Shakespeare: To move on, or not to move on?

Something is rotten in the town of Stratford-upon-Avon — and it’s William Shakespeare himself. 

The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust — an independent charity who cares for the historic homes of Shakespeare — announced March 16 the heritage sites in Shakespeare’s hometown would be “decolonized” to address concerns about the role the bard may have played in promoting white supremacy. 

The controversy surrounding Shakespeare and his career isn’t new, and neither are the discussions about the need to decolonize Stratford, which were first brought up in 2022, according to The Telegraph. But as further steps are taken, the question of whether to move on or not to move on from Shakespeare must be asked again. 

Some believe it’s time to “cut his throat i’ th’ church,” as Laertes says in “Hamlet” — or, in less extreme terms, let Shakespeare’s legacy and works die. 

Shall I compare thee to a colonial empire? 

Some Shakespearean academics’ believe Shakespeare was used to advance white supremacy since he’s often presented as a “universal” playwright. The bard is widely taught throughout the English-speaking world, with Loyola requiring English majors to take a class on him. 

Describing his work as universal pushes the narrative of Europeans as the standard, positing it as the seeming default and therefore “superior” way of life, effectively erasing or denouncing any non-Western culture. 

Shakespeare’s themes may resonate with many, but he doesn’t define the human experience — especially not with works full of problematic elements, from the racist remarks in “Othello” to the rampant sexism in “The Taming of the Shrew.” 

With this in mind, it’s no surprise some people wish to free themselves from his literary clutches and remove his writing from the shelves. It may well be time to stop all things Shakespeare — like classes dedicated to the writings and adaptations of his plays — and move on to other, more truly diverse works. 

Others, like The Federalist contributor Auguste Meyrat, say the bard is too important to part with, believing the people “doth protest too much.” 

Those against leaving Shakespeare in the dust argue we can’t hold Shakespeare to our modern ethical standards. They say he’s a product of a time in which discriminatory behaviors were normalized, and we can’t ignore this fact in evaluating his legacy.

Bard believers argue we should focus on how Shakespeare is widely seen as the world’s greatest playwright and his profound impact on English language and literature. Elements from his plays often appear today across media, such as the “star-crossed lovers” trope or describing a jealous individual as a “green-eyed monster.”  

In leaving Shakespeare behind for good, one would also need to leave these parts of his genius behind. People can’t have their cake and eat it too. 

It’s understandable people are upset over efforts to move on from Shakespeare, but one must also recognize the harm his work has caused — inadvertently or not. 

With some detesting Shakespeare and others revering him, it’s difficult to come to a consensus. There’s no perfect answer to what the future should hold for the playwright, but perhaps a compromise is possible. 

The key may be acknowledging the problematic elements of Shakespeare without forsaking him entirely. It’s possible to recognize Shakespeare as a literary great while also acknowledging he was complicit in — if not contributing to — the discrimination of others. 

We need to stop idolizing the bard — but that doesn’t mean we can’t appreciate him.

Many theatres have already adopted this by changing parts of his plays to fit the times while still retaining the main ideas of the work.

James Ijames’ “Fat Ham” does exactly this, offering a new perspective of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” through the lens of the modern Black American family. Even with the play’s changes — like the cook-out setting and love story between Hamlet and Laertes — it maintains the original’s themes of betrayal, complex family dynamics and identity struggles.

This is also what the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust is trying to do in their efforts toward decolonization. They’re not erasing any of Shakespeare’s history or taking out parts of his work, but rather updating the Trust’s collection to be more inclusive. 

We can’t ignore how Shakespeare was used to push white supremacy. When people refer to him as a “universal” playwright, it’s excluding non-Western cultures in both implicit and overt ways. 

In the words of Lady Macbeth, “What’s done cannot be undone.” We can’t reverse or erase the bad from Shakespeare’s work — but we shouldn’t disregard the impact he’s had.