BLURRED LINES: GREY ZONE POLITICS IN WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE’S THE TRAGICAL HISTORY OF HAMLET, PRINCE OF DENMARK

Abstract

Sitting on the throne of Shakespeare’s plays, Hamlet is undeniably ahead of its time. It presents the readers with historicised records of political endeavours in Denmark, which above all other things meant the world to Hamlet. Without it, he is reduced to shambles. Within the Danish court, he manoeuvres prisoned in a discourse that he created exploiting a religious construction: purgatory. For a thought-provoking construction like purgatory, in which unseen characters with power dwell, new stages are erected. For these, numerous plays are rewritten. Instead of religion as a commodity traded for the sole purpose to maintain the grip on power, contemporary power dynamics make use of new privileged constructions. With a high rate of similarity, currently, there are new Hamlets. Each suggests that the world would be corrupt without them. Unable to resist the rain of disinformation, their followers are purged and fed with new knowledge and truth to join the cause. Taking all these under the spotlight, this study aims to offer an upside-down perspective on power relations in Hamlet suggesting parallels between the historicized world of Denmark and the contemporary landscape of Anglo-American power dynamics. Just as Hamlet manipulated the privileged term of purgatory reinforced by the story of the ghost to further his own agenda within the Danish court, leaders of these countries or the power behind them have also discovered similar methods to sway opinions and control outcomes in their favour. In a world where new Hamlets continue to emerge, readers are prompted to question the intricate tapestry of power relations, its construction, and its impact on individuals and societies within the Anglo-American context.

Keywords

• Grey Zone Politics
• Anglo-American Policies
• Propaganda
• Hamlet

References

1. Greenblatt, S. (2013). Hamlet in purgatory. In Hamlet in Purgatory. Princeton University Press.
2. O'Collins, G. (2008). Catholicism: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
3. Tomlin, G. (2004). Shapers of Protestantism: Martin Luther. The Blackwell companion to protestantism, 40-52.
4. Foucault, M., & Rabinow, P. (1997). Essential works of Foucault, 1954-1988.
5. Morris, L. J., Mazarr, M. J., Hornung, J. W., Pezard, S., Binnendijk, A., & Kepe, M. (2019). Gaining competitive advantage in the gray zone. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica.
6. Žižek, S. (2019). The sublime object of ideology. Verso Books.
7. Dollimore, J. (2003). Radical Tragedy. The United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
8. Shattuck, R. (1996). Forbidden Knowledge: From Prometheus to Pornography.

9. Edward, B. (1928). Propaganda. New York.
10. James, A. (1964). Power politics. Political Studies, 12(3), 307-326.
11. Kikuchi, S. (2010). Unveiling the dramatic secret of ‘Ghost’in Hamlet.
12. Haverkamp, A. (2006). The ghost of history: Hamlet and the politics of paternity. Law & Literature, 18(2), 171-197.
13. De Boer, K. (2002). Enter the ghost/exit the ghost/re-enter the ghost: Derrida's reading of Hamlet in specters of Marx. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, 33(1), 22-38.
14. Charnes, L. (2006). Hamlet's heirs: Shakespeare and the politics of a new millennium. Routledge.
15. Battenhouse, R. W. (1951). The Ghost in" Hamlet": A Catholic" Linchpin"?. Studies in Philology, 48(2), 161-192.
16. Ratcliffe, S. (1998). What Doesn't Happen in" Hamlet": The Ghost's Speech. Modern Language Studies, 125-150.
17. Wilson, J. D. (1951). What happens in Hamlet. Cambridge University Press.
18. DeCarlo, J. F. (2013). Hamlet and the Ghost: A Joint Sense of Time. Philosophy and Literature, 37(1), 1-19.
19. Ackerman, A. L. (2001). Visualizing Hamlet's Ghost: The Spirit of Modern Subjectivity. Theatre Journal, 53(1), 119-144. Callinicos, A. (2005). Iraq: fulcrum of world politics. Third World Quarterly, 26(4-5), 593-608.
20. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (1998). NATO handbook. Brussels :NATO Office of Information and Press.
21. Clarke, H. D., Goodwin, M. J., & Whiteley, P. (2017). Brexit. Cambridge University Press.
22. Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. R. (Eds.). (2012). Populism in Europe and the Americas: Threat or corrective for democracy? Cambridge University Press.
23. Huntington S. P. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.
24. Lock, S., & A. F. P. (2022). US estimates 200,000 military casualties on all sides in Ukraine war. theguardian.com. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/10/us-estimates-200000-military-casualties-all-sides-ukraine-war
25. Chakrabarty, D. (2017). The Politics of Climate Change Is More Than the Politics of Capitalism. Theory, Culture and Society, 34(2-3).
26. Wagner, L., & Allan, J (2020, November 4). The US Has Exited the Paris Agreement. Does it Matter?. https://www.iisd.org/articles/insight/us-has-exited-paris-agreement-does-it-matter
27. Clingerman, F., & O'Brien, K. J. (2017). Is climate change a new kind of problem? The role of theology and imagination in climate ethics. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 8(5), e480.
28. Dyson, T. (2005). On development, demography and climate change: the end of the world as we know it?. Population and environment, 27, 117-149.
29. Rutledge, P. E. (2020). Trump, COVID-19, and the war on expertise. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(6-7), 505-511.