Is Shakespeare’s birthplace being canceled?

Last year, I toured Shakespeare’s birthplace at Stratford-upon-Avon with friends. I’m not a particular admirer of Shakespeare personally, but I nevertheless enjoyed the experience vicariously through my English major companions. The several museums were beautiful and well-preserved, and the exhibits were interesting. The town was charming, an idyllic gem in the English countryside.

Is all of that going away? This week, The Telegraph reported “Shakespeare’s birthplace to be decolonised after ‘white supremacy’ fears.” 

Could Shakespeare’s history be erased due to cancel culture or a “woke mob?”  

No, thankfully not; but the “decolonization” of Shakespeare still reflects a concerning cultural undercurrent.

Is Shakespeare’s birthplace being canceled? 

Shakespeare’s Birthplace Trust owns several buildings associated with Shakespeare’s life, including his birth home and wife’s cottage. Each building acts as a museum, with artifacts from his life, all owned by the Trust. 

Recently, the Trust said they believe they may display “language or depictions that are racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise harmful. To rectify this, the Trust decided to “decolonize” their portrayals in 2017, on the “70th anniversary of Indian independence (PDF).” (The British colonized and oppressed Indians for nearly 100 years.) But what does decolonizing a museum even mean?

What does “decolonizing” Shakespeare mean? 

Dr. Helen Hopkins from the University of Birmingham stepped up to do her doctoral research on the subject of decolonizing the Trust’s exhibitions. Dr. Hopkins worked with the Trust and identified elements of the museums she considered to not be inclusive enough.

She argues that, because the Trust identified Shakespeare as a universally venerated artist, it could lend credence to “British superiority,” benefitting “the ideology of white European supremacy.” According to her, this further benefits “white Anglo-centric, Eurocentric, and increasingly ‘West-centric’ worldviews that continue to do harm in the world today.”

To counteract this, she and the Trust want to bring in international artists, for example Indian dancers, to be exhibited and celebrated alongside Shakespeare to demonstrate that Shakespeare, and British culture, aren’t superior to others. In this sense, they aim to decolonize the Trust, by attempting to remove the impression that because of Shakespeare, British culture is better than others (and therefore, would lend legitimacy to colonization).

Dr. Hopkins argues that, because Shakespeare is so well-known and accessible, the Trust makes a lot of money, and therefore is less likely to bring up the difficult parts of British history associated with Shakespeare. The wider the audience, and more opportunity for income, the more likely an institution, like a museum, will want to avoid difficult conversations about a figure, like Shakespeare’s, mixed influence. However, this research assumes more than just the idea that museums should reckon with complex history. 

The cynicism of Critical Theory

Dr. Hopkin’s claims rely on the assumptions of Critical Theory and “intersectionality.” As I explain elsewhere, Critical Theory believes that striving for social power and advantage motivates what we do and say, there is no such thing as truth or absolute morality, as the victors write history and the privileged decide right and wrong. 

Through colonization, economic exploitation, violence, political interference, and more, the British Empire certainly oppressed the Indian people. The complexities and immoralities of that history shouldn’t be hidden. On the other hand, baked into Indian culture is a caste system, where social classes are solidified and oppression runs rampant. So, why should we celebrate Indian culture on the basis of Critical Theory?

Of course, humans are biased. Tragically, however, Critical Theory’s cynical lens only sees the world in terms of power and oppression—not according to truth, goodness, beauty, or love.

Because there’s no positive account or future hope in Critical Theory, academics studying English literature can only tear down, showing Shakespeare’s negative influence, rather than celebrating his accomplishments. 

How can Christians respond to Critical Theory? 

We can question whether it’s really necessary for the Shakespeare Trust to bring in Indian artists to somehow balance out the British culture. If you’re at Stratford-upon-Avon, you’re probably there for Shakespeare, not Indian artists (admittedly genius though they may be). By the same token, if you’re at the Taj Mahal, you’re likely not there for Shakespeare. 

So, in my view, first, Christians can recognize the brilliance and genius of Shakespeare—perhaps the most extraordinary literary figure in the English language. Second, we can acknowledge the role that Shakespeare may, or may not, have played in the historic British culture that gave rise to colonization. Third, we can recognize the fallen nature of all nations and peoples, American, British, and Indian. Finally, we can reject Critical Theory’s rejection of ultimate truth. 

Recognizing the genius of the 17th-century playwright doesn’t need to represent problematic bias that needs deconstructing. We can recognize Shakespeare’s literary brilliance as a reflection of his bearing God’s image in captivating, profound ways. We can also recognize that of other cultures, too. 

The Trust assures everyone on their website that Shakespeare will still be celebrated—he’s not getting “canceled.” But the so-called decolonization efforts do reveal a cynical, divisive undercurrent, where power, not truth, is emphasized.

Why you should care 

Let’s be honest, you probably weren’t going to visit Stratford-upon-Avon soon anyway. So how is this relevant to you? The relevant takeaway is relevant for you because it’s relevant for everyone: There is such a thing as absolute truth. Each of us possesses biases. Each of us may be inclined either to feel dislike for Dr. Hopkins because of her views, or perhaps against Shakespeare. God, however, has no such biases. 

God loves Dr. Hopkins. God loved Shakespeare. God loves all Indians and all British. Indeed, we can with, the Apostle John, affirm that “God is love.” (John 4:8)

How can you reflect that universal love, today?