Macbeth: Question of Gender, Research Paper Example

Introduction

With the possible exception of Medea, no female literary character has more generated debate, and often outright hostility, than Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth. She is, plainly, a problem; a driven and ruthless woman of high rank, she both epitomizes merciless ambition as she is destroyed by it, and it is tempting to claim that Shakespeare’s intent is to reveal the horrors in wait for any woman who discards the natural, caring impulses of womanhood. Such a view would be acceptable, in fact, were any other writer responsible for her. With Shakespeare, there are too many dimensions to allow for so facile an explanation. His genius transcends even the most profound observations regarding gender, for it is always humanity he exposes, and this is the real key to Lady Macbeth. More exactly, the truth of her nature lies not in her schemes and cruelty, but in her eventual madness, because she is ultimately incapable of adhering to her own, inhuman agenda. In terms of dramatic stagecraft, that Lady Macbeth is female adds extraordinary weight to the course of events; this is, however, secondary to Shakespeare’s main thrust, if only because the couple’s relationship itself always appears to be that of partners, and not actually conjugal. The greatness, then, of Lady Macbeth is not in how Shakespeare inverted the image of a woman, but of how the channels running through all humanity, violated even with powerful intent, can never be fully conquered.

Argument

In a very real sense, it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that Shakespeare employs Lady Macbeth to make a point about womanhood if she were presented in any way other than that by which he presents her. More precisely, it is difficult to understand how she can be seen as a gross violation of female nature when she is never shown to be remotely such. From her opening speech in Act I, Scene V, she is entirely calculating and cerebral, already plotting on how to achieve greatness, even as Macbeth’s suggestion of it is held in her hands. There is no shifting of an established character, or any indication of a woman suddenly seeing possibilities she never would have entertained. Instead, she is introduced as something of a device long ready to spring into action, and one with no doubts as to what form that action must take. She regards her husband’s letter, weighs the realities of his character, and decides: “Hie thee hither, that I may pour my spirits in thine ear” (Shakespeare LL 21-22). It is ironic, in fact, that only moments after this entrance does she make her famous plea to supernatural forces to unsex her, and pollute her woman’s milk into gall. There has been absolutely no sign that her “sex”, here clearly referring to womanly softness, has ever influenced her at all. Interestingly, in fact, this is as menacing an introduction as that which Shakespeare gives to his arch villain, Richard III, in that an extreme and cruel agenda is immediately offered. It may be argued that only her own comments regarding her own gender reveal Lady Macbeth as a woman at all, and are in place only to define the character’s role for the audience. This, however, is not the case, as will be discussed, for Shakespeare intends to employ her own disregard for this aspect of her humanity against her.

Related to Shakespeare’s refusal to imbue Lady Macbeth with any typically feminine qualities, and from the play’s start, is his brilliant presentation of the relationship between husband and wife. If she seeks to be “unsexed”, it cannot be too difficult a process, for her marriage in no way reflects ordinary male and female bonds or roles. From, again, Lady Macbeth’s introduction, Shakespeare gives us a union that is by no means spousal. This is conveyed before Lady Macbeth speaks as, in his letter, Macbeth refers to her as “my dearest partner of greatness” (Shakespeare I, v). It may be that Shakespeare is acknowledging here a custom ordinary to his age and traditionally esteemed, that of marriages created to enhance dynastic aims, or simply confer greater material status. Certainly, we know that this couple shares ambition, so it is by no means unreasonable to assume that this, and not any romantic courtship, united them. In this, then, is Shakespeare’s greater purpose supported because gender is important only in the specificity of the roles each partner may play. Macbeth is the lord, she is his lady. He acts in the outside world, as she works to assist him from behind the scenes. Both, nonetheless, are strikingly aware of each other’s true abilities, the confines of gender notwithstanding. As Klein

suggests, it seems that Lady Macbeth faces a dual challenge in her ambition, in that she must rid her husband of weaknesses as effectively as she believes herself to be free of them (Klein 173). Appearances and conventions aside, she is the true, “masculine” force in the marriage, and needed by her husband. Klein points to Macbeth’s idea of himself as a solitary man, as compared to Lady Macbeth’s insistence upon the two of them as a couple inextricably linked (172), to emphasize gender distinctions. However, this ignores a key component of Macbeth’s character: he defines himself through his wife, which is evident throughout the play in his continual deferring to her wisdom. So, too, is Klein’s observation that Macbeth adopts a kingly, independent air following Duncan’s murder relatively unimportant, because Lady Macbeth acutely knows what he loses sight of here: they are one. They are two people in need of each other, and with little regard to gender because they are both, essentially, Macbeth.

Shakespeare’s genius also establishes a nearly primal bond between the couple, suggestive of an intimacy at least as great as that of any, more typically spousal couple. The relationship is combative, certainly, but it is also deeply felt by each, and Macbeth and his lady seem to have a connection of soul, and one far more profound than romantic attachment. In Act I, Scene VII, much is made of Lady Macbeth’s violent insistence on Macbeth’s going through with their murderous plans. What is more telling, however, is his interjection to her bitter tirade: “If we should fail?” (L 61). This brief question speaks volumes about the mutual dependence at the heart of their union. In cultural terms, he is expressing “feminine” wariness, as she is fiercely “masculine”. What Shakespeare accomplishes here, however, is a penetration into human need beyond gender. These two, however they came to be together, desperately complete one another. Moreover, there is tenderness in the connection, its ruthless qualities notwithstanding, and it is also a tenderness in which gender, or gender roles, are meaningless. For example, Macbeth appallingly endangers their schemes when he addresses Banquo’s ghost in Act III, and Lady Macbeth scrambles to cover for him. Here, it is clear that she faces a weakness in her husband beyond her control, yet even her harshness is tempered at the end. He is ranting like a madman, but she tries to soothe: “You lack the season of all natures, sleep” (III, iv, L 141). This deep connection between the two, more of a single, unified spirit than of a husband and wife, is also presented after Lady Macbeth’s “mad scene”. Macbeth urges the doctor to care for her and that is all, but his commitment to defeating Malcolm’s forces seems to be dedicated to her. As she decays, and as he perhaps senses her inevitable end, he becomes fully the man she wanted him to be. Once again, gender applies only as symptomatic of what these two mean to each other, and how they can each express that meaning. Gender is the means by which their bond is translated into action, as the tenderness of each for the other defies standard gender expectations or behaviors. In a sense, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are both male and female, which again promotes Shakespeare’s greater focus on the human.

It is nonetheless essential to turn to Lady Macbeth’s own remarks about womanhood. As noted earlier, it may appear that these are nothing but rote statements intended to substantiate the lady as a lady. Shakespeare, however, is too dimensional for this. More exactly, he gives us Lady Macbeth fighting herself as being a woman simply because being a woman equates to being human, in her mind. It seems as though she is continually resisting a definition of humanity as applied to womanhood because, not unexpectedly, womanhood is most associated with gentleness. When she speaks of nursing a baby or when, during the ghost scene, she tries to pass off Macbeth’s visions as fears belonging to women telling stories by a fire, she invariably is distanced. It is not that these are activities despised because they are womanly, but because they go to nurturing life, and the distinction is critical. That is to say, Shakespeare is employing Lady Macbeth’s gender to present a contrast a male figure would not allow. As the idea is to repudiate humanity, the anticipated and greater humanity of women as dismissed by a woman lends the perversion far more force. Again, in Shakespeare’s vision, Lady Macbeth is not a woman determined to defy convention, or even her actual gender; she is out to trample over goodness. That she is a woman, and consequently a cultural embodiment of goodness and caring, simply empowers Shakespeare all the more.

An important aspect of how Shakespeare treats womanhood through Lady Macbeth certainly lies in her feelings about children. One of the great Shakespearean mysteries, in fact, is that it is never made clear if there are children at all, despite Macbeth’s tortured efforts to ensure, not necessarily a kingship for himself, but for his heirs (Bloom 416). We know that she once suckled a baby, but we never know if that baby survived, and it seems unlikely that neither Macbeth or his lady would not directly refer to an heir for whom they were engaged in their schemes. This being the case, there is further evidence of Shakespeare’s intent to reveal how self-defeating evil is. He has Lady Macbeth famously brag about her willingness to smash in the head of a child at her breast, as she is contemptuous of all maternal affairs. This is emphatically not about gender at all, but about the tides of humanity, particularly when they are violently deviant. It must be stressed that the core of the action lies in political ambition, which at the time depended on lineage. Macbeth’s outrage, in fact, is extreme when the witches suggest that Banquo’s descendents will rule for long generations to come. This presents, then, a singular question: to what end are Macbeth and Lady Macbeth engaging in their murderous acts? He is unambitious compared to her, and even she does not seem especially eager to be the highest lady in the land (Bloom 415). The answer lies in Shakespeare’s underlying theme, in that all evil ambition is an exercise in abject, and monstrous, futility. The desires of Macbeth and his lady actually demand an heir, so the blatant absence of one underscores the emptiness of their efforts. More to the point, it also reinforces the figure of Lady Macbeth as being a warping of a human, rather than that of a woman, because so ruthless a female would certainly not hesitate to procure a child by any means possible. This single factor, more than anything, supports Shakespeare’s treatment of her as being removed from gender associations.

Conclusion

Given the famous remarks of Lady Macbeth regarding her gender, and given our understanding of Western cultural expectations of gender roles, it is natural to perceive Lady Macbeth as a twisted image of womanhood. To do so, however, misses Shakespeare’s greater intent, which is to disclose humanity at a level beyond gender. In a sense, the character goes through “womanly” motions in the play as a woman goes through such motions in life, and makes comments regarding the limits of her sex. However, Macbeth’s own declarations are equally as gender-related, and as completely removed from gender. This is a couple bound together in a way that reflects and reinforces an actual “sexlessness”, because each completes the other’s being in a manner going to perceived fulfillment of wholeness of being. That this fulfillment is base and, ultimately, useless is beside the point; they each exist to be man and woman for the other, behaving in ways to spur the other on to create the unified wholeness. Consequently, Lady Macbeth is never actually a perversion of her own gender, failed or otherwise. Klein asserts that Lady Macbeth is never quite able to separate herself from womankind, but that is not the actual reality Shakespeare presents. Rather, the lady’s madness and death lies in her inability to separate herself from humankind. The greatness, then, of Lady Macbeth is not in how Shakespeare twisted the concept of a woman, but in how the essence of real humanity, violated with the most powerful intent, can never be fully conquered.

Works Cited

Bloom, Harold. William Shakespeare. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2004. Print.

Klein, Joan Larsen. “Lady Macbeth: ‘Infirm of Purpose’”. Macbeth. Shakespeare, William, Ed. Barnet, Sylvan. New York: Penguin, 1998. 168-179. Print.

Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Macbeth. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1936. Print.