Wednesday, 30 April 2025

Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice is not an Antisemitic Play

Abstract

William Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice is not antisemitic, for though it contains anti-Jewish expressions and anti-Jewish characters, the main Jewish character Shylock is really the play's only honest dealer, if not necessarily likable.

Introduction

On a superficial level, The Merchant of Venice might appease members of a audience who looked for and wanted some negative traits in a Jewish stereotype, but the character of Shylock is complex and multi-valued. In fact, we are treated to an extraordinary number of other things that Shylock values often moreso than money, which latter may even be a proxy for other things.

Portrait of Shylock surrounded by icons.
Shylock's essentially positive characteristics

Shylock

For a start, Shylock is asked by Antonio what rate of interest he will charge, but Shylock refuses to take interest, preferring a contract that will let him hold Antonio at least temporarily in his power. Later we see Shylock pursue his revenge (for the undisputed wrongs he and his people have suffered) in disdain of money and profit.

Salarino: Why, I am sure if he forfeit, thou wilt not
take his flesh! What’s that good for?
Shylock: To bait fish withal; if it will feed nothing else,
it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me and
hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses,
mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted
my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies—
and what’s his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not
a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions,
senses, affections, passions? Fed with the
same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to
the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer
as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not
bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you
poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall
we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will
resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian,
what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong
a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian
example? Why, revenge! The villainy you teach me I
will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the
instruction.
The Merchant of Venice (Act 3 scene 1)

We see Shylock mourn his dead wife Leah whose ring he would never sell, and his lost daughter, and her lost respect for him.

Tubal: One of them showed me a ring that he had of
your daughter for a monkey.
Shylock: Out upon her! Thou torturest me, Tubal. It
was my turquoise! I had it of Leah when I was a
bachelor. I would not have given it for a wilderness
of monkeys.
The Merchant of Venice (Act 3 scene 1)

We see particularly in the court case that Shylock prizes the law, and learning, and wisdom, and his religion. We see in his condemnation of Christian slavery a side of Shylock that may be empathy, or value honesty over (Christian) hypocrisy (and it is Venice's Christians who are portrayed as hypocrites, not the Jews). We see a man demanding respect and justice, standing up (rather bravely even) against his enemies to demand his rights.

What judgment shall I dread, doing no wrong?
You have among you many a purchased slave,
Which, like your asses and your dogs and mules,
You use in abject and in slavish parts
Because you bought them. Shall I say to you
“Let them be free! Marry them to your heirs!
Why sweat they under burdens? Let their beds
Be made as soft as yours, and let their palates
Be seasoned with such viands”? You will answer
“The slaves are ours!” So do I answer you:
The pound of flesh which I demand of him
Is dearly bought; ’tis mine and I will have it.
If you deny me, fie upon your law:
There is no force in the decrees of Venice.
I stand for judgment. Answer: shall I have it?
Shylock, The Merchant of Venice (Act 4 scene 1)

Shylock is not perhaps a popular or greatly likable man. He has moral convictions without being a moral hero. He seems to yearn for but never quite deserve respect. His vindictiveness is understandable but perhaps excessive. He is tricked in the end because he is not a trickster, but an honest dealer. He is the butt of jokes, the target of abuse in the streets and of false representations. He does complain about expenses, but who would not be horrified by his daughter Jessica's extravagance?

There are many clues to Shylock's character that would be completely unnecessary in an antisemitic play, but to end on just one, in Shylock's summary of Launcelot Gobbo's unsurprisingly unsatisfactory stint of service, weighed against his unprofitable points, his Jewish master says the patch is kind. This is Shylock's valuing of kindness against all the other negatives; he has kept his servant all this time, not solely for productive reasons, but of something that must approach fondness (a fondness which is piquantly unrequited). And Shylock says farewell by putting in a good word to his new Christian master, and warning his servant that he may not be treated so well in his new employ.

The Christians

We might as well ask, with slightly more profit, if The Merchant of Venice is an anti-Christian play. No, it's not, but the Christian characters, polities and institutions are as a whole more questionable and questioned in the play.

Portia is explicit about the hypocrisy the Christians display, telling us she is better at setting rules than following her own. For all Portia-disguised’s banging on about mercy, it is Bassanio who offers to meet Shylock’s post-blood 3 times 3000 ducat claim, and Portia who pursues punishment upon Shylock, perhaps out of spite (at Bassanio's apparent disloyalty), and her anti-patriarchal sentiments (she has already implied she has a hot temper).

Christians of all ranks appear to lie and deceive; the sense is that Venice's competitive trading culture encourages sharp elbows.

Several of the Christians make racist remarks, which are clearly signposted as bias or bigotry or ignorance. We can take it that Launcelot Gobbo is an unreliable narrator, who deceives his own father with relish, as well as Shylock.

The play also contains criticism of corrupt obtaining of estates, degrees and offices in Christian Europe.

Jessica

Shylock's daughter Jessica is a Jew with a contrasting personality to her father, but her ambition is to elope and become a Christian wife. It is unclear if she regrets this decision by the end of the play. It is left to production and performance how Jessica plays her doubt-expressing love dialogue and receives the court-imposed inheritance.

I am never merry when I hear sweet music.
Jessica, The Merchant of Venice (Act 5 scene 1)

The Continuum of Life

There is also a consideration if animals and humans are on a continuum, broadening Shylock's powerful universalist plea beyond humanism.

Conclusion

The play successfully treats the subject of antisemitism while giving Shylock some of the best lines and the most powerful arguments. Where Judaism and Christianity are compared, the hypocrisy of Christians is shown up, whereas Shylock pursues an honest, open and for a while apparently legal revenge.

Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice is not an Antisemitic Play by Sleeping Dog is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Monday, 31 March 2025

Democracy's flaws: There are no Good Guys: Democracy 0 – Biocracy 4

Abstract

That is, there are no 'Good Guys' as any class, faction, faith, ideology, nation etc.

Introduction

It may be very difficult to build popular support for a movement or party without flattering at least one set of people. And to create contrast, the flipside is often demonising, patronising or ignoring Others.

Drawing of jar decorated with scales holding two opposing military tanks with flags, each drooping to the ground.
There are no 'Good Guys'

Valorisation and Heroisation

Political parties, movements, factions, religions, activist groups are typically (and perhaps nearly always) partisan in character.

Nationalists spin myths of their compatriots' glorious past. Right-wing populists imagine their 'pure people'. Religions for the divinely chosen, favoured or rewarded. Class war activists proclaim the virtues of the working class, or on the other side the ruling class. Erotic alliances paint their membership in pretty colours or whitewash. New subcultures emerge with their own positive spins, grievances, othering and supremacy cults. Old established cultures like European imperialists perform primitive ancestor worship, whether direct descendants or not, and their racism reverberates around the world.

Such classes are thus valorised: bigged-up as a group, leading to well-known in-group and out-group tendencies. Mythical pasts are favoured over accurate histories. And individuals from these groups are selected for heroisation: hagiographies rather than warts-and-all portraits. Narratives about victims, martyrs, convenient villains, glorious struggles, national or endemic characteristics are created and pushed.

The Biocratic Alternative

The point of good examples is to abstract from, not idolize.

Biocracy rejects theist and humanist hierarchies in Nature. Humans have learnt to live poisonously on Earth. Therefore humans should learn from other lifeforms how to govern better. These lessons learnt, humans can contribute positively to living planet self-government.

So other hierarchical categories, such as favoured animal 'good guys', 'vermin', 'weeds' and so much be rethought, rejected. We can still keep distinctions between invasive species and aliens which disrupt and degrade ecosystems, often carried by human agency or carelessness. Unhealthy monocultures are the result of human favoritism too.

The aim of biocratic governance, as we have described elsewhere, is the promotion and maintenance of Health at every level. And this does mean defending humans, other lifeforms, their environment and planetary systems from 'Bad Guys' (without justifying collective punishment). It is reasonable to prioritise defence against ecocide and work down from there.

Conclusion

The democratic partisan is reduced to slandering opponents and defending the indefensible, flattering a powerbase with word-bribes and ego-stroking.

The biocratic planet-defender transcends poisonous partisanship and rejects the idea of 'good guys', favouring clear-sighted self-reflection and universalist sciences wherever these come from, in the service of (planetary) life.

Democracy's flaws: There are no Good Guys: Democracy 0 – Biocracy 4 by Sleeping Dog is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Sunday, 16 March 2025

Doctor Who and the Ideal Immigrant

Abstract

The remarkable themes of Doctor Who Special: Joy to the World, briefly unpacked.

Introduction

I have previously written about the problems and lurch to the political right of the reboot of BBC television drama Doctor Who. In the 2024-12-25 Special, Joy to the World (the dire plot of which has been adequately addressed in other places), these trends continued. So, onwards, with spoilers.

Painting of a green-skinned alien in a suit dying in bed.
Death of an alien

Some old favourites

The Doctor abuses women

Not for the first time, harsh negging used by the male protagonist for a female’s (Joy's) ’own good’. Also, wouldn’t it have been kinder not to screw up the hotel-worker woman Anita's life? Coercive control and all that.

Nature Traduced

Dinosaur (and Nature) reduced to a bitey oubliette cameo.

No threat to capitalism

Even Doctor’s sworn ‘enemy’ seems to thrive while he parties around.

The waiting game

Perhaps not so extreme as the writer’s previous obsession with waiting, Joy waits on return, Anita waits for Doctor to leave.

Don’t make me think

Feels. Is ‘some people are lonely at Christmas’ really the height of insight the show aims at? Why yet another ‘Blitz’ reference that ignores the vastly larger number of people the British have bombed? Or are helping bomb right now?

That old one-way door granting strange adults access into a vulnerable young person's bedroom

Seriously, if one of these writers is your landlord, get out now! Don't stay to grab your kettle, just bolt out the front door and never come back. This is not going to work out like Monsters Inc. Anyway, I've summarised previous red flags.

Various others

Once could also add 'Kissing-up to Christians', 'Badly Misjudged Joy' (it was going around), the problem with characters, the deadening Earth-and-Human-centricness of it all…

The 'Good' Immigrant

However, what really stood out for me was the depiction of the 'Silurian' hotel manager character, killed off third-way through. Here's some of the excruciating dialogue, as we are treated to unnecessary racism as the unnamed character dies.

17:03 Doctor: You’re a Silurian, the proudest race I know.

17:10 Dying ’Silurian’: I was lost. In the caves. There was a door. This place. They were so kind. It was so exciting.

From this depiction, we can see how the writers envisage the perfect immigrant:

  1. Dehumanised: this 'Silurian' doesn't even get a name (and 'Silurian' is a misnomer, not a great term then).
  2. Is singular (absolutely no hordes).
  3. Point of entry is singular and sealed… no more to follow.
  4. Doesn't reproduce.
  5. Works in the service industry.
  6. Works in public, brightly-lit spaces with comforting security (is quite unthreatening).
  7. Wears western-style clothing.
  8. Is polite and speaks perfect English.
  9. Is pathetically grateful.
  10. Enthusiastically boosts the wonderful nation of his saviours.
  11. Disses own (mere caves, etc)
  12. Dead.
  13. And dies in the most convenient, tidy and least consequential way imaginable, without imposing any obligations at all (nobody even needs to email their next of kin or whatever).
  14. Quickly forgotten.

Now, I don't have to explain why this panders towards far-right, xenophobic tendencies, but combined with the Doctor's emoting does suggest how foke Doctor Who is these days. Has Modern Who been captured by the far right, is this BBC-core or pragmatic pandering to retain its licence fee?