“To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is
the greatest accomplishment.” Ralph Waldo Emerson. In light of this quotation,
explore the ways in which Shakespeare and Orwell present Hamlet’s and
Winston’s struggle for identity in ‘Hamlet’ and ‘1984’.
Hamlet’s question whether ‘to be or not to be’ is so well-know because it reflects
the simple truth of the human nature - the struggle for an identity – one’s unique
characteristics - in the ever-changing world. Although writing with a difference in
346 years,1 both Orwell and Shakespeare demonstrate this human instinct to
challenge ‘a world that is constantly trying to make [them] something else’ using
their protagonists whose emotions and conscience are oppressed by the
antagonistic surroundings, but who fight for their identity by searching for the truth
and privately exploring their “self.”
In ‘1984’ the antagonistic regime dismantles Winston’s part of identity - his
emotions by invalidating their instinctive and authentic qualities. Orwell’s
employment of the third person limited omniscient narrative technique focalised at
the protagonist gives prominence to Winston’s internal and external experiences of
struggling for his identity in the oppressive regime and could highlight Orwell’s idea
of the importance of considering individual experiences in the history of the
repressive states to avoid the dehumanisation of history. During ‘the Two Minute
Hate’ Winston is expected to display ‘fear and anger automatically,’ while the
metaphor of ‘the flame of a blowlamp’ highlights the ease with which his emotions
are manipulated: switched on and off. Moreover, Winston’s internal perspective on
the chanting of ‘B-B!’ as ‘a deliberately drowning of consciousness’ creates a
poignant visual image of the killing of his self-awareness - a part of his identity. Later
in the text, after Winston’s secret romantic relationship with Julia is uncovered by
the Party, O’Brien assures Winston that ‘never again will [he] be capable of love, or
friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiosity, or courage, or integrity. [He] will
be hollow.’ The total destruction of Winston’s identity is highlighted by the listing of
all human qualities that flow within him now and will be eliminated later. The image
1
Orwell’s ‘1984’ was published in 1949, while Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’ was published in 1603.
, of hollowness evokes an association with defeated and bland person, which
emphasises that reduced to such a hollowness Winston would be no more than a
simulacrum, entirely controllable by the Party. The dystopian regime of Big Brother,
positioned on the pillars of the restriction of individuality, the enforcement of
conformity and the surveillance of the citizens, is directed at the oppression of
Winston’s identity. Allusions to Stalin’s cult of personality, excessive Soviet
propaganda and terror2 could suggest that the text is Orwell’s social comment on
the oppression of individuality in the non-fictional totalitarian states of his times –
the USSR which could be designed to reach out to us about preventing of the
realisations of the dangers that dictatorship bears.
Similarly to Orwell, Shakespeare employs antagonistic settings of the royal court
to appeal to audience’s implicit associations of courts with subjugation and
reciprocal deceitful submissiveness. In addition, for the immediate audience of the
play, the political upheavals after the death of Henry VIII and the ascendance of
Queen Elizabeth I to the throne3 could reinforce the destructive nature of the court.
As for the modern audience, the growing social disillusionment about the royal
family4 could contribute to the audience’s perception of the court in Hamlet as
historically rotten. This helps to establish the conflict in the power dynamics
between Hamlet who struggles for his identity and his oppressive surroundings.
However, in contrast to Orwell’s focus on Winston’s emotions, Shakespeare
demonstrates the court’s oppression of Hamlet’s identity as the heir to the throne
with the plotline of the murder of his father. Hamlet’s lamenting that ‘a beast that
wants discourse of reason would have mourned longer’ than his mother who
‘married with [his] uncle […] With such dexterity to incestuous sheets’ could be read
through the existential lens and interpreted as Hamlet’s displacement of his dread
2
You can read more about the allusions to Stalin and the USSR in ‘1984’ here:
https://barbradozier.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/1984-allusion-to-stalin-and-hitler/
3
After the death of Henry VIII his son Edward was too young to rule, so Regents took the power instead of him. Regents finished
the Protestant reform started by Henry VIII’s break from with the Roman Catholic Church. Edward died after six years of his
kingship. Mary Tudor succeeded him, attempting to reinstate Roman Catholicism as the state religion. Queen Elizabeth I, half-
sister of Mary Tudor, came to the throne in 1558, although not considered a legitimate heir to the throne.
4
In 2020, 35% of 18- to 24-year-olds said that Britain should remain a monarchy, compared to 69% in 2015. To read more about
the changing attitudes to the monarchy please see: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/16/britain-grief-
polling-figures-monarchy-popularity
the greatest accomplishment.” Ralph Waldo Emerson. In light of this quotation,
explore the ways in which Shakespeare and Orwell present Hamlet’s and
Winston’s struggle for identity in ‘Hamlet’ and ‘1984’.
Hamlet’s question whether ‘to be or not to be’ is so well-know because it reflects
the simple truth of the human nature - the struggle for an identity – one’s unique
characteristics - in the ever-changing world. Although writing with a difference in
346 years,1 both Orwell and Shakespeare demonstrate this human instinct to
challenge ‘a world that is constantly trying to make [them] something else’ using
their protagonists whose emotions and conscience are oppressed by the
antagonistic surroundings, but who fight for their identity by searching for the truth
and privately exploring their “self.”
In ‘1984’ the antagonistic regime dismantles Winston’s part of identity - his
emotions by invalidating their instinctive and authentic qualities. Orwell’s
employment of the third person limited omniscient narrative technique focalised at
the protagonist gives prominence to Winston’s internal and external experiences of
struggling for his identity in the oppressive regime and could highlight Orwell’s idea
of the importance of considering individual experiences in the history of the
repressive states to avoid the dehumanisation of history. During ‘the Two Minute
Hate’ Winston is expected to display ‘fear and anger automatically,’ while the
metaphor of ‘the flame of a blowlamp’ highlights the ease with which his emotions
are manipulated: switched on and off. Moreover, Winston’s internal perspective on
the chanting of ‘B-B!’ as ‘a deliberately drowning of consciousness’ creates a
poignant visual image of the killing of his self-awareness - a part of his identity. Later
in the text, after Winston’s secret romantic relationship with Julia is uncovered by
the Party, O’Brien assures Winston that ‘never again will [he] be capable of love, or
friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiosity, or courage, or integrity. [He] will
be hollow.’ The total destruction of Winston’s identity is highlighted by the listing of
all human qualities that flow within him now and will be eliminated later. The image
1
Orwell’s ‘1984’ was published in 1949, while Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’ was published in 1603.
, of hollowness evokes an association with defeated and bland person, which
emphasises that reduced to such a hollowness Winston would be no more than a
simulacrum, entirely controllable by the Party. The dystopian regime of Big Brother,
positioned on the pillars of the restriction of individuality, the enforcement of
conformity and the surveillance of the citizens, is directed at the oppression of
Winston’s identity. Allusions to Stalin’s cult of personality, excessive Soviet
propaganda and terror2 could suggest that the text is Orwell’s social comment on
the oppression of individuality in the non-fictional totalitarian states of his times –
the USSR which could be designed to reach out to us about preventing of the
realisations of the dangers that dictatorship bears.
Similarly to Orwell, Shakespeare employs antagonistic settings of the royal court
to appeal to audience’s implicit associations of courts with subjugation and
reciprocal deceitful submissiveness. In addition, for the immediate audience of the
play, the political upheavals after the death of Henry VIII and the ascendance of
Queen Elizabeth I to the throne3 could reinforce the destructive nature of the court.
As for the modern audience, the growing social disillusionment about the royal
family4 could contribute to the audience’s perception of the court in Hamlet as
historically rotten. This helps to establish the conflict in the power dynamics
between Hamlet who struggles for his identity and his oppressive surroundings.
However, in contrast to Orwell’s focus on Winston’s emotions, Shakespeare
demonstrates the court’s oppression of Hamlet’s identity as the heir to the throne
with the plotline of the murder of his father. Hamlet’s lamenting that ‘a beast that
wants discourse of reason would have mourned longer’ than his mother who
‘married with [his] uncle […] With such dexterity to incestuous sheets’ could be read
through the existential lens and interpreted as Hamlet’s displacement of his dread
2
You can read more about the allusions to Stalin and the USSR in ‘1984’ here:
https://barbradozier.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/1984-allusion-to-stalin-and-hitler/
3
After the death of Henry VIII his son Edward was too young to rule, so Regents took the power instead of him. Regents finished
the Protestant reform started by Henry VIII’s break from with the Roman Catholic Church. Edward died after six years of his
kingship. Mary Tudor succeeded him, attempting to reinstate Roman Catholicism as the state religion. Queen Elizabeth I, half-
sister of Mary Tudor, came to the throne in 1558, although not considered a legitimate heir to the throne.
4
In 2020, 35% of 18- to 24-year-olds said that Britain should remain a monarchy, compared to 69% in 2015. To read more about
the changing attitudes to the monarchy please see: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/16/britain-grief-
polling-figures-monarchy-popularity
