Every so often, someone complains that teaching today’s children Shakespeare is a waste of time, since the words of a man writing 400+ years ago in archaic language is not “accessible”. Whatever “accessible” might mean. (To me, it means ensuring that buildings, notices, announcements, etc are easy to use for everyone in society. Too often, though, “accessible” seems to mean “without having to stretch your mind”.) Shakespeare, they say, is no longer “relevant”.

Let’s just consider that with reference to the four great tragedies, each summarised to one line.

Hamlet: hates his new stepfather and is taking it out on his mother and girlfriend.
In today’s society, the blended family is a major thing. So how are the major themes of Hamlet not relevant, seen through the step-family lens?

King Lear: a father playing favourites and a massive case of sibling rivalry.
Who hasn’t seen the dysfunctional “golden child” and “scapegoat” played out: either in families or in a classroom?

Macbeth: driven by a forceful wife, he wants to be the star of the show, top dog.
Translate to followers on social media, or the present-day cult of the celebrity, and you see that vaulting ambition didn’t stop in 12th century Scotland.

Othello: a jealous husband becomes abusive to his innocent wife, spurred on by a malicious “friend”.
We try to root out abuse and toxic “friendships” wherever we find them, but they’re common, aren’t they?

In summary: Shakespeare is as relevant now as when he first wrote, because his themes are as important to society now as they were then.

“But the language is too difficult,” I hear you cry. Everything is difficult, when you first meet it. Walking. Talking. Potty training! Reading, writing, and arithmetic. It didn’t stop you, or me, overcoming as many difficulties as we could, to do it the best that we can in our circumstances. People who face particular challenges strive to overcome them. So why shouldn’t we encourage people to enjoy Shakespeare, and stretch their minds wider?

Or do we deliberately tell them that it’s too hard, so that they’re left feeling that it’s not for the likes of them: they’ll never be clever enough? That smacks of “keeping them in their place”; limiting their prospects; leaving them behind. It’s blocking people out from words and phrases that have shaped the English language and culture. It’s a socially acceptable way of ensuring that they don’t get the chance to be “people like us”.

I don’t like that. I don’t like that it’s discrimination dressed up as “for their benefit” or “they’d never cope”. I don’t like that children are not being challenged to go further and understand more; to think more widely. I don’t like that a swathe of underprivileged children are being – “for their own good” – restricted in what they can learn. I hate that their ambitions are being curbed and circumscribed before they even know that they could be ambitious.

And I especially do not like that the children of the elite will be exposed to Shakespeare, and similar, because their parents can afford to buy books, and go to the theatre, and discuss it with them, and introduce them to all the many things that drive them to think more widely, learn more, and become the self-perpetuating elite of the future.

So ask yourself, as I did, when you say that Shakespeare is “not relevant” – what are your real reasons?

Death in Focus