Gonzales, Analysa

02/13/10
“Macbeth: The Prisoner of Gender”

Who can be wise, amazed, temp’rate and furious,

Loyal and neutral, in a moment? No man.
(I.i.104-05)

In Robert Kimbrough’s literary analysis of Shakespeare’s “Macbeth,” he calls the

differences between males and females, seemingly large due to evolution of thought, matters of
gender. These divisions, he argues, “separate humanity into separated types, each treated as if it
were a separate species,” (175). Arranged in a hierarchal relationship in Shakespeare’s time,
elements of masculinity and femininity are seen as purely of one culture or of the other;
however, Shakespeare’s philosophy is clearly different. One of the greatest themes present in his
works, is the idea that as long as one remains exclusively feminine or exclusively masculine, that
person will be restricted of human growth.

In order to fully establish this theme, Shakespeare vies to “liberate both the male and the
female” from the restrictions inherent by society’s concept of gender roles. He does so by
isolating single moments where his characters may experience certain thoughts or emotions
“beyond those traditionally associated with the gender values of their particular sex,”
(Kimbrough, 176). In this manner, “Macbeth” contains, not only a war of powers between men;
but in particular, a fierce war of gender concepts, which Kimbrough states, “is played out on the
plain of humanity.”

First and foremost, let it be understood that in most Elizabethan literature, to be manly
was to be aggressive, bold, and strong; meanwhile, to be womanly was to be gentle, pitying,
wavering, and therefore seemingly weak. By the end of the play, these characteristics seem to
describe the Macbeths perfectly, and the barriers seem to have been re-erected, as they were
previously in society. The existence of such separation by gender in society is apparent
throughout the play; however, one of the most telling moments occurs when Ross tells old
Siward of his son’s death in the battle against Macbeth. Rather than responding as today’s
modern human being would, old Siward simply responds, “He’s worth no more [than sorrow]…
And so, God be with him,” (V.viii.50-53). His refusal to show any sorrow in his words matches
his obvious refusal to give in to such womanly ways, -such weakness. This is most apparent with
the contrast of Macduff’s response to the news of his own family tragedy. Malcolm, as though
 Gonzales, Analysa
02/13/10
“Macbeth: The Prisoner of Gender”

embarrassed by Macduff’s sudden show of emotion, states, “Dispute it like a man,” (IV.iii.220-
21). In response, Macduff says, “I shall do so; But I must also feel it as a man.” Here, Macduff
defines, to the full extent, the great range of his being: neither manly nor womanly, but rather
human. The point Shakespeare intends to make through Macduff is clear, as Kimbrough
explains: “Bravery and compassion are not incompatible; they are both natural, human
attributes,” (178).

While Lady Macbeth seems acutely aware of this, that even men can possess such
womanly traits, it is obvious that she doesn’t fully comprehend the pretensions of this in a much
more general fashion. She, herself, can accept that her husband possesses “the milk of human
kindness” (I.v.15), and that love, compassion, and pity are all in Macbeth’s nature. And yet, she
refuses to allow him to carry on any differently in his role than how society deems him fit.
Rather, she pins both herself and her husband up against humanity, and sets out to change Lord
Macbeth’s ways. Initially, before Macbeth’s character is introduced, he is described as “noble.”
This is proven when Macbeth concludes, after being tempted by ambition, that he “will proceed
no further in this business” (I. 31). Even after his manhood is questioned by his own wife, he
responds with a very unselfish answer, that he is willing to do whatever is fitting for the good of
all. Until the very moment in which he becomes fully blinded by his ambition, he shows nothing
but strength and dignity. Yet Lady Macbeth does not merely seek change in her husband; she
also seeks change in herself. Initially, she states she could not kill Duncan, for he reminded her
too much of her father. This wouldn’t seem a very surprising quote; to her viewers, her inability
to strike in mere proof of her weakness, her femininity. Realizing that her husband, by nature, is
a kind hearted individual, she prays that she can take on the cruel and masculine traits necessary
to place her husband on top in the ranks of society. Ultimately, “by rejecting that which she is
had been made to think is weak and womanly in order to become cruel and manly, she moves
away from humanity and toward a more demonic approach to life,” (Kimbrough, 181). It would
seem obvious that she and her society, in Shakespeare’s eyes, clearly confuse womanhood with
humanity.

The great question to be asked by the end of the tragedy, then, is: Why can’t the audience
simply reject the Macbeth’s and detest them? Clearly, as Kimbrough explains, both Macbeth and
 Gonzales, Analysa
02/13/10
“Macbeth: The Prisoner of Gender”

his wife take on an evil air by the end of the play. From the beginning of their descents into the
fiery hell, Lady Macbeth is determined to play the serpent, and her husband has certainly
entertained the act of regicide. Ultimately, just as it is their own daggers that bring about their
downfalls, their imperfections are exactly what draws the audience to them. As Kimbrough
points out, Shakespeare never allows his audience to forget that Macbeth was once very much
human, nor does he ever attempt to shift the blame for Macbeth’s fall to Lady Macbeth. Instead,
Shakespeare appeals to his audience with the idea that both characters remain almost too human
throughout the play. Lady Macbeth proves her humanity through death. Just before her last hour
to draw breath, she is seen attempting to wipe her hands clean from the “blood.” This blood can
easily be viewed as the manifestation of her own guilt and remorse, two obvious “womanly”
traits. Then, her act of suicide, viewed as a sign of weakness by Elizabethans, ultimately
emphasizes her downfall in attempting to subdue human nature. Inevitably, Shakespeare points
out, through the downfalls of both characters, the potential for human fulfillment that rises above
gender division.

Although Lord and Lady Macbeth fail miserably in their attempts to defy their own
human nature, their characters do succeed in maintaining a very special bond with the audience.
No, they don’t play the heroes, nor do they end up taking “the high road” in life. They alienate
themselves through their erratic behavior, and often isolate themselves from any understanding
eyes. Yet, comprehension persists and judgment is generally abstained among those in the
audience. It is the sheer honesty in their characters that moves one through pity to understand
them and their causes for failure. Ultimately, Shakespeare’s “Macbeth” can be seen as an
Elizabethan criticism by itself, a challenge to society’s views in his own time. It is clear that
Shakespeare wished to invoke that same power of realization on his viewers, to allow them to
bear witness of the destructive power of “polarized masculinity and femininity,” (Kimbrough,
177). Truly, “Macbeth” is a testament to Shakespeare’s assumption that human nature is
essentially good and beautiful; that is has a potential for positive fulfillment. His ultimate hope
must have been to help those in society, blinded by such false virtues, to overcome the
limitations set by those without a clear comprehension of humankind. Gender seems to have
been only one of the obstacles society had yet to overcome.