elements woven throughout the play "Othello" by Shakespeare became a bit more apparent to me-- the first of these being the ever so sudden and changed nature and disposition of the Moor. In 1604, when the play was first performed, Christian dealings with Muslim pirates grew increasingly prevalent. As a result many anxieties in the West surfaced concerning the ever growing possibility of cultural domination from that of the Turks as well as, among their greater if not greatest concern and/or fears, conversion to Islam. Othello is a character that is shaped and brought to life as a direct result of this climate that Shakespeare as an English writer at the time was undoubtedly a part as well as a product of. Why did such precipitous changes take place within the Moor and what might this symbolize?
ReplyDeleteWhile Iago may have been the overarching villain of the play, it is Othello who is once a well-respected Christian soldier in love with Desdemona that suddenly undergoes rapid transformation into that of a enraged murderer. In following this line of thought Vitkus in reference to Othello, goes on to say that rather than being identified with a specific racial category he is "a hybrid who might be associated, in the minds of Shakespeare's audience, with a whole set of related terms-- Moor, Turk, Ottomite, Saracen, Mahometan, Egyptian, Judean, Indian-- all constructed and positioned in opposition to Christian faith and virture," and that, "Othello is a theatrical embodiment of the dark, threatening powers at the edge of Christendom," (159-160). Therefore, we can see that he is a direct result of the desire in the Christian West or rather the need for this antithetical figure brought to light as contrast to the European standards of the "civilized white Christian." Shakespeare, whether conscious or not, casts Othello in a demonizing, monstrous shadow, which not even the Moor himself can shake off once his furies have been thoroughly awakened. Even amidst the readers desire to see some final act or hope of redemption for him, they are nonetheless unfulfilled as this emblematic figure and symbolic "enemy of Christendom" is not only brought to his end by a series of tragic, unforeseen circumstances but is as a direct result of his suicide and taking of his own life, according to Christian theology, forevermore deemed "eternally damned."
I have never been very interested in Shakespeare, and other English classes have really disillusioned me from the canon. If you had asked me last semester, I’d have said the canon really isn’t worth studying anymore at all, as if everything that has to be said about Shakespeare and the English canon has been said already. However, with the postcolonial approach of this class, that allows us to explore the racism, sexism, Eurocentrism and complex contemporary politics in Shakespeare alongside his gifts with plot and form, I think there is a lot of fresh material to be taken from Othello in our modern age of fear and mythology towards Islam. For example, many of us never realized that Barbantio was right about Othello’s witchcraft, and that Othello’s mask of civility does fall away to reveal a savage within, suggesting that the Moor, and the Muslims he represents, truly are monsters no matter how hard they try to cover it. While on one level this is simply racist, it is a bigger deal that this play remains a crucial part of the English canon, even after it is known to be racist. Vitkis and critics like him have drawn connections between this inherent racism and the imperial jealousy and paranoia that the British felt for the Turks at the time, making it sadly clear that there are deep political reasons that Muslims and Turks should be demonized in this way in theater, and why it should sell so well. Yet Shakespeare remains. This says a lot about canonicity and how it develops over time, and how hard it is to uproot an author or school of authors once they come into vogue.
ReplyDeleteIn our current post 9/11 period of imperial paranoia about Islam, is it really responsible to read, produce and teach a play that characterizes the Muslim as a monster in disguise, and not talk about the implications of this message, both to Muslims and Christians? I think it would have benefitted me a lot to have had at least one frank discussion of Othello as a racist, anti-Islamic text in high school.
I like the way you put this. I think it is important to note your final point specifically. The fact that as we move through our pre-college primary education, we do not learn of the implications of literature and history. This whole semester, I have been coming to a stronger realization in my belief that everything is subjective; the canon of literature and history included. When we read texts such as Othello in the lens that Akman has provided, it works to break the illusions of canonization. I think that primary schools should at least address that what they are teaching is only a specific chunk that fits American societies. If I had to implement one reform upon the education system, it would just be an awareness of the material for the students. No high school student right now would be able to tell you why they are studying what they are studying; there is a disillusionment about the materials, and it leads students who don't have the appetite that most english majors have to not develop a well-rounded approach to any writing that they have to read in college. This is one of my largest pet peeves with the education system, especially in this era when it is so important to understand perspectives from all around the world because we are fed information from government and media and corporate sources that are meant to disillusion us.
Delete