Exploring Marginalization in Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead: A Cultural Studies Perspective

Exploring Marginalization in Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead: A Cultural Studies Perspective

This blog is part of the Thinking Activity on “Exploring Marginalization in Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead,” assigned by Dr. Dilip Barad, Department of English

For more information click here 

Introduction: Marginalization and Cultural Studies

Marginalization refers to the process by which certain individuals or groups are pushed to the edges of society, denied agency, and treated as insignificant within larger systems of power. Through the lens of Cultural Studies, we can analyze how literature mirrors social hierarchies, political control, and systemic inequality.

In this activity, two texts William Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead serve as mirrors reflecting both Renaissance and modern cultural power structures. While Shakespeare presents a world ruled by monarchy and fate, Stoppard reimagines it through absurdism and existential inquiry, giving voice to the previously voiceless.

1️⃣ Q1. Marginalization in Hamlet

Describe how Rosencrantz and Guildenstern represent marginal figures in Hamlet. How does Hamlet’s reference to Rosencrantz as a “sponge” reflect their expendability in the power dynamics of the play?

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are classic examples of marginal characters in Hamlet. They are introduced as Hamlet’s childhood friends and former classmates from Wittenberg, but Shakespeare gives them very little individuality or inner life. The passage you provided calls them “jellyfish” and “plot-driven”: they exist mainly to move the plot forward, not to develop as people. Shakespeare gives them lightweight names that sound sing-song and blur their personalities; critics in the passage even note actors find them boring or interchangeable.

Their marginalization shows in several ways:

• Instrumental role: Claudius summons them to spy on Hamlet and report back. They perform a role assigned by the king rather than acting from conviction. That makes them instruments of a higher power, not independent moral agents.

• Lack of subjectivity: The passage shows they are “empty of personality” and “sycophantic.” They flatter and obey Claudius to gain favour; their motives are mainly to please the king rather than to act from conscience.

• Plot expendability and death: Hamlet manipulates them he forges a letter so that they carry a death warrant instead of him. Their deaths are not treated with weight by Hamlet (“They are not near my conscience”), which proves they are expendable. They are useful until they are not.

Hamlet’s “sponge” metaphor (Act 4) captures this precisely:

 he soaks up the king’s countenance, his rewards, his authorities. But such officers do the King best service in the end. He keeps them, like an ape, in the corner of his jaw, first mouthed, to be last swallowed.

A sponge soaks up and then can be squeezed dry. Hamlet’s image implies that Rosencrantz soaks up the king’s favour and information; when Claudius needs them squeezed (used for his purposes), he squeezes them  and when done, throws them away. The metaphor stresses their instrumental value and final disposability within the court’s power structure. Because they accepted the king’s request without critical thought, they are precisely the sort of “little people” who are useful to those in power and safe to discard.

2️⃣ Modern Parallels to Corporate Power

 The passage compares Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to modern workers impacted by corporate downsizing and globalization. Reflect on this parallel: How does their fate in Hamlet mirror the displacement experienced by workers when multinational companies relocate or downsize?

The passage draws a direct line from the court of Claudius to the modern corporate office: both are hierarchies where decision-makers manipulate people below them. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are “small annexments” to the king’s “massy wheel”  a vivid image of a huge system whose spokes hold many lesser parts. When a massive wheel falls or shifts, the small annexments fall with it.

This mirrors corporate realities in several key ways:

Instrumentalisation of human labour: Just as Claudius calls on Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to serve a political purpose, corporations deploy workers for projects, mergers, or relocations. Workers may be moved between offices, asked to relocate, or shifted into precarious roles to meet corporate strategy. They are valued for the function they perform, not for individual dignity.

Lack of knowledge and agency: The two courtiers do not know the full content of the commission they carry; they go where they are told. Similarly, many employees only know fragmentary information about corporate decisions (restructuring, outsourcing) and are given little control over outcomes.

Sudden disposability: The way Hamlet ensures the two carry a death warrant reveals how a system can suddenly convert a role into a liability. Corporate downsizing often has the same suddenness: employees can be informed abruptly that their positions are redundant.

Structural inequality: The “massy wheel” image explains structural imbalance: decisions are made at the top and cause ripple effects below. Workers (like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) feel the consequences but have little influence on causes.

Emotionally and culturally, both situations produce alienation (workers feeling disconnected from meaningful work) and vulnerability (fear of unexpected dismissal or replacement). The passage’s comparison helps students see that marginalization is not merely personal failure but a structural feature of  systems of power.

3️⃣ Existential Questions in Stoppard’s Reinterpretation

 In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, Stoppard deepens their marginalization by questioning their existence and purpose. Why might Stoppard emphasize their search for meaning in a world indifferent to them? How does this mirror the feeling of powerlessness in today’s corporate environments?

Stoppard rescues Rosencrantz and Guildenstern from marginality by putting them at the centre  but he intensifies their marginalization by making their existence itself uncertain. The passage notes Stoppard’s framing: the two may be “never-living” or “already dead,” and the whole play becomes an exploration of ontological uncertainty  who are they, and why are they here?

There are several reasons Stoppard emphasises this search for meaning:

• To dramatize the human condition of the modern era: In twentieth-century thought, many writers questioned whether life has inherent meaning. Stoppard uses the pair as archetypal modern humans who seek answers in a world that gives none.

• To shift marginalization from social to existential: Shakespeare’s marginalization is social/political (they are pawns). Stoppard’s is philosophical: the characters are actors who suspect they are only characters. Their marginality becomes ontological alienation.

• To expose power as depersonalising: When systems are so large and impersonal (political or corporate), people feel they have no subjectivity. Stoppard makes this feeling literal: they are marginal even to their own existence.

This mirrors corporate powerlessness because:

Role ambiguity and loss of meaning: Modern workers often do tasks without seeing the larger purpose (routine, KPI-driven work). Like Stoppard’s pair, they can ask: “Why am I doing this?”

Feeling scripted: Corporate life can feel scripted  employees follow procedures and policies rather than exercising moral judgment. This is similar to Stoppard’s characters who try to understand their lines and directions.

Existential vulnerability: The modern worker’s sense of self can be tied to employment. When jobs are insecure (downsizing, gig economy), identity and meaning are threatened  the same existential anxiety Stoppard stages.

Stoppard’s emphasis is a powerful cultural critique: marginalization is not only a matter of being politically invisible, it can also mean being ontologically marginalised deprived of purpose,agency, and identity

.

4️⃣ Power Structures in Both Works

Compare Shakespeare’s treatment of power in Hamlet to Stoppard’s reimagining. How does each work critique systems that marginalize “little people”? How might Stoppard’s existential take resonate with contemporary issues of job insecurity and corporate control?

Shakespeare (political/monarchical power):

Shakespeare frames power as concentrated and personal. Kings, princes, and courtiers exercise visible authority. The court controls life and death; historical examples (execution of nobles) show the real danger of political power. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are instruments of these visible power struggles: they are used as spies, messengers, and eventual sacrificial pawns. The critique is political: those at the top manipulate human lives to maintain order or advantage.

Stoppard (existential/systemic power):

Stoppard moves the critique into the systemic and philosophical realm. The people who are marginalised are not just socially inferior; they face a universe that may not recognise them as having autonomous being. Power here is structural, impersonal, and absurd. The play suggests modern life (and by extension modern institutions like corporations) can strip people of significance and leave them as nameless extras facing meaningless ends.

How each critiques marginalization:

Shakespeare shows how political systems produce and discard marginal figures for the preservation of the state and dynasty.

Stoppard shows how modern systems (political, cultural, economic) can produce existential marginality  people who lack meaningful roles and whose lives are governed by opaque forces.

Resonance with job insecurity and corporate control:

Stoppard’s depiction of being “on a ship to nowhere” or “actors in a script” mirrors the uncertainty of modern careers: temporary contracts, outsourcing, algorithmic management. Workers may not grasp why decisions are made but suffer consequences anyway. The existential tone intensifies the critique: marginalization is not only losing a job it is losing the narrative that makes life intelligible. Stoppard’s take thus heightens our understanding of how corporate control can be both materially damaging (losing livelihood) and psychologically destructive (losing meaning).

5️⃣ Personal Reflection

In both Hamlet and Stoppard’s reinterpretation, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern mirror the modern experience of being treated as a dispensable asset. Today’s workers, students, and citizens often feel like them valued only for their temporary utility.

This understanding deepens my appreciation of Cultural Studies, as it reveals how literature, across centuries, exposes invisible hierarchies. Through this lens, I realize that marginalization isn’t confined to Elsinore or Stoppard’s stage it persists in everyday structures of our world.

Creative Engagement

Monologue Writing: Create a short monologue for either Rosencrantz or Guildenstern, incorporating modern corporate language to highlight their disempowerment. 

Here I make video with help of AI on this monologue story:  

Title: “Notice of Reassignment — Guildenstern Speaks”

 Ladies and gentlemen of Denmark Inc.,

Thank you for your commitment. Please be advised that your positions will be reassigned. We appreciate your loyalty. Please pack personal items and report to Docking Bay A.

(Beat.)

We were told we were important once. “Come home,” they said. “Help us watch our mad prince.” We came, briefcases open, dignity folded. We asked small questions; we smiled the correct smiles. We were paid in promises and footnotes.

Now there is a memo. It’s very polite. It calls us “personnel adjustments.” It calls us “cost centres.” It calls us everything but human. We are to be exported, redeployed, or quietly deleted.

If there is a moral here, it is this: never mistake utility for love. The kingdom that raises you will also ship you out when the ledger says so. We were not tragic heroes. We were line items. Be warned, employees of the world: the wheel is big, and you are only an annexment.

Conclusion

Both Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead illuminate how systems be they political, cultural, or corporate marginalize individuals. Through Cultural Studies, we see that power is not always visible but always present, shaping who matters and who is forgotten.

Shakespeare began the conversation; Stoppard modernized it. Together, they remind us that to understand literature is to understand life’s hierarchies and our place within them.

 References

Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.” Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, 1971.

Barad, Dilip. “Exploring Marginalization in Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.” ResearchGate, Oct. 2024, www.researchgate.net/publication/385301805_Thinking_Activity_Exploring_Marginalization_in_Shakespeare’s_Hamlet_and_Stoppard’s_Rosencrantz_and_Guildenstern_Are_Dead. Accessed 31 Oct. 2025.

Foucault, Michel. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1980.

Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 1971.

Greenblatt, Stephen. Renaissance Self-Fashioning, 1980.

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Project Gutenberg, 1999.

Stoppard, Tom. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Grove Press, 1967.