The whole “woke” agenda has become a delightful farce, warranting not so much bemusement as amusement. Take, for example, the recently announced decision by the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust to flagellate Shakespeare for his alleged role in promoting “white supremacist imperialism”. The SBT, which manages historical properties in Stratford-upon-Avon, has promised to “decolonize” its museum collections because “Shakespeare’s work has played a part in… the continued impact of Empire”. 

The decision by the SBT to scourge the Bard of Avon for his “racist” role in history was made following a study by Dr. Helen Hopkins from Birmingham City University. The study contended that Shakespeare’s work reinforces “white Anglo-centric, Eurocentric, and increasingly ‘West-centric’ worldviews that continue to do harm in the world today”. Specifically, the study criticized the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust for presenting Shakespeare as a “universal” genius, an idea that “benefits the ideology of white European supremacy”. Suitably chastened, the SBT sought to exonerate itself by using Shakespeare as the “universal” scapegoat, washing their hands of his legacy and blaming him for Nazism, the British Empire and other manifestation of “white supremacism”. 

Leaving such holier-than-thou virtue signalling to one side, let’s look at what makes Shakespeare’s genius truly “universal” and what his genius might tell us about those who seek to scourge him.

At the heart of Shakespeare’s work is the “universal” struggle between pride and humility which is the same for all cultures, all races, all places, and all times. The man-of-pride (homo superbus) seeks self-empowerment irrespective of the cost to others, subjugating others to his will. The prophet of the man-of-pride is Machiavelli and the creed of the man-of-pride is Machiavellianism. Shakespeare’s villains are invariably men-of-pride who manipulate others in pursuit of self-empowerment: Richard III, Macbeth, Iago, King Claudius, Polonius, Regan, Goneril, Edmund, Cornwall, Cassius, et cetera. Standing in opposition to the man-of-pride is the man-of-humility (homo viator) who chooses the path of self-sacrificial love, laying down his life for his friends and enemies, subjecting himself to the will of others. Shakespeare’s heroes and heroines are invariably men-of-humility: Hamlet (eventually), Cordelia, Kent, Edgar, Portia, et cetera.

For those who are awake and not “woke”, it is easy to see that the truths in Shakespeare’s plays reflect the truths of the whole of human history, irrespective of place or race. This is why Shakespeare is “universal”, and this is why he is not of an age (or a race) but for all ages (and all races). 

In purely historical terms, men-of-pride pursued self-empowerment during the superciliously self-named “Enlightenment” through the development and employment of technology. This technology gave the men-of-pride the tools they needed to subdue others to their will, subjugating the people of Europe and then, afterwards, subjugating whole nations and continents to political imperialism. These injustices perpetrated by men-of-pride had nothing to do with the colour of their skin and everything to do with the darkness of their hearts. If men-of-pride in Africa or Asia or the Americas had discovered the tools of technology first, they would no doubt have used them to subdue other nations and continents to their will.

Let’s now turn to the “white Anglo-centric, Eurocentric, and increasingly ‘West-centric’ worldviews that continue to do harm in the world today”. These are the philosophies that the men-of-pride use to justify their pride and the quest for self-empowerment at the expense of the weak and vulnerable. They should be condemned, for sure, but we might be surprised to find that Dr. Helen Hopkins and her disciples at the SBT have more sympathy with these “white Eurocentric worldviews” than they realize. 

We’ve already mentioned Machiavelli, who might be considered the progenitor of the philosophy of Pride, but let’s look at the other philosophers of the European Enlightenment to see how they have contributed to the “West-centric” worldviews that continue to do such harm to the world. 

Francis Bacon’s empiricism paved the way for the worship of “science” and the scientism that advocates the use of technology for purposes of self-empowerment. René Descartes reduced the knowledge of reality to a radical egocentrism, making the self the arbiter of “truth”, paving the way for relativism. Thomas Hobbes took this relativism still further, reducing everything to mere subjective appetite. For Hobbes, man’s freedom “consisteth in this, that he finds no stop, in doing what he has the will, desire, or inclination to do”. In brief and in sum, freedom is doing your own thing, irrespective of its impact on others. Hobbes was, however, enough of a realist to understand that such “freedom”, universally practised, would result in anarchy. He knew, as Oscar Wilde would later proclaim, that anarchy is “freedom’s own Judas”. To preserve “freedom” from the Judas-kiss that would betray it to the forces of anarchy, Hobbes proposed strong, centralized government which would decide which freedoms could be practised and which should be made illegal. These ideas were used by governments to justify their abuse of power, subjecting their own people to tyranny in the first instance and then, with the tools of technology at their disposal, subjecting the people of other lands to similar tyranny.

More recently, Hegel’s materialist and determinist understanding of history was politicized by Karl Marx, leading to the rise of communism. August Comte’s belief that social engineering could produce a perfect society has led to the imposition of political programs designed to “reprogram” humanity. Finally, though we could name many more, Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed Pride from the hilltops, declaring that God is dead and so is good and evil. There is nothing ultimately, Nietzsche insisted, but the will to self-empowerment. Taken collectively, these prideful ideas have led to the totalitarianism of the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution and the Third Reich. In terms of terror, they have led to the Guillotine, the Gulag and the Gas Chamber. In terms of human lives, they have killed tens of millions of innocent civilians, most of whom were initially impeccably white until these white Eurocentric worldviews were exported to China, Cambodia, Korea, Vietnam and other non-European places.

And now for the punchline. These “white Anglo-centric, Eurocentric, and increasingly ‘West-centric’ worldviews that continue to do harm in the world today” form the very basis of the “woke” cultural imperialism that the global elites are forcing upon the “primitive” parts of the world. It is “woke” that is the yoke of “white Eurocentrism” that the elites are imposing on the non-white parts of the world. Ironically, Dr. Helen Hopkins and her disciples at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust are advocates of these very ideas! The “white Eurocentric” ideas they claim to condemn are the very ideas that they espouse. In Orwellian terms, we might be tempted to describe such muddle-headedness as doublethink. 

Isn’t this grimly and grotesquely amusing? The joke is on the “woke”, and the “woke” don’t get the joke. It is all so terribly, tragically and comically funny.

The featured image is courtesy of Pixabay.