Making Sense of Shakespeare: A Cultural Icon For Contemporary Audiences

14 Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.5, No.
3, 2013
ISSN: 1837-5391; http://utsescholarship.lib.uts.edu.au/epress/journals/index.php/mcs
CCS Journal is published under the auspices of UTSePress, Sydney, Australia
Making Sense of Shakespeare:
a Cultural Icon for Contemporary Audiences

Michael R. Olsson
University of Technology, Sydney

Abstract
The works of William Shakespeare are more popular in the 21
st
century than ever before. Why are theatre and
audiences around the globe still drawn to his work? How do they make sense of these texts in ways that resonate
with their cosmopolitan, contemporary audiences? This article uses the findings of a study interviewing 35
theatre professionals in Canada, Finland and the United Kingdom to explore these issues. Theoretically and
methodologically, it is a bricolage, drawing on a range of approaches including Foucaults discourse analysis,
and Hobsbawms invented traditions to understand participants sense-making as a social practice. It argues that
attempting to understand the significance of a major cultural icon such as Shakespeare in contemporary
cosmopolitan civil society needs to recognise the many meanings, roles and significances that surround him and
that this complexity makes it unlikely that any one theoretical lens will prove adequate on its own.

Introduction
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts
(As You Like It)

The works of the English playwright William Shakespeare (1564-1616) have had a profound
effect on the world we live in. Words and phrases he coined litter the everyday speech of
English speakers around the world (McCrum, 1986). Although considered by some to be the
quintessential English playwright, his works are published around the world, not only in
English but 80 other languages. Shakespeares global popularity and prestige in the theatre
would also seem to have never been higher. The 2012 World Shakespeare Festival, for
example, included performances of his plays in 50 languages (Dickson, 2013).

How is it that a writer who died almost four centuries ago remains such an iconic figure in
contemporary cosmopolitan civil society? Why are theatre professionals actors, directors,
designers - and audiences around the globe still drawn to his work? How do theatre
professionals, individually and as part of a creative community, make sense of these texts in
ways that resonate with their cosmopolitan, contemporary audiences?

Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.5, No.3, 2013 15
The present article will endeavour to explore these issues through its analysis of the findings
of an international study examining how theatre professionals (actors, directors, designers
and others) in different countries make sense of the works of a culturally iconic author
(William Shakespeare) in the course of performing one of his plays. In doing so, it will not
only shed light on the working practices of members of this heterogeneous creative
community, but also illuminate aspects of the continuing importance of Shakespeare not just
for the English or English speakers but for people around the globe. More broadly, in doing
so it may shed light on the nature of peoples relationship with information in a 21
st
century
postmodern world.

Methodology
Though this be madness, yet there is method in 't.
(Hamlet)

The present article draws on the findings of a larger study of theatre professionals sense-
making (Olsson 2010a; 2010b; 2012). Methodologically, the study was a bricolage, adapting
approaches and techniques from a variety of disciplinary traditions, including critical
discourse analysis, communication and education, as well as information behaviour/practices
research. The approach to both interviewing and analysis was iterative, developing and
changing significantly through the course of the study.

The findings of the study are based on interviews with 35 theatre professionals in Canada,
Finland and the United Kingdom. Participants include actors, directors, set and costume
designers, voice coaches and dramaturges affiliated with a number of theatre companies,
including the Stratford Shakespeare Festival of Canada (North America's largest and most
prestigious classical repertory theatre), Shakespeares Globe, the Royal Shakespeare
Company, the National Theatre and the Central School of Speech and Drama in the UK and
the Tampereen Tyven Teatteri (Tampere Peoples Theatre) in Finland. While some
participants were purposefully sampled and directly approached by the researcher, the
majority (28) were recruited via snowball sampling (Patton, 2002), where participants
nominated other theatre professionals (in their own company or elsewhere) they felt should
be included in the research. The interviews were carried out face-to-face, usually in informal
settings (green room, rehearsal room etc.) at the theatre where the participants worked or in
other informal settings, such as cafes or the participants home.

16 Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.5, No.3, 2013
One particular challenge of the present study was that many of the participants, especially
actors and directors, were very used to being interviewed: publicity and talking to the press
being part of their job. This had both positive and negative aspects. These participants were
confident and comfortable in talking about themselves, with a ready supply of amusing
anecdotes to hand. However, this meant that it was important to develop strategies that
probed below the polished surface of these oft-told stories.

The strategy developed was to move away from a semi-structured approach to interviewing
and to carry out, longer, more conversational interviews of the kind advocated by Seidman
(1991). Even the briefest interview (cut short by the bell for an afternoon matinee) lasted just
over an hour, with many running more than two or even three hours. A number of
participants commented that they found the interviews a revealing process, offering them an
opportunity to reflect on both their professional life and their relationship with Shakespeare
in a way they had not done before.

I just want to thank you because Ive never had the opportunity to think about my
life as an actor in this way before. I think its going to make me a better actor.
(Seyton, actor)

The interviews were digitally audio-recorded and professionally transcribed prior to analysis.
An inductive critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 2003; Paltridge, 2008) of the interview
and follow-up transcripts was undertaken. This process included a detailed micro-analysis of
the interview transcripts, aided by the use of NVivo software, with the researchers field
notes and listening to the original audio recordings also used to inform the process. In
addition to this micro-analysis, the researcher made extensive use of the broader thematic
writing techniques advocated by Glaser and Strauss (1967) to explore emergent trends,
concepts and theories. Participants played an active role in the analysis process and were
frequently asked to comment on the extent to which emerging patterns and concepts reflected
their own experience.

Conceptual Framework
As, painfully to pore upon a book
To seek the light of truth
(Loves Labours Lost)

The design of the study and the analysis of the interview data were influenced by theories and
approaches from a range of different disciplinary traditions including communication, critical
discourse analysis and sociology of knowledge, as well as information studies. The analysis
of the research described in this article will draw particularly on ideas drawn from Foucaults
approach to discourse analysis, including pouvoir/savoir (power/knowledge) and Death of
the Author (Foucault, 1980; Rabinow, 1984). It will also critically engage with Hobsbawms
notion of invented traditions (Hobsbawn & Ranger, 1993).

Shakespeares iconic status as the greatest playwright that has ever lived would seem, at first
glance, to be a perfect example of Hobsbawms idea:

'Invented tradition' is taken to mean a set of practices, normally governed by
overtly or tacitly accepted rules and of a ritual or symbolic nature, which seek to
inculcate certain values and norms of behaviour by repetition, which
automatically implies continuity with the past. In fact, where possible, they
normally attempt to establish continuity with a suitable historic past.
(Hobsbawm, 1993, 1)

Certainly, there is ample evidence to suggest both that Shakespeares iconic status is more
recent than his present pre-eminence might lead one to assume and that there have been long
periods when his work was not popular or even publically performed. Although there is
evidence to suggest that Shakespeare was well regarded by his contemporaries, such as Ben
J onson, much of this extant commentary focuses on his poetry. Theatre (like television today)
was regarded by the J acobean intelligentsia as an essentially popular and ephemeral medium.
Already beginning to go somewhat out of fashion in Shakespeares own lifetime, the Puritan
closure of the theatre during the English Civil War and changing theatrical tastes from the
Restoration onwards meant that his plays were largely unperformed for more than 150 years
until the late 18
th
Century. It took the rise of Romanticism and the rise of Britain as a
dominant imperial power in search of a symbol of its cultural superiority to lay the
foundations of the monolithic reputation his work enjoys today. The advent of prestigious
theatre companies dedicated to the performance of Shakespeares work is even more recent:
The Royal Shakespeare Company was founded in 1961(Royal Shakespeare Company, 2013),
while Shakespeares Globe had its first season in 1996 (Shakespeares Globe, 2013).

Yet to view Shakespeares iconic status solely as an example of an invented tradition raises
more questions than it answers. If, for example, Shakespeares rise to pre-eminence can be
dated to Britains rise to imperial power, why has prestige continued to grow as that same
empire has dwindled? Why is he not now seen, as other Victorian imperial icons such as
Milton and Kipling are, as an outmoded relic? Why does performing Shakespeare remain so
popular in so many post-colonial contexts, from Australia and Canada to India? Why, as the
studys findings will show, is his work venerated in countries that were never part of Britains
imperial orbit, such as Finland and Sweden?

Despite the prevalence of the view of Shakespeare as a timeless genius whose works
contains a universal truth, it is clear that every production of Shakespeare is indeed, must
be different: the product of the sense-making processes of different people, with different
beliefs and understandings operating in different organisational/cultural/artistic/national
contexts performing in different places for different audiences. Golder and Madelaine (2001),
for example, found that the recent Australian productions they examined drew inspiration
from sources and issues as diverse as Freudian psychology, J apanese kabuki and the
indigenous land-rights debate.

In seeking to examine the working practices by which theatre professionals made sense of
Shakespeare, the analysis therefore also made use ideas and approaches drawn from the work
of the French historian and philosopher, Michel Foucault (1980; Rabinow, 1984). In
Foucaults conception of it, discourses are more than just a way of talking rather it is seen
as a complex network of relationships between individuals, texts, ideas and institutions, with
each node impacting on other nodes, and on the dynamics of the discourse as a whole.

Analysis of the studys findings will show that participants constructions of Shakespeare are
the result of complex interactions between the members of the company, the text and an array
of prevailing discourses about Shakespeare and performance, some of them international,
found in all participants accounts, some of them specific to a particular national or cultural
context.

Like Hobsbawm, Foucault emphasised that any discourse is inextricably tied to its particular
socio-historical context and cannot be studied or understood if divorced from this context:
For Foucault there is ... no universal understanding that is beyond history and society
(Rabinow, 1984, 4). However, Foucault also recognised that discourses are never static: the
dynamics of peoples ongoing engagement with them means they are in a continuous process
of contestation, re-affirmation and re-invention:

There is a battle for truth or at least around truth - it being understood once
again that by truth I do not mean the ensemble of truths which are to be
discovered and accepted but rather the ensemble of rules according to which
the true and the false are separated and specific effects of power attached to the
true. (Foucault, in Rabinow (ed.), 1984, 418).

The ongoing relations between people, institutions and texts generate regimes of both
meaning and authority (power/knowledge) simultaneously. In this view, the creation and
dissemination of texts, the weighting of one text more than another, involves a series of
dynamic power relations. These relations are constantly re-inventing and re-affirming
themselves through the process of applying the discursive rules to examine new texts and to
re-examine existing ones.

As a consequence, a Foucauldian lens must lead us to question one of Hobsbawms central
assumptions. Implicit in the notion of invented tradition is the implicit assumption that there
is such a thing as an authentic i.e. non-invented tradition; Foucaults work is likely lead us to
the view that traditions, however old, however continuous, are discursive constructs and that
contemporary engagements with them must inevitably involve a degree of re-invention. It is
simply not possible, for example, for a 21
st
century reader or performer to understand
Shakespeares work in the way that his J acobean contemporaries did the sense we make of
it is inevitably coloured by our own discursive context.

The findings suggest that one reason for Shakespeares continuing popularity, the continued
performance of his plays around the world, may not be, as in popular wisdom, their
universality but their mutability the ability of theatre professionals to continually re-invent
the plays, giving them new meanings for increasingly cosmopolitan contemporary global
audiences. The study has sought to explore the interplay of how these diverse constructions
as well as the sometimes convergent, sometimes divergent interests of actors, directors,
designers and technicians interact in the cooperative environment of producing a theatrical
production.

Findings
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
(Hamlet)

The studys findings produced a very rich picture of the information practices the participants
engaged in to make sense of Shakespeare a portrait in many ways at odds with the
assumptions underpinning prevailing approaches to information behaviour research. In
particular, they highlighted the essentially social nature of the participants knowledge
acquisition, not only in their heavy reliance on personal relationships but also in the clear
relationship between their sense-making and the social norms and accepted practices
(discursive rules) that have developed in the theatre world over many generations.

Audience the Silent Partner
But pardon, and gentles all
And let us, ciphers to this great accompt,
On your imaginary forces work
For 'tis your thoughts that now must deck our kings,
Carry them here and there; jumping o'er times,
Turning the accomplishment of many years
Into an hour-glass
(Henry V)

Theatre professionals interpretations of Shakespeare are social in a very literal way.
Underpinning all participants accounts was an understanding that they needed to make
sense of Shakespeare not only for themselves or their colleagues but rather they needed to do
so in a way that would make sense for their audience:

Its really about building that connection its like a dialogue between you and
them And sometimes you wont know what works until you are actually in
front of an audience. (Hippolyta, actor)

Furthermore, many of the theatre companies involved in the study routinely perform to
heterogeneous, multi-cultural audiences. It was clear from participants accounts that they
understood that different backgrounds and experiences would make sense of their
performance in different ways:

Here at the Globe our audience is so different youve got tourists from all over the world,
with varying degrees of English youve also got your serious Shakespeareans some of
them have seen everyone from Olivier and Burton to Branagh at the same time youve
also got your school groups. Youve got to find a way to connect with all of them on some
level. (Mercutio, actor)

The challenges of an international audience were also evident in Canada:

We need to be Canadian but not too Canadian! Were a government funded
company and like to think of ourselves as the national company but then quite
a lot of our audience come from over the border. So if we make the references
too specific if the clown characters all sound like theyre from Newfoundland,
eh? - well lose the Americans! (Rosalind, voice coach)

In describing these challenges, participants demonstrated their appreciation of Shakespeare as
an icon whose power extends well beyond their own particular professional and cultural
contexts, as well as an awareness that his work and their performance- will have different
meanings for different people interpreting him through their own cultural lenses.

The challenge for a contemporary theatre company and for individual theatre professionals
is therefore to simultaneously meet the multiple and sometimes conflicting expectations of
a cosmopolitan audience: that they will see a performance that is relevant and accessible yet
at the same time connected to the iconic Shakespearean tradition.

The Battle for Truth
Once more unto the breach, dear friends
(Henry V)

Meeting this challenge of connecting to an iconic tradition was at the heart of the professional
creative lives of all the studys participants. It was a subject that all participants had thought
deeply and cared passionately about. For many, it was a question they had literally dedicated
their lives to. In speaking with the researcher about Shakespeare, it was clear that although
participants held a variety of opinions, they did not make sense of his work in an
idiosyncratic way. Instead, the views they expressed were explicitly related to discourses that
were well established in the theatre world. Participants accounts were eloquent and well
thought out, the distillation of years of professional endeavour and showed a strong
awareness of being part of a long-standing theatrical tradition of enormous cultural
importance.

These discourses provided a framework or rather a set of frameworks that participants,
both individually and as a part of a working community, engaged with. Participants did not
blindly accept prevailing discourses, nor were their sense-making processes dominated by a
single discourse: all participants engaged with them selectively, critically and strategically.
Their accounts demonstrate that Foucaults battle for truth is not only a macro-sociological
phenomenon: it is integral to micro-sociological interactions between community members
and even the thought processes of individuals.

Perhaps the most striking feature of participants accounts of their relationship with
Shakespeare is that, without exception, every participant drew on two essentially
contradictory discourses.

Authenticity Discourse
Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to
you, trippingly on the tongue
(Hamlet)
The first of these, allied to the long-standing tradition of viewing Shakespeare as a universal
genius, valued authenticity:

I feel its a great honour and a great responsibility to do this work in an
authentic way: to be true to Shakespeares language ... these characters...
Shakespeare is bigger than all of us. (Robin Goodfellow, Actor)

This is a discourse focussed on divining authorial intent: that the plays have a true meaning
and the role of theatre professionals is to represent this faithfully:

I often ask myself What did Shakespeare mean here? His characters have
such depth, are so well written My job is to bring them to life. (Viola, actor)

Related to this was a widely expressed view that saw theatre professionals as having a special
insight into the works true meaning:

You know, I dont think you can really understand Shakespeare, until you
perform it ... the plays were written to be performed, not read. (Ned Poins, actor)

In using this discourse, some participants put forward the view that theatre professionals are
the true custodians of Shakespeares legacy often explicitly contrasting this with academic
approaches:

I just cant stand it when they go on about death of the author- I want to find
that connection to Shakespeare (Mistress Quickly, actor)

In a few cases, participants supported this by reference to theatrical tradition:

Its kind of amazing to think of yourself as being part of a tradition that goes
back through the centuries ... to Shakespeare and the Globe. And I think you
feel a responsibility to carry on that tradition, to honour it. (Antony, actor)

While present, reference to this kind of Hobsbawmian invented tradition was not the primary
discursive practice that participants referred to. Instead, their accounts emphasised the
importance of a close reading of the text, often combined with the rehearsal room interactions
described above, as a way of uncovering their true meaning:

When Im working on the play, I feel Im really coming to understand
Shakespeare I sometimes feel like hes talking directly to me. (Tamora, actor)

Perhaps the ultimate expression of this authenticity discourse was a highly sophisticated set
of practices for reading employed by some participants both at the Globe and at Stratford in
Canada. This Shakespeare as Director discourse, which focusses on a close reading of
punctuation, stage directions and other cues in the First Folio and early Quartos, essentially
argues that instructions on how to perform Shakespeare are integral to the structure of the text:

Shakespeare actually tells you how to speak the lines! If you look at the blank
verse, it shows you when to pause, what to give emphasis to ... He does the
work for you... (Rosencrantz, actor)

Shakespeare is such a master of language. If you listen to the sound of the
words, he uses the sound of the words to convey the emotion He even uses
punctuation to tell you where to take a breath. (Ned Poins, actor)

The participants who discussed this approach (all classically trained actors) demonstrated an
extraordinary knowledge of the texts they described and a depth of analysis at least the equal
of anything to be found in the academy.

Creativity Discourse
O for a Muse of fire, that would ascend
The brightest heaven of invention
(Henry V)

At the same time, all participants accounts showed an understanding that interpretations of
Shakespeare had changed over time, and that their adaptability was a key feature of their
enduring popularity:

The reason that this stuff has lasted for as long as it has is .... that there are as
many different ways of interpreting it as there are people coming to it.
(Hippolyta, actor)

In using this creativity discourse, participants explicitly related this to the high value theatre
professionals place on originality:

I dont want to just copy whats been done before. I need to make the part
mine... find my own truth. (Mercutio, actor)

Drawing on this discourse, each participant would strive to bring something new and fresh
to each new production:

We wanted to make this production very political, quite Marxist...Show
Shakespeare in a new way, different to what the audience expects (Puck, actor)

You need to find new settings, new approaches to the design ... get away from
pumpkin pants Shakespeare! (Sebastian, designer)

Allied to this discourse, is a concern with making the plays relevant to a contemporary
audience:

How do you get across the idea of what royalty means to a modern audience? I
mean they werent nice polite guys cutting ribbons ... They were more like
mafia dons! (Rosalind, voice coach)

A Servant of Two Masters?
We came into the world like brother and brother,
And now let's go hand in hand, not one before another
(Comedy of Errors)

These two discourses of authenticity and creativity are frequently in opposition in participants
accounts, with the one being used to critique the other:

On one level, its interesting and kind of cool to delve into what people in
Shakespeares time believed about ghosts stuff like that but at the same
time, I have to say that doesnt really help you get out and connect with a front
row full of teenagers! (Laertes, actor)

Well we have a director now, hes very focussed on the look of the thing,
making a big spectacle, but to me thats going against what Shakespeare is
about the characters, the language... (Antony, actor)

It would be a mistake to see participants use of two apparently contradictory discourses as a
problem, some failure on their part to comprehend the truth. Discourse analytic scholars
have long understood that complex topics will invariably give rise to multiple discourses and
that individuals will move between these discourses as circumstances dictate.

Furthermore, it is clear from the study that this apparent paradox is not a weakness but a
strength. Were the authenticity discourse to be dominant, the likely outcome would be
theatre that was simply an exercise in historical recreation, of interest to only a few scholars.
Conversely, a production where the creativity discourse was pre-eminent might be rejected
by the audience (as avant-garde productions frequently have been) as not Shakespeare. The
competing claims of these two discourses frame the battle for truth (Foucault) within each
production. It is the creative tensions between their competing claims that make each new
production both unique and connected to iconic tradition.

National Voices
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!
(Henry V)

Nowhere was the battle between the creativity/contemporary relevance and authenticity
discourses clearer than in the extensive discussion of accent by both Canadian and UK
participants:

Theres a lot of argument here as to whether you should say the duke ... or
the dook. (Rosalind, voice coach)

In both countries, there were a number of participants, both actors and directors, who wanted
to move away from the Received Pronunciation (BBC/public school English) of traditional
Shakespearian productions to use accents more like the everyday speech of the audience:

I dont see why an Ancient Greek character needs to sound like he went to Eton!
(Zero, director)

As in the above example, three UK participants talked about the accent issue in terms of class:

I want the kids from Brixton or Glasgow! to feel that Shakespeares for
them too its not just posh gits with lah-de-dah accents! (MacMorris, actor)

In both countries, the discussion of accent could be seen as drawing on the Creativity
discourse - the auditory equivalent of the shift away from pumpkin pants costumes a
strategy to distance the production from traditions that were seen as outmoded and alienating
for contemporary audiences.

Contemporary accents, some also argued, not only made the characters more accessible to the
audience but could be used to convey meaning:

One of the best productions Ive seen was a Romeo and J uliet from Quebec...
the Capulets were Francophone and the Montagues were Anglophone...
(Rosalind, voice coach)

Ive loved seeing a First Nations actor playing Shylock I think thats
really brought the racism home to people. (Iago, director)

Interestingly, the authenticity discourse could also be employed to justify the shift away from
Received Pronunciation (RP):

We had a talk from a language professor from England and he said that the
accent in Shakespeares time would have sounded much more like Americans
then RP... (Antony, actor)

After all, RP is a 19
th
Century invention, Shakespeare wouldnt have even
understood it! (Zero, director)

Two Scottish participants made a similar argument, arguing that the Scots voice is not only
more authentically Elizabethan, but much more effective at conveying powerful emotion to
the audience than the smooth, polished sound of RP:

The language works so much better in Scots its more raw, visceral ... and
there is a much greater range of sounds... and its a much more Elizabethan
sound! (Ned Poins, actor)

Their spontaneous performance of various speeches to demonstrate this were not only
convincing but mesmerising in a way that no words on a page can convey!

The use of different accents, as with non-traditional costumes or stage settings, is a material
example of the tools theatre professionals use to re-invent the iconic Shakespeare author-
construct (Foucault in Rabinow, 1984). While on the one hand, these innovations challenge
certain features of the Shakespearian invented tradition, on the other, by presenting
Shakespeare in a new light, by making explicit connections between his work and
social/cultural contests and practices the audience can relate to, they actually serve to
reinforce the central tenet of the tradition: that Shakespeare is a genius whose work speaks to
all people and all times.

The idea of Shakespeare as a specifically English writer was raised as an issue only by two
Canadian participants. When asked about this in a follow-up one responded:

Maybe thats seen as an issue here not just because of our history and being part
of the Commonwealth but because of our theatre tradition. Tyrone Guthrie
(prominent English actor and director) was the first Artistic Director at the
Stratford Festival and so many Canadian actors went to England for their
training. (Rosalind, voice coach)

An American-born and educated participant made an interesting comment in relation to this:

You know I never really heard of this idea of Shakespeare as English and that
being a problem until I came to Canada. in the States weve never had a
problem seeing Shakespeare as ours! (Antony, actor)

A Finnish participant made a similar comment:

I dont think I think of Shakespeare as being English I mean I dont see
Sophocles as only for Greeks! These writers are for the world. (Dionyza,
dramaturge)

Shakespeare in Translation
What country, friend, is this?
(Twelfth Night)

The large majority of the studys interviews were carried out in English-speaking countries
with participants for whom English is their first language. Nonetheless, there was more
discussion of non-English language Shakespeare than might have been anticipated. Much of
this discussion drew on the creativity discourse:

I think a lot of the most exciting Shakespeare Ive seen in the last ten years has
come out of Asia. I saw an Indian [Midsummer Nights] Dream that just blew
me away! It was like nothing Id ever seen. (Orsino, designer)

J apanese directors seem to have a great sense of social distinctions that shape
the characters actions. Maybe they are closer to that kind of hierarchy than we
are now. (Iago, director)

Some of this discussion was based on a belief that performing in other languages offered
more creative freedom:

You know, in many ways I envy my overseas colleagues who get to work with
Shakespeare in translation, because they dont have to worry about the problems
of archaic language that audiences cant understand ... but were all You cant
change it, its SHAKESPEARE! (Andromache, dramaturge)

The study did, however, also include four Finnish participants (two actors, a dramaturge and
a director), all highly experienced and critically acclaimed. All four had performed
Shakespeare in Finnish, while two had also been involved in Swedish-language productions.
This provided some insight into how making sense of and performing Shakespeare in another
language might be different from, as well as similar to, doing so in English, at least in a
Nordic context.

he doth bestride the narrow world.
Like a Colossus
(Julius Caesar)

A striking feature of English language participants accounts is the extent to which they
embraced a view of Shakespeare as the greatest writer who has ever lived. Perhaps this was
not only a reflection of Shakespeares iconic place in English-language culture but also that
the great majority of participants worked for companies, such as the Globe and the RSC,
where Shakespeare was their raison detre. The Finnish participants tended to a slightly
different view:

For us perhaps Shakespeare is not the only one but he is one of the greats
every actor wants to perform the great roles Hamlet, Macbeth, Lear (Puck,
actor)

Nonetheless, all four participants enthusiasm for Shakespeare was striking and much of their
discussion of his work closely mirrored that of English language participants:

There is no one like him not even Ibsen or Chekhov produce such characters!
(Fortinbras, actor)

One participant put forward an explanation for Shakespeares importance in a Finnish context
(a view shared by a Finnish drama academic I consulted):

because of our history ruled by Sweden, then by Russia, there was not so
much written - published in Finnish before independence. And so translating
Shakespeare into Finnish has become a kind of measure of the language when
a new translation comes out, it shows us how the language has developed and
it shows that Finnish can be a language for great poetry. (Dionyza, dramaturge)

This is a striking example of the fact that in addition to global discourses around Shakespeare
as an author-construct (Foucault in Rabinow, 1984), that such an iconic figure will also take
on particular meanings and significnaces unique to particular cultural contexts.

Another potentially important issue that the study provides only a glimpse of is the
differences in meaning that arise when a play is translated into one language rather than
another. Both participants who performed in both Finnish and Swedish commented on this:

At first we were performing in Swedish but then when we were performing in
Finnish, it became like a different play! The emotions were different the
audience didnt see it the same way we had to make changes (Nerissa,
director)

Such a small relevant sample means that the present study provides only a small glimpse of
the complex issue of translation as a shaper of meaning.

Conclusion
But that's all one, our play is done,
And we'll strive to please you every day.
(Twelfth Night)

The findings of this study provide us with some significant insights, not only into the
meaning and significance of Shakespeare in the 21
st
century but also into the nature of
collective creative endeavour and social sense-making. In doing so, the study also provides a
microcosm which may provide insights about the nature of meaning in contemporary
cosmopolitan civil society.

The findings suggest that attempting to understand the significance of a major cultural icon
such as Shakespeare in contemporary cosmopolitan civil society needs to recognise the many
meanings, roles and significances that surround him: Shakespeare in the 21
st
century is not a
single monolith but a multitude of continually evolving author constructs. Such complexity
makes it unlikely that any one theoretical lens will prove adequate on its own. This article has
therefore endeavoured to use several theoretical approaches in order to see what insights
different lenses might provide.

Hobsbawms concept of invented traditions, while problematic in some of its implicit
assumptions, is valuable in highlighting the need to critically examine the historical
underpinnings of even the most apparently venerable and august of cultural icons. It reminds
us that the past is not simply another country: it is a narrative that is continually being re-
written, reconceptualised through the lens of our own societal values and its authority co-
opted to supported contemporary social and political agendas. It demonstrates that the ability
of different institutions schools, universities, museums, theatre companies to shape the
ways we see and the stories we tell about the past, and people and events from previous eras,
will have much broader consequences in terms of the way we see the world we live in.

On one level, the study can be seen as a micro-sociological case study of Foucaults concepts
of discourse and power/knowledge manifested not on the broad canvas of history but in the
everyday working practices of the participants. For all that participants evinced a sincere
desire to perform authentic Shakespeare, their sense-making of his work was clearly an
ongoing process of social construction, involving engagement and negotiation not only with
their immediate colleagues in the company but long-standing discourses, conventions and
established social practices in the theatrical episteme.

The complexity of the discursive landscape that participants negotiated, with its mixture of
local, national, and global discourses, brings to mind Baudrillards (1994) view of the
postmodern world as a complex sea of interacting signs and simulacra. Participants accounts
would certainly seem to support the postmodern view that in contemporary society no text
has only one meaning or significance. Consequently, as social researchers, when we
encounter contexts where a group or institution seeks to assert a single truth, we might
usefully follow Fairclough (2003) in questioning whose interests are served by such an
assertion and whose are marginalised.

The studys findings suggest that a variety of discourses, even contradictory ones, around an
iconic figure such as Shakespeare should not be a source of concern. Foucaults work
suggests that such a multiplicity of meanings is the inevitable consequence of the dynamics
of discourse. As contemporary civil society grows ever more globally connected, as each of
us engages with more and more ideas and debates from around the world, this process can
only accelerate. The present study, however, suggest that this phenomenon can have many
positive outcomes: that audiences around the globe continue to be entertained and inspired by
performances of Shakespeare precisely because they are the product of this dynamic ongoing
process of reinvention.

References
Baudrillard, J . 1994, Simulacra and Simulation, The University of Michigan Press, Ann
Arbor.
Fairclough, N. 2003, Analysing discourse: textual analysis for social research, Routledge,
London.
Foucault, M. 1980, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977,
Harvester Press, London.
Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research, Aldine Publishing Corporation, New York.
Golder, J . & Madelaine, R. 2001, To dote on such luggage: Appropriating Shakespeare in
Australia, in Golder, J . and Madelaine, R. (eds) O Brave New World: Two Centuries of
Shakespeare on the Australian Stage, Currency Press, Sydney, pp. 1-16.
Hobsbawm, E. 1993, Inventing traditions, in Hobsbawm, E. and Ranger, T. (eds) The
Invention of Tradition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
McCrum, R. 1986, The Story of English, BBC, London.
Olsson, M.R. 2010a, The play's the thing: Theater professionals make sense of Shakespeare,
Library and Information Science Research vol.32 no.4, pp. 272-280.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2010.07.009
Olsson, M.R. 2010b, 'All the World's a Stage - the information practices and sense-making of
theatre professionals', Libri, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 241-251.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/libr.2010.021
Olsson, M.R. 2012, Making Sense of Shakespeare: the social information world of theatre
professionals, in Widn, G. and Holmberg, K. (eds), Social Information Research,
Emerald, Bingley.
Paltridge, B. 2008, Discourse Analysis, Continuum, London.
Patton, M. Q. 2002, Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.), Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Rabinow, P. 1984, The Foucault Reader, Peregrine Books, Harmondsworth, Middlesex.
Royal Shakespeare Company 2013, History. http://www.rsc.org.uk/about-us/history/
Seidman, I. E. 1991, Interviewing as Qualitative Research: a Guide for Researchers in
Education and the Social Sciences. Teachers College Press, New York.
Shakespeares Globe 2013, Rebuilding the Globe, http://www.shakespearesglobe.com/about-
us/history-of-the-globe/rebuilding-the-globe Accessed 10 November 2013.

Making Sense of Shakespeare: A Cultural Icon For Contemporary Audiences

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Making Sense of Shakespeare: A Cultural Icon For Contemporary Audiences

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Making Sense of Shakespeare: A Cultural Icon For Contemporary Audiences

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

14 Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.5, No.

You might also like