Introduction
While it might appear that the Global pandemic reduced or slowed the influence of the Globe Theatre, I believe that the manner in which the Globe’s social media team tackled this time only reinforced its relevance, as well as reinforced the underlying social connotations of marginalized people by strengthening the Shakespeare fetish. The following chapter will outline how the pandemic created an environment that allowed for a more wide spread proliferation of the fetish to a more receptive audience, first in addressing the increased accessibility to the Globe as it moved to a majority online and free platform, to the void in education it filled as schools were temporarily shut down or quarantined, and how the social media presence replicated the personalization usually created by the interaction between actors on the Globe Theatre stage and groundlings. I will reflect on the role of the Globe as a tourist site, as a body that seeks to turn a profit, affects the way the Globe discusses different social issues and narratives within the canon to create a fetish made necessary by the simple fact that the Globe needs to make money. I will then bring the concept of the fetish full circle to explain how the Globe creates the compact product that is the fetish, benefits from creating this fetish, and how the makeup of the Globe as a tourist site necessitates the fetish in the first place. A reflection on how this fetish system is made more far-reaching and potent by the COVID-19 pandemic will lead into how the fetish is
irrevocably tied to the Globe as it operates in the capitalist sphere. I will move on to describe how the Globe might function as a space of inclusion, or how it might weaponized this fetish as a force for social progression via the inclusion of a diversity of voices and perspectives drawn in and listened to because of this visibility and assumed authority. Finally, I will end this thesis with speculation about what the Globe’s future might hold, and how it can act to reach out to other
institutions and scholars to redirect the extant lines of education dissemination to teach diversity to a large audience.
Accessibility
Firstly, while the physical space of the Globe Theatre remained closed from the initial shutdown of mid-March until August, accessibility to its materials, productions, and dominant narratives only increased. The social media team heavily advertised the Such Stuff podcast, as well as made multiple productions from previous years available on YouTube for a limited time, all of which I have analyzed here. Where previously only those who were able to pay to
physically visit the Globe– taking time away from work to travel and see these plays– now the general public had access to both the plays and the discourse behind them. Further, the
temporary nature of both the pandemic and the access to such videos made them a hot
commodity. For those with a lasting interest in Shakespeare, they could now easily watch these productions, especially since each play had a date attached that specified when it would no longer be available to view. Secondly, those who were not avid Shakespeare fans but merely bored due to quarantine could find a diversion, a way to occupy their time. Due to the saturation of posts through Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, which advertised free materials and also invited followers to discuss their favorite moments or bits of Shakespearean trivia, the Bard stayed in the collective consciousness of anyone in the social media sphere of history, theatre, or, most obviously, Shakespeare.
Filling the void in both education and entertainment circles thus paints the Globe as a benevolent benefactor to Western society; rather than these efforts being obvious methods to market the Globe as a top destination when quarantine is over. These free materials, as well as
the abundance of resources discussing issues of diversity and inclusion make the Globe appear as both highly educated and empathetic. The pandemic thus gave the opportunity for the Globe managers to build their brand in a way they had not been able to before. The prevalence of their materials online brought them to a more common audience; they were thus accessible to those who could not or did not wish to take the time or money to physically visit the place. Arguably, the audience reached online thus consisted of more lukewarm and disinterested audiences on top of the more fanatic audience that would have visited the physical space. Discussing relevant social topics in the podcast as well as releasing the more streamlined and eye-catching Deutsche Bank productions perhaps captured this less enthusiastic audience, indoctrinating them into the Shakespearean cult, where they would have been outside of their influence before. Further, this indoctrination appears helpful in the pandemic, as it looks as if the Globe is philanthropically educating and entertaining the masses, rather than reinforcing their own cultural relevance with this method.
Personalization
Additionally, the bond created by those drawn into Shakespeare and the Globe during the pandemic appears to be just as strong as the bond would typically be should it be created at the physical Globe, judging from the active participation of Globe social media followers on each respective website. Because the Globe’s social media uses a combination of social media posts asking for audience interaction as well as posting video and audio of people’s voices, this education is more deeply personal than the education that would stem from book learning. The interactive social media posts take the place of groundling interaction with actors; instead of those audience members who pay the least interacting more personally with actors, those who
pay nothing at all on social media can interact with associated scholars and actors on the Globe’s social media accounts. Such posts and threads ask audiences anything from personal
preferences– such as what Shakespearean play they would take to a desert island, or who would win in a fight between Mercutio and Benvolio– to trivia, with questions such as what work was the first published Shakespearean comedy. These threads not only allow followers to answer such questions and flex their knowledge as well as find new friends with similar interests within the field, but these posts create a bond with the site that substitutes the feeling of personal connection a guest may form with tour guides or actors. While these online communities cannot offer real-time face-to-face interaction, they do offer a place where audiences can field questions, receive answers, answer questions posed by the site. This acts as a virtual substitute because it creates a give and take relationship between the site and the audience, with audiences feeling that they have contributed to the knowledge base of the Globe as they would if they were there, in person, asking questions. In many ways, this directly mirrors the relationship between
groundlings and actors; at no cost, those answering social media posts interact with actors to co-create knowledge.
This feeling of ownership over the knowledge base at the Globe cleverly reinforces the fetish that is created by the discussions in podcasts, research bulletins, and in plays on YouTube.
Because these broader audiences on social media thus feel that they have some stake in the ownership of this knowledge, they are less likely to question any of it. The knowledge is theirs, after all; they helped create it. Thus, the problematic portrayals of race, gender, sexuality, and class discussed in previous sections goes unquestioned. Rather, it is readily accepted by these audiences, now broader due to the expanding of access in the pandemic era, because they feel
they had a hand in creating it. Thus, the manner in which the Globe portrays these issues goes uncontested, and is spread to a larger amount of people than would normally be possible.
The Search for Money
While the manner in which the Globe crafts and supports this fetishized version of Shakespeare– in which Shakespeare himself is probably queer, but his LGBT characters remain stereotypes if discussed at all, where his plays are applauded for addressing issues of race but frequently reinforce racial stereotypes that go uncontested, and where his plotlines are said to illustrate the follies of all classes, but the Globe’s emphasis in performances reinforces class hierarchies– is problematic, it is not crafted to deliberately create and reinforce these stereotypes.
Much like in Shakespeare’s own time, the Globe exists as a commercial pursuit, aiming to build cultural relevance and prowess in order to draw in money. While the roles of the Globe are contested– whether it is a museum, performance, or experimental space– these roles all fall under the category of a tourist destination. Further, whether it functions as a heritage site, lieux de memoire, or a combination thereof, it still functions primarily as a commercial tourist destination, working to draw in audiences, and use their money to pay for the actors’ and employees’ salaries.
While the Globe can function as a museum space, it receives no governmental nor arts society support like other national monuments of museums, making the fiscal and commercial needs of the Globe more relevant than other centers of learning or memory may be. As shown by the frequent pop-ups on every page of the Globe’s online presence, and in recurring bubbles in their YouTube performance, the theatre receives no governmental funding, and seeks donations from their audience. The plays made available must be ones well-received, so that these requests
are heard and met. As admitted in season five of Such Stuff, putting on Macbeth means that the theatre is hurting for money, and playing a fan favorite to boost sales (Greenberg 2020 5.2).
Much like Shakespeare, the artistic gravitas of the Globe is secondary; it merely helps draw in these audiences that will pay the bills. Thus, the Globe has a vested interest in matching the status quo.
The stereotypes and portrayals in these plays are thus not conscious constructions meant to lift one class, race, or gender above the other, but merely reflect the existing social norms in the society in which it is performed. Thus– taking Puck and Oberon as an example– as queer identities become more accepted, they can thus be acted out on stage, but as homophobia
remains prevalent in society, this portrayal is set back into the expected and harmful stereotypes associated with queer men. The portrayals and discussions of plays matches the societal
progression of the day, aiming to neither lag nor lead in progression so as to stay appealing to the broadest audience. This explains why many of the discussions of racism, sexism, and classism at the Globe ring hollow; they are willing to discuss it in podcasts and op-eds, but the proof of their commitment to inclusivity is lacking. As published in their diversity data, the majority of Globe staff and actors are White, signaling that the Globe only discusses these issues to stay culturally relevant, rather than systemically attacking these problems from within. Further, it explains why the fundamental question of whether Shakespeare should be so heavily taught– if the racism and history of colonialism make it unable to be rehabbed– is never addressed. Of course the site that makes its money off of the assumption that Shakespeare is universally helpful and should be taught to everyone forever would not question this assumption.
Lastly, this attitude explains why Shakespeare education in many countries is at odds with the way the Globe wishes to portray Shakespeare. While the Globe, as a tourist site, wishes to make Shakespeare accessible and permanently relevant to all, countries with colonial pasts do not wish to make Shakespeare accessible. Shakespeare still represents the upper-class and academic achievement in education. While the Globe works to break this idea and craft a fetish of Shakespeare as accessible and inclusive of all marginalized people so that it remains relevant to all, the education system has no such obligations. Rather, education systems insist that Shakespeare is beneficial to all without backing up this claim in the way that the Globe does.
Shakespeare is portrayed as difficult to understand, but necessary. Racist and sexist tropes are addressed few times. This creates a modern colonial system, at odds with the way the Globe attempts to address these issues. While the Globe attempts to build its credibility by at least acknowledging the harm of this past, modern academia continues this pattern by forcing
marginalized groups to read and regurgitate information that negatively portrays them, written by an antiquated White man, in order to get a so-called modern education and move up the socio-economic ladder. Ironically, it is the very issues that the Globe tries to tackle to stay culturally relevant that Global education consistently ignores, instead co-opting Shakespeare again in order to create a social hierarchy with heterosexual White men at the top.
Final Thoughts on the Shakespeare Fetish
Building the Shakespeare fetish is not a direct effort to subjugate some classes under others; rather, the creation of the fetish is a method to build the brand of the Globe. Portrayals of different classes, races, and sexualities in harmful ways may not even be intentional most of the time; it is possible I am seeing patterns of intent where there are none. However, it is important to separate intent and impact. Whether the decision makers at the Globe choose to embody
different minoritized groups in problematic ways, or whether casting and staging decisions result from subtle internalized biases, it nevertheless contributes to a fetish that reifies some negative stereotypes. If I can see patterns–or receive– of negative portrayals of different groups, others in the vast audience at the Globe will be able to see the same, to receive the same negative message.
Worse, others may not see this pattern and internalize the problematic ways different minoritized groups are characterized. Thus, whether it is the deliberate intent of decision makers at the Globe or a pattern of internalized biases escaping into the theatre space, because these decisions create a problematic fetish, it is worthy of study, intent or no.
While the Globe does open the realm of Shakespeare to queer people, people of color, and people of lower socio-economic classes by their freely available podcast and research bulletin discussions, casting choices, and availability of plays, this does not mean that the Globe is an overall inclusive place. As discussed in the ‘Performance Space, Experimental Space, or Museum Space?’ section of this thesis, the Globe operates in a variety of modes to build its
social standing. As stated early on, it functions as a performance space to maintain relevance in the traditional Shakespearean performance sphere, as an experimental space to maintain its status as a realm of thespianism at the forefront of performance discovery, and as a museum space to remain a pillar of academic and historical ethos. Ethos here refers to the sense of unbiased educational and cultural authority; it is the implicit trust as both a source of knowledge and cultural credit. Taken together, these modes paint the Globe as an undeniable and unquestionable source of both performance norms and playwright history; this melding of geographical roles ensures that any narrative the Globe creates can be heard and presumably trusted due to the Globe’s social status. If the narrative the Globe perpetuates were beneficial to marginalized groups, then this authority would not be a problem. However, my research shows that at best, the
Globe still projects unconscious racism, classism, sexism, and homophobia in the way plays are staged and discussed. At worst, the Globe deliberately packages ages old bigotry in a veneer of social progression in order to stay relevant and draw in new audiences.
Recalling my first analysis of class, both in the plays themselves and in the Globe’s physical and metaphorical arena, shows that while the Globe may be available to those who are in the lower-socio-economic class, it does not benefit this group. Rather, because the original design of the Globe creates a more intimate connection between actors and the lowest paying patrons, mirrored in how actors and experts interact with audiences for free over social media, these lowest paying patrons are thus bonded with the creators of the narrative, and become complicit in the narrative. They become complicit in portrayals that show them in a negative light. Similarly, I have shown that actors and academics of color as well as women face a similar problem in working through Shakespeare in the context of the Globe. Because they are sorely lacking in representation, members of these disenfranchised groups strive to participate in this performative and academic arena to bring diversity to the field, as well as benefit themselves from the social status Shakespearean studies bring. However, because white heterosexual patriarchy still dominates the field, these groups appear left out of decision making processes, and pigeon-holed into performing negative stereotypes of their own cultures, making them seemingly complicit in their own marginalization.
This marginalization can be seen in the limited role academics of color can occupy–
being expected to study a non-white Shakespeare– as well as the negative stereotypical roles re-embodied in plays, such as the girl-in-need-of-saving in Juliet in Romeo and Juliet, the less-than-human women of color in the witches in Macbeth, and the bloodthirsty and foolish Black man in Macbeth as well. Lastly, I have described how the dominance of the White heterosexual
patriarchy is maintained by the Globe both by its marginalization of feminine voices and voices of color, as well as its careful addressing of Shakespeare as queer, and any of his characters as such as well. Because the Globe only breaks the fetish– separating Shakespeare and his works into two distinct entities– they minimalize the queerness of the subject. It is only Shakespeare himself that was likely queer, not the entire body of his works. Minimalizing the queer subtexts that have often been discussed in academic circles– such as Iago’s subtle attraction to Othello in Othello, the not-so-subtle bonds of Romeo with Mercutio and Tybalt in Romeo and Juliet, to the
complexity of gender roles and sexual attraction in Twelfth Night– to only blatantly show queerness as portrayed by the inhuman and predatory male fairies Puck and Oberon in A Midsummer Night’s Dream again marginalizes this group. Further, allowing only this limited
view of gender roles and sexuality reinforces the idea the heterosexuality is the norm by showing
view of gender roles and sexuality reinforces the idea the heterosexuality is the norm by showing