ATHE 1998 -- TLA Seminar

As educators and artists we constantly walk a thin line between cultural sensitivity and the danger of censorship.  Being good liberals, we take care not to offend or insult minority groups in our midst.   Those of us who teach at homogeneous institutions are particularly careful to avoid works that present caricatures or stereotypes of sub-groups with whom our students have little or no contact.  As a result, we censor ourselves as artists in our own work.  In acting and directing classes, we gently, yet firmly, steer our students away from material that could be deemed offensive.   We juggle constantly the competing tensions between our desire to be culturally sensitive and our belief in unbridled artistic expression.  I believe most teachers--and certainly most younger educators--are cognizant of this problem and gingerly maneuver through the potential minefield--seeking to maintain both artistic integrity and social responsibility.

The problem is that one person’s cultural sensitivity is another’s condescending liberalism.  Who is to adjudicate whether a work is insensitive, racist, or sexist?  And even if a certain word or term is deemed universally offensive, we seem to find it acceptable if the term is spoken by a member of the minority or unempowered group, but wholly unacceptable if it is uttered by someone not of that "crowd."  Even how we describe and objectify minority groups is a matter of controversy and concern:  Negro becomes black becomes African-American:  Mexican becomes Latino becomes Hispanic: and Hebrew becomes Israelite becomes Jewish.  This conundrum often leads to confusion, anger and misunderstanding.  As a result, we--as a society--have come to an uneasy understanding that each minority and sub-group is allowed to determine for both itself, and society-at-large, what is deemed to be appropriate and what is offensive and demeaning.  We accept this cultural censorship, and the right of self-definition, as a necessity for maintaining decorum in our modern, multicultural society.

Another equally vexing problem is the collective hubris among educators that we are qualified to teach multicultural issues.  With little in-depth knowledge about other cultures, we try to "teach" what we barely understand.  Usually, in a simplistic and relativistic manner, we reduce other cultures to their lowest common denominators so that our students may "identify" with the suffering of others.  It is my assertion that this politically correct strategy--used by well meaning and well intentioned educators--may denigrate and insult the very minority groups we wish to honor.

As a case in point, let’s quickly examine the continuing popularity of The Merchant of Venice- both in performance and in school curriculums.   A quick look at the Shakespeare Bulletin or the performance section of the Shakespeare Quarterly illustrates the widespread popularity of the play. The Merchant is performed regularly--year after year--at various Shakespeare festivals across America and in England-- in Alabama, Ashland, Stratford in Ontario, Boulder, Washington DC, Cleveland and perhaps most often in London.  In cities with sizable Jewish populations, however, such as New York, Philadelphia, or Chicago, the play is seldom performed.  This is an intriguing and troubling pattern.  Why is Shakespeare’s play performed rarely in cities with large Jewish populations and yet so popular in places with few Jews?

In New York City, for example, The last major production of The Merchant of Venice was mounted in 1989.  Directed by Peter Hall and starring Dustin Hoffman, the production--rather conventional in its approach--was embroiled in a stinging controversy.  The New York Times and other newspapers and journals in New York were filled with angry accusations and replies.  Prior to the Hall/Hoffman effort, the last major production in New York had been directed by Ellis Rabb at Lincoln Center in 1973.   In the 1990s, the NYSF produced it as a part of their marathon of the entire Shakespearean cannon.  So in the past thirty years, there have been exactly three major productions of the play in New York, and each one has raised a storm of controversy.

And yet The Merchant of Venice continues to be mounted regularly at theatres across the country and taught at various universities and colleges, particularly in the heartland where there are relatively few Jews.  And I have to ask myself, why?   I believe the answer is complicated.  First, there are a number of directors, producers, and educators (usually gentile) who believe sincerely that the play is not anti-Semitic.  This group deflects criticism of the play  by attacking their detractors for being small minded, over-sensitive, and far too literal.  They embrace the various postmodern theoretical readings of critics such as A. D. Moody, Rene Girard, Norman Rabkin, and Terry Eagleton who assert--in different ways--that Shylock is not a villain, but a victim.  A troubling variation on this approach is to strip Shylock of his Jewish identity entirely and represent him as a metaphoric symbol of  oppression.  Peter Sellars, for example, in his London production three years ago, using "color blind" casting had a black actor play  Shylock thereby reducing him to a symbol of the "other."  In this manner, Sellars was able to claim that the play had nothing to do with Jews--actual Jews--whatsoever.

Second, some directors and producers do recognize the anti-Semitic elements in Shakespeare’s text, but believe that the work can be deconstructed through performance.  These directors turn somersaults and twist themselves into knots trying to make the play "acceptable."  Third, some directors--particularly Jewish directors and writers--not content to subvert the play merely through staging devices, radically alter the text.  Charles Marowitz , George Tabori, Arnold Wesker and Peter Zadek have each re-written the play to examine and emphasize the issue of anti-Semitism.  Finally, there are a number of directors who produce "straight" versions of the play as a romantic comedy.  Hiding behind the veneer of "high culture," mounting The Merchant  of Venice allows pseudo-liberals and highbrows to indulge their latent anti-Semitism in a safe and protected manner.  This, I would argue, is primarily the reason for the enduring popularity of the play in England-- a country well known for its "genteel" anti-Semitism.

I recently accessed the Shakespeare & Company Website and was quite interested to see that they plan on mounting TheMerchant of Venice between July 24 and August 30.   Shakespeare & Company, located in Lenox Massachusetts, is a respected regional theatre that mounts numerous Shakespearean productions and engages in a great deal of theatrical training and educational outreach.  Well known for their innovative and compelling treatment of Shakespeare’s plays, I was startled to read their posted press release concerning the upcoming production of Merchant:
 

Tina Packer directs The Merchant of Venice for the first time on the Mainstage.  One of the world’s first great courtroom dramas unfolds under the stars:  Mercy vs. Justice.  You be the judge.  Shakespeare’s popular comedy of love, money and mercy celebrates its 400th birthday this year.  It also celebrates four centuries of controversy.  Shylock, a Jew, demands a pound of flesh when a verbal bond is broken by Antonio, a Christian.  His friend Bassanio falls in love with Portia, a wealthy heiress, who must dress as a man to preside over a case in which she saves Antonio’s life.  Meanwhile Shylock’s daughter Jessica has fled her father’s domination in elopement, hoping to begin a new life with her Christian fiancé.  But can love truly redeem all of them?  Only the rollicking clowns seem untouched by the goings-on!

Tina Packer examines the role of Elizabethan Jews in London and Venice, as seen through the changing eyes of our modern world.  How does society deal with people who do not fit in?   How does the dominant culture treat its minorities as they search for inclusion?  In Shakespeare’s ground-breaking story, acceptance is achieved sometimes at the dearest of prices.

So what’s the issue?  This reads like a typical press release--a little jazzy--perhaps simplistic, but generally innocuous.   The problem is that Ms. Packer apparently desires to have it all.  She wants to mount a frolicking comedy  yet also examine the issues of anti-Semitism, cultural otherness, and address the "controversy" swirling about the play.  But let’s deconstruct this press release a bit and see the extraordinary level of hyperbole, hypocrisy and ignorance that Ms. Packer is foisting upon her intended pseudo-liberal audience:

* "It also celebrates four centuries of controversy..."
The Merchant of Venice has only become controversial in the past sixty years, particularly after the Holocaust.  And Jews have only begun to speak out forcefully against the play in the last thirty years.  Prior to that, I challenge Ms. Packer to find any critic of note--specifically a gentile critic--who ever criticized the anti-Semitic elements of the text.  As to the bravery of Ms. Packer for mounting such a "controversial" play, let me just say that the Berkshires is not the Catskills.  Western Massachusetts has an extremely small Jewish population (most of which is associated with the colleges in the area).  Let’s see if Ms. Packer re-mounts the production in Manhattan and if she is ready to deal with "real" controversy.

* "Mercy vs. Justice.  You be the judge."
Be the judge of what?  The entire dramaturgical structure of The Merchant of Venice is intended to demonstrate the superiority of New Testament mercy over the "supposed" legalistic, vengeful justice of the "Old" Testament.  Of course, Shakespeare (and most critics and educators) knew (and know) nothing about the Talmud or other Jewish writings that value mercy and compassion.  This entire dichotomy has long been a source of misunderstanding about Jewish values and has, in turn, led to ignorance and prejudice.  How can "you be the judge" when the courtroom testimony in the play is entirely misleading and literally prejudicial and when most people in America know little about Jewish culture?

 * "Tina Packer examines the role of Elizabethan Jews in London and Venice"
This should be a real treat--since there were NO Jews in Elizabethan England.  There were perhaps a hundred Christians of Jewish descent scholars refer to as Conversos or Marranos.  Marranos worshipped Christ but retained some Jewish customs.  Not by any stretch of the imagination could they be considered Jewish--unless we use Nazi definitions of the term.  As far as Venetian Jews in 1598 are concerned, they lived in a walled ghetto patrolled by Christian guards.  No Jew in 1598 Venice could have had a Christian working in his home (such as Lancelot Gobbo), and Jews were not allowed into the homes of Christians.   Shakespeare apparently knew little or nothing about the actual circumstances under which Jews lived in Venice, and he probably never met a Jew in his lifetime.  So how does Ms. Packer plan on examining "the role of Elizabethan Jews in London and Venice" in a play which completely falsifies the historical truth?

* "How does the dominant culture treat its minorities as they search for inclusion?  In Shakespeare’s ground-breaking story, acceptance is achieved sometimes at the dearest of prices."
These two sentences are startling, troubling and highly coded.  First it assumes that all minorities are essentially the same.  Second, it assumes that all minorities seek inclusion.  Third, it assumes that The Merchant of Venice is somehow groundbreaking in its "modern" multicultural outlook.  And four, it assumes that minorities (all minorities without differentiation) seek acceptance as their ultimate goal.  Let’s address these points individually.  First no two minorities are the same--each has a unique cultural, ethnic, and/or religious perspective.  Each has its own distinct narrative and specific relationship to the majority group.   By defining a minority solely based on the fact that it is different--that it is the "other"-- is a reductive and simplistic viewpoint harking back to Sartre’s highly flawed Anti-Semite and Jew-- a work that most scholars--particularly Jewish scholars--have long dismissed.  (Sarte’s essay is the origin for the overused, poorly understood notion of the "other.")  Second, inclusion is rarely the goal of minority groups-- equal rights, respect, and understanding perhaps, but not necessarily inclusion.  Why would a minority group seek inclusion into the social practices of the majority when such inclusion--almost by definition--demands a relinquishing of cultural identity? Third, there is nothing "groundbreaking" about the Merchant of Venice--either dramaturgically or in its social outlook.  It is a fairly standard Shakespearean comedy, similar in tone and construction to at least a half dozen of his other works.  Coming fast upon a revival of Marlowe’s Jew of Malta, Shakespeare whips out his own "Jew" play to capitalize on an audience looking for an easily identifiable--fun to hate--boogie man.  Tina Packer--looking back after 400 hundred years, particularly after the Holocaust,--may assert that the play has become controversial; that through the lens of a postmodern deconstruction we may read the play in a new light, and that in production we may address issues of multiculturalism.  But to assert authorial intentionality in any of these matters is wholly absurd.

I’m sure that Tina Packer is a well-meaning, well-intentioned person.  I know she is an interesting director (having seen previous productions that she has directed).  I will be journeying to the Berkshires to see this production and my hope is that Ms. Packer’s direction more intelligent and sensitive then her press release.  But suffice it to say, I will arrive at the theatre full of doubt and foreboding.

And what about The Merchant of Venice on the college campus?  In the fall of 1993, at the University of Pennsylvania,  I arrived on campus--as a Lecturer--to learn that the first production of the season was to be The Merchant of Venice. The department chair--a Jewish professor--concerned about the issue of censorship--allowed a student--a gentile student--to mount the play as part of his senior thesis.  The day after the show opened, my office was flooded with students--all of whom were Jewish.  Some were ashen-faced, some were angry and a few were crying.  The students were mortified and hurt that the department had allowed the show to be mounted.  They had all attended the performance the previous evening and a few had walked out.  Interestingly, not a single gentile student complained.  To this day, I’m not sure which bothered me more:  the obvious pain the production caused in the Jewish students or the total lack of awareness of the issue on the part the gentile ones.  In either case, I realized that this play had no business being performed on a college campus anywhere--regardless of the religious orientation of the student population.  Needless to say I am surprised and aghast that A.C.T.E.R. will be touring Merchant to colleges all across America next year!

This experience at Penn drove home to me the continuing double-standard that infuses multicultural liberalism.  Would anyone, on any college campus, ever consider allowing a production that represented African-Americans as watermelon eating, spear-trucking, sexual predators?  Of course not, this would play into, and reinforce, the worst racial stereotypes.  And any director--particularly a white director--who tried to claim that he or she was investigating racial stereotypes--instead of promulgating them--would probably  be looking for a new job.  But when it comes to Shakespeare, and his vile representation of Jews, the double standard comes glaringly into view.  Why?  Because Shakespeare represents "high culture" and as the greatest playwright in Western Drama, his works are somehow beyond reproach.

Is The Merchant of Venice anti-Semitic?  John Gross points out in his seminal book Shylock that the play received over 50 major productions in Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1939 (after W.W.II started, Shakespeare was banned from the German stage).  Clearly, the German authorities had no doubt about the merits of the play and the stereotypes it promulgated.  Is this enough alone to condemn the work?  Perhaps not, but it is certainly revealing.  Thousands of pages have been written on this topic--whether The Merchant is, or is not, anti-Semitic--and just this year, the Shakesper Listserv (an Internet discussion group) had a running argument on the topic that lasted weeks.  I have no desire to rehash the points and the counter-points in this paper.  Suffice it say that strong cases can be made to argue either side of the issue.

The bottom line, however, is who should ultimately arbitrate the issue?  My conclusion is that we must allow the Jewish community itself to decide whether this play is acceptable or not.  Of course, no one can claim to speak for the entire Jewish community and there is a great deal of dissension among Jews on this topic.  But it is safe to say that the vast majority of Jews find the play to be deeply offensive and hurtful.  And for this reason alone, it is a work that should be avoided, particularly on college campuses--regardless of the size of the Jewish population.  This is a "right" we confer upon every other minority group when it comes to cultural representations.  Why should Jews not be accorded an equal privilege?

The notion of America as a melting pot is a passé and dangerous idea.  It suggests a stripping of cultural identify and the assumption of a new, particularly American character.  Traditionally this "American character" was essentially white and Christian (and male!).  Beginning in the 1960s, however, with the emergence of the black pride movement, a new, more mature notion has come to the forefront.  We understand now that America is a rich and varied stew.  With chunks of independent cultures floating in a broth that is still primarily white and Christian.  African-Americans, Hispanics, gays, Jews, Muslims and a host other individual cultures seek coexistence and mutual respect while maintaining their own cultural identity.  What once would have been considered "un-American" is now accepted as a societal norm.   We may all be equal, but we are not the same.  Members of minority communities in America are forced to actively embrace these differences in order to avoid cultural assimilation.  It is always easier to pass--to not make waves--to "fit in."

In our striving to create a truly multicultural society, we must be wary of stripping cultural narratives to fit a set form and pattern and we must also acknowledge and respect the wishes of how sub-groups wish to be represented.  A "straight" production of The Merchant of Venice  has no place in a society that purports to respect the presence and contributions of minority groups.  Anti-Semitism is alive and well in America--just as racism is toward African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native-Americans.  As educators, we have a moral imperative to honor all cultures and to inculcate tolerance and respect among our students.  Liberal educators who embrace "color blind casting," who have their gentile students "play" Jewish characters (so they might know it "feels" to be Jewish), and who teach multiculturalism by looking for universal attributes must be aware that such well-meaning approaches may backfire terribly.