by Dayamara Cruz, Blogging Circle 5
One of our discussion questions in our last class had something to do with teaching Taming of the Shrew in a modern classroom or setting. It got me thinking about questioning the timelessness of Shakespeare’s plays. In other words, how do we use Shakespeare’s plays as a platform to discuss and teach modern day concepts and phenomenons that may not have been relevant almost 400 years ago? Our first questions in our first class about “Why do we study Shakespeare?” and “Why do we still study Shakespeare?” have remained essential questions to me in the readings we’ve done so far, especially this first play.
Most prominently, this question is obvious when examining Katherine and Petruccio. Petruccio’s taming of Katherine is praised by all the men in the play, but we never get a female outsider, like Bianca, to comment on how Katherine is being treated. When Petruccio places the wager on whose wife will respond more quickly and obediently to the husband’s command, there is no doubt that Petruccio is showing off:
BAPTISTA: Now, by my halidom, here comes Katherina.
KATHERINA: What is your will, sir, that you send for me?
PETRUCCIO: Where is your sister and Hortensio’s wife?
KATHERINA: They sit conferring by the parlor fire.
PETRUCCIO: Go fetch them hither. If they deny to come,
Swinge me them soundly forth unto their husbands. (5.2.99-104)
Petruccio asks Katherine to frisk up the girls a little bit for not coming when their husbands call and to bring them forth. Now, Katherine is still acting in a “shrewish” manner towards the women, but not to her husband. In a twisted way, Katherine’s title of shrew is erased when she easily responds to a male’s command, but can still be labeled as obedient when she remains blunt and forceful with her sister and the widow. Petruccio describes Katherine’s power over the others, “See where she comes and brings your froward wives/ As prisoners to her womanly persuasion” (5.2.119-20). Her “womanly persuasion” (which sounds pretty “shrewish” to me) is appreciated when she can help put other women in their place, but not when it is directed to the men.
A reading (or viewing) by someone in Shakespeare’s time would have equally praised Petruccio’s taming as a successfully executed plan to shape this woman into a wife. On the other hand, a more modern reading could portray a more controlling, abusive relationship in which Katherine cannot deny or talk back to her husband out of fear that she will be reverted back to the treatment she was given post-marriage. Whether or not Katherine is acting on the knowledge that she can still have power over the women, but not the men, there is something about this power play in the Petruccio/Katherine relationship that doesn’t sit well with modern readers. These hierarchies between men and women, as well as between women, are based on power and violence. In addition to Petruccio’s rash and extreme actions towards Katherine, we could talk about Katherine’s own violence towards Petruccio, Hortensio, and Bianca because her violence shouldn’t be glossed over either.
This kind of ambiguity in author’s intention versus how the text is perceived by a reader is thought-provoking, yet troubling (especially across centuries). How would someone teach this in a high school setting? The ambiguity can be harmful if there is no direct (or the closest one can get to a direct answer) about what the Petruccio/Katherine relationship means in a high school setting, for example. As a student, I feel that I have an obligation to point out these relationship dynamics in the context of modern moral and social ideas because plays and texts like Shakespeare’s have influenced all kinds of writers, intellectuals and regular people for centuries, and these influences are apparent in our everyday actions, our speech, in the books we read, in the movies we watch, etc. While I was researching for our first blog for the class, I came upon the imdb.com webpage for the film adaptation of “The Taming of the Shrew”. The website featured some of the taglines used during the film’s promotion, one of them being “A romantic film amorously devoted to every man who ever gave the back of his hand to his beloved…and to every woman who deserved it!” The very obvious misogyny of the tagline, and possibly of the entire film, informs my hesitance about this play as I interpret it, but also as I think about how to teach a text that may hint towards contemporary ideas of sexism and abusive relationships. At the same time, it is also important to expose students to these questions and texts because censoring discussions about topics such as these are what create miscommunication and misunderstanding of historical realities as well as modern ones.
How do we view Petruccio’s relationship with Katherine? Do we have a responsibility as modern readers to be critical of what seem like social injustices in Shakespeare’s writings, or do we treat these plays as products of their time?
Hello Dayamara,
I recognize how it seems difficult to teach something so delicate to students. As a future high school teacher I find myself thinking about these issues constantly. Personally I find it extremely important that issues such as sexism are addressed; however, they need to be spoken about within reason. So by utilizing Katherina and Petruccio’s relationship there is a reason to talk about the topic. Otherwise the actions may begin to seem justified. In response to your inquiry, I personally find that we (especially educators) have a moral responsibility to explain why the actions are injustices, but to also explain the culture during the time the play was written. By providing students with the ability to reflect upon the readings from a modern perspective they learn and can grow to reflect, by also recognizing the historical aspect of the play students will become more empathetic individuals who try to recognize differences between cultures. If we fail to be appropriate in terms of modern injustices and provide historical context we will fail our students.
Your analysis brought up an interesting point. Katherine, on the surface, seems to have been “tamed,” but in reality Petruccio has only deflected her behavior. Rather than acting shrewish towards men, her overbearing personality is now used to control other women. The play sets up a hierarchy, Petruccio exerts his dominance over Katherine, who in turn exerts her dominance over weaker, gentler women. I agree with your point on teaching such a play with blatant misogyny and sexism integrated into the plot. To understand the play, it is crucial to consider it in its historical context. This gender hierarchy was the reality of Shakespeare’s world and the play is simply a product of social norms.
I completely understand why you would be worried about teaching Taming of the Shrew in a class, especially in a high school English class. High school is still within the realm of the teenage formative years and it can be worrisome when Shakespeare is always considered to be (one of) the greatest writer(s) who used the English language and he creates a play with such obvious overtones of male dominance. I do, however, think that it should still be taught, especially in high schools, with the correct type of analytical lens. A majority of the things that are taught in our history classes are considered to be horrifying atrocities that foreign and domestic diplomats inflicted upon one another throughout the centuries. The goal in teaching about all these terrible events is to show young students what happens when one doesn’t learn from their history. Its largely a preventative measure to hopefully ensure that something as horrendous as the dropping of the atom bomb in World War II doesn’t happen again. The misogyny of Taming of the Shrew could be taught in a similar way.
Instead of teaching this play as solely “a product of its time” and telling students that they just have to accept the play at face value, they can be challenged to examine why it’s horrible for men to treat women in this way. The Taming of the Shrew can be an incredible vehicle in which to teach young high school students about not only the beauty of language, but also the necessity of feminism. The play can be like the “before” photo of a commercial, and gender equality can be the “after” portion. Instead of strictly labeling Shakespeare as a misogynist, a teacher can talk about the importance of satire and how it exposes a way of life to a society that doesn’t realize the way that they are living their lives is backward. I wholeheartedly believe Taming of the Shrew is an important play to be taught, so long as the open-minded and feminist teachers and professors are teaching it as to not degrade women.
I am of the belief that Shakespeare wrote this play, not to express his own opinion, but to encourage viewers to question their own morals, values, and opinions, particularly in reference to gender roles. The majority of the characters in this play are male, and any power possessed is held by them. Katherina and Bianca both function as bargaining chips to be traded amongst Baptista and the girls’ various suitors. As well, until Katherina bows down to a man and becomes obedient, she is seen as an intolerable shrew. However, the final scene of the play perhaps functions as her redeeming moment in the eyes of some. By proving herself to be the most obedient wife, and scolding the other women for not valuing their husbands and respecting their demands, Katherina completely surrenders her true self to Petruccio. Was this a victory at the time and a failure of feminism in the eyes of modern readers? Or did contemporary viewers struggle with the same dilemma?
I think that while reading and discussing Taming of the Shrew at the high-school level, teachers definitely need to be critical of the social injustices portrayed in Shakespeare’s writings, but also acknowledge that those injustices were seen as normal during the time they were written about (while again, emphasizing that actions like Petruccio’s are definitely not acceptable). I know I definitely view Petruccio’s relationship with Katherine as an abusive one and find the obvious gender-based hierarchy unsettling, but like you said, it might not have been interpreted that way in Shakespeare’s time. I also find it interesting that you brought up the 1967 film version of the play and how obviously misogynistic the tagline is (so much so that it almost seems satirical to me, but probably wasn’t meant to be seen that way). That brings up the difficulty of how to portray the relationship between Kate and Petruccio on stage, or in modern adaptations—should directors stay true to the utter misogyny that the text seems to convey? And did it convey that misogyny when it was performed in Shakespeare’s time? The centuries-wide gap, as you pointed out, makes things incredibly difficult.
I find the highlighting of the power shift within Petruccio and Kate’s relationship would make an excellent class discussion for a teacher in modern day. While it might seem like Kate is in control in her last speech, she isn’t because this demeaning empowerment over the other wives was created by Petruccio, or at least it is a response of fear and obedience to whatever impending punishment awaits for Kate if she did not comply. But Kate also exemplified the same type of power in Act 2 Scene 1 when Kate has Bianca tied up and she is trying to get answers about her on which suitor she will pick, so I’m curious how you would be able to connect those two ideas.
In my opinion, as modern readers, we should not read past literature from a judgemental standpoint but rather through a critical lens. We can use the literature as a way to glimpse into the past to understand the culture of that time. Literature that was written in any past period serves as an artifact in a sense because we gain a better understanding of the moral and cultural values of that time. With that being said, I also agree with Jamie’s point which is that we do not know if Shakespeare wrote this play as a reflection of the times he was living in or if he wrote the play to encourage audience members to think about these hypothetical situations. It is difficult for us readers to determine the motive behind an author’s work which always leaves room for speculation. Take Stephen Greenblatt for example, who felt convinced that Shakespeare’s plays were a direct reflection of his life.
You raise a great question about teaching this text to a high school class. High school students are still experiencing a phase of growing and developing their own morals. A play such as “Taming of the Shrew” may cause them to question if it is acceptable for men to be dominant and women to be submissive. This play can be manipulated in so many ways when teaching a younger age group. One of the ways “Taming of the Shrew” can be taught to high school students is an example of misogyny, sexism, and classim. Questions can be raised to the class such as: do we still see examples of these prejudices in our own society today? which can lead to an open-ended discussion of some subtle similarities in our society today with the time that this play was written.