“Shakespeare, Cultural Materialism, Feminism and Marxist Humanism” by Jonathan Dollimore: Summary and Critique

Cultural Materialism vs. New Historicism

• Dollimore recounts early aspirations to ally British Cultural Materialism with American New Historicism, as seen in Political Shakespeare (1985) (p. 471).
• Despite political similarities, key theoretical differences persist—Cultural Materialism often seeks subversion, while New Historicism tends to emphasize containment (p. 472).
• He criticizes those who collapse the two approaches, particularly Carol Neely, who labels both as “cult-historicists,” marginalizing British perspectives (p. 472).

Feminist Critique and Misrepresentations

• Feminist critics like Neely and Boose misinterpret Cultural Materialist work by claiming it marginalizes or silences gender issues (p. 474).
• Dollimore counters that scholars like McLuskie and Jardine offer materialist feminist readings that critique ideological constructions of femininity rather than merely seeking empowerment of female characters (pp. 473–474).
• He stresses that pointing out silencing or marginalization (e.g., prostitutes in Measure for Measure) is not the same as enacting it (p. 475).

Constructionism vs. Essentialism

• Dollimore supports a constructionist view of identity, arguing gender and sexuality are historically and culturally contingent rather than fixed (pp. 474–476).
• He warns of the political pitfalls of both constructionist and essentialist positions, particularly within LGBTQ+ politics, noting that appeals to biological determinism may not prevent persecution (p. 479).

Critique of Marxist Humanism (Kiernan Ryan)

• Dollimore critiques Kiernan Ryan’s optimistic Marxist humanist reading of Shakespeare, which frames the plays as expressing “revolutionary imaginative vision” and universal human potential (pp. 479–481).
• He argues Ryan’s faith in shared humanity ignores the historical specificity of ideological contradictions and misrepresents cultural materialist positions as fatalist or cynical (p. 481).
• Dollimore instead invokes a tradition of Marxist critique (e.g., Benjamin, Gramsci, Adorno) that recognizes pessimism of intellect alongside the possibility of resistance (p. 482).

Gender Subversion and Cross-Dressing

• Renaissance cross-dressing is analyzed as a materialist site of gender transgression and social critique (pp. 483–484).
• Dollimore emphasizes how cross-dressing exposes gender as a social construct and disrupts patriarchal order (p. 484).
• The “Hic Mulier” tract illustrates how women in male dress challenged gender hierarchies and social codes (p. 483).

Camp, Sexuality, and Antony and Cleopatra

• Dollimore offers a radical reinterpretation of Antony and Cleopatra, emphasizing theatricality, gender performance, and camp aesthetics (pp. 485–489).
• He reads Cleopatra as a camp figure whose exaggerated femininity and performativity resist romantic and moralistic interpretations (pp. 488–489).
• The play’s love and power dynamics reveal how sexuality is deeply politicized, shaped by historical tensions, and embedded in ideological conflict (pp. 486–487).

Conclusion: Politics, Performance, and Desire

• Dollimore calls for politically engaged yet pleasurable readings of Shakespeare, which recognize ideological contradictions while embracing creative subversion (p. 490).
• He proposes a gender-subversive staging of Antony and Cleopatra, casting Cleopatra with a boy actor and Antony with a woman, thus undermining fixed gender norms and celebrating performative identity (pp. 489–490).

🔴 Cultural Materialism

• Redefinition of Political Criticism in Shakespeare Studies: Dollimore asserts that cultural materialism is not just another historical approach but a politicized criticism that foregrounds subversion within literary texts (p. 472–474).
• Textual Subversion vs. Containment: He distinguishes cultural materialism from new historicism by emphasizing the potential for texts (e.g. Measure for Measure) to subvert dominant ideologies rather than reinforce them (p. 473–474).
• Interdisciplinary Methodology: Encourages integrating history, ideology, and literary form, opposing reductionist readings of literature as mere ideological tools (p. 479).

🔴 Feminist Literary Theory

• Critique of Essentialist Feminism: Challenges readings that treat women’s issues as separable from other social categories like class and race, arguing for a non-essentialist, intersectional feminism (p. 472–475).
• Defense of Feminist Materialism: Engages with criticisms by Neely and Boose, arguing that cultural materialist feminists like McLuskie and Jardine unveil how gender ideologies function historically rather than through universal female experiences (p. 474–475).
• Representation of Women and Power: Uses characters like prostitutes and Cleopatra to show how women are symbolically central yet politically marginalized, complicating assumptions of feminist agency (p. 475–477, 488–489).

🔴 Marxist Humanism

• Critique of Idealist Humanism: Challenges Kiernan Ryan’s utopian, idealist version of Marxist humanism that sees Shakespeare as articulating timeless humanist values (p. 479–481).
• Historical Pessimism vs. Humanist Optimism: Emphasizes the contingency and contradictions of history, rejecting the belief that literature automatically advances human liberation (p. 481–482).
• Literature and Ideology: Argues that literature, while often complicit in ideology, can still illuminate structural contradictions in society and consciousness (p. 482–484).

🔴 Queer Theory / Gender and Sexuality Studies

• Construction of Sexuality and Gender: Advocates for understanding identity as socially and historically constructed, not biologically fixed (p. 476–478).
• Cross-Dressing and Gender Instability: Analyzes Renaissance cross-dressing as a site of anxiety and resistance, revealing early insights into performativity (p. 483–484).
• Camp Aesthetics and Subversive Desire: Reimagines Antony and Cleopatra through the lens of camp to illustrate how desire and performance destabilize normative gender roles (p. 488–489).

🔴 Representation and Ideology Critique

• Power of Representation: Emphasizes that literary texts do not merely reflect the world but actively shape ideology and social meaning (p. 478–479).
• Silencing of Marginalized Voices: Highlights how literature and history erase or distort the voices of marginalized figures (e.g. prostitutes), and how criticism must engage with this absence (p. 476–477).
• Interrogation of High Culture: Challenges the moral and aesthetic authority of canonical literature (e.g. Shakespeare) by showing how it is complicit in, yet can also critique, dominant values (p. 480–482).