We
see a lot of different power dynamics in Coriolanus,
most notably the power dynamic between Coriolanus himself and his mother,
Volumnia. Volumnia seems to have the most pull with Coriolanus out of anyone in
the play, which makes sense. She raised him to be a formidable warrior and
conditioned him to be politically appealing. There’s the rub though, Coriolanus
seems only to be appealing
politically, which brings me to the question… while Coriolanus has the physical
strength to bear the scars of battle, does he have the psychological and
emotional might and stability required to be a true ruler of the masses?
My answer: no, he really doesn’t.
So what’s happening here, if
Volumnia has been able to raise such a physically strong warrior only to
ultimately fall short in raising him to have the capacity to run a government swiftly
and efficiently? I believe that it comes right down to the simple fact that
Volumnia was so busy grooming her son to be a warrior and that strength is the
ultimate ruler that when it came time for him to take a true political
position, he depended so much on her that he couldn’t really do it. Instead, he
failed and got stabbed. Who didn’t get stabbed though? Volumnia. The loss of
her son gave her the chance to rise up to power and take care of things like
should have been done in the first place.
Is this saying something about the
power dynamics of men and women in general? Is Shakespeare trying to advocate
for women in power, setting forth the idea that while men might be physically
stronger in some instances, that women have the capacity to pull the strings
and actually run a government? It certainly does seem revolutionary, even in
today’s society…
No comments:
Post a Comment