No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 September 2020
Is Shakespeare universal? Is Hamlet a “strong” text that generates the same interpretation across cultural space and time, or is it a malleable text whose meaning is contingent upon variables in the encounter between text and reader and the contexts of reading? These were the kinds of questions that my students and I addressed in several courses I taught on Shakespeare over the past four years. As one might expect, our answers differed. Here, I develop and refine the argument I made and, sometimes, made incoherently: universality, whether in a writer, a text, or in criticism “is neither natural nor self-evident.” Because part of my reason for turning to Shakespeare was my dissatisfaction with contrapuntal reading as a pedagogical strategy for cultivating a “critical understanding of imperialism” in students, I conclude that we can only achieve that goal if we deploy contrapuntal reading across the literary curriculum.
1 Bloom, Harold, Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human (New York: Riverhead Books, 1998), 2–3Google Scholar, 383–84.
2 Bloom, Harold, How to Read and Why (New York: Touchstone, 2000), 201Google Scholar.
3 For studies of the Tiv, see the following: Bohannan, Paul and Bohannan, Laura, >Tiv Economy (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1968)Google Scholar; Ayangaôr, Emmanuel Chiahemba, The Tiv and Their Southern Neighbours, 1890-1990 (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2011)Google Scholar; and Hagher, Iyorwuese, Beyond Hate and Violence: Understanding the Tiv Struggle for Citizenship Rights and Social Justice in Nigeria (Ibadan: Caltop Publications, 2002)Google Scholar.
4 Apter, Emily, Against World Literature: On the Politics of Untranslatability (London and New York: 2013), 3Google Scholar.
5 Bloom, Shakespeare, 387.
6 Bloom, Shakespeare, 387.
7 Bloom, Shakespeare, 401; italics added.
8 Said, Edward W., “Criticism between Culture and System,” in The World, the Text, and the Critic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983), 180Google Scholar.
9 Jonsson, Stefan, “The Ideology of Universalism: Or, One Good Reason to Celebrate Lenin,” Confronting Universalities, eds. Baggesgaard, Mads Anders and Ladegaard, Jakob (Aarhus and Copenhagen: Aarhus University Press, 2011), 111–12Google Scholar; Daniel Bell, “Communitarianism,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, summer 2016 edition, ed. Edward N. Zalta, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/communitarianism/.
10 Michael LaPointe, “The Meaning of Bones: Does Shakespeare Really Have ‘Universal’ Appeal?” The Paris Review (2016): 3–4.
11 Gikandi, Simon, “African Literature and the Colonial Factor,” The Cambridge History of African and Caribbean Literature, eds. Irele, Abiola and Gikandi, Simon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 387Google Scholar.
12 Gikandi, “African Literature and the Colonial Factor,” 379–97.
14 Bloom, Shakespeare, 3–4.
15 Bloom, Shakespeare, 8–9.
16 Bloom, Shakespeare, 3.
17 Krzysztof Warlikowski, “African Tales by Shakespeare,” MIT Global Shakespeares Video & Performance Archive, https://globalshakespeares.mit.edu/african-tales-by-shakespeare-warlikowski-krzysztof-2011/#video=african-tales-by-shakespeare-trailer.
18 Said, Edward W., Culture and Imperialism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993), 66Google Scholar.