Hamlet in Cultural Studies

“Cultural Studies Perspective on Power, Hierarchy, and Human Existence in Shakespear's Hamlet”

This blog is part of our educational activity under the guidance of Prof. Dilip Barad, Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University (MKBU). It applies a Cultural Studies perspective to explore how marginalized voices operate within canonical literary works.

Introduction:

From a Cultural Studies perspective, Hamlet is not only a psychological tragedy but also a reflection of power structures, authority, and social inequality. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who appear as Hamlet’s childhood friends, become instruments of royal power—used by King Claudius to spy on Hamlet. Their lack of autonomy and eventual offstage deaths symbolize how individuals at the lower end of authority are controlled, silenced, and discarded by dominant forces.

Through this lens, Shakespeare’s play exposes the hierarchical nature of Elizabethan society, where loyalty to power often leads to moral compromise and self-erasure. The marginalization of these two characters thus becomes a mirror of how the powerful exploit the powerless, a theme that continues to resonate in modern discussions of culture, class, and institutional control.

🟠 Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as Marginal Figures in Hamlet 

In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are portrayed as marginal figures who exist on the periphery of power and meaning. Though introduced as Hamlet’s childhood friends, their identities are quickly overshadowed by their role as instruments of the king’s authority. Summoned by Claudius to spy on Hamlet and report his behavior, they become pawns in the political game of the royal court.

They lack independence and self-awareness, blindly following orders without questioning the morality of their actions. Within the hierarchical structure of the play, they embody those who serve power without possessing it. Hamlet himself exposes their superficial loyalty, ridiculing their obedience and ultimately using their own mission against them.

Their offstage deaths and brief mention in the final act highlight their insignificance to the larger narrative. Through these characters, Shakespeare reveals how the powerless are used and discarded by the powerful, exposing the exploitative nature of social and political systems.

From a Cultural Studies perspective, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern symbolize the marginalized individuals in society—the “little people” whose lives are controlled by authority and whose existence reflects the imbalance of power within the cultural hierarchy.

Hamlet’s “Sponge” Metaphor and the Expendability of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern

In Hamlet, the prince’s description of Rosencrantz as a “sponge” (Act IV, Scene II) serves as a sharp metaphor that exposes their expendability within the political hierarchy of Elsinore. Hamlet tells Rosencrantz that he “soaks up the king’s countenance, his rewards, his authorities,” meaning that he and Guildenstern absorb the king’s favor and carry out his orders, only to be discarded when no longer useful.

This image of the sponge vividly illustrates how those close to power are used as instruments of authority rather than independent individuals. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are rewarded with temporary status and trust, but this privilege is hollow—it exists only as long as they serve Claudius’s interests. When the king no longer needs them, he will “squeeze” them dry, leaving them empty and disposable.

From a Cultural Studies viewpoint, this metaphor reflects the imbalance of power that defines both the royal court and broader social structures. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern represent the subordinate class—individuals whose loyalty to the dominant system ensures their own marginalization. Their inability to recognize their exploitation mirrors the condition of those in society who unknowingly sustain oppressive hierarchies.

Ultimately, the “sponge” metaphor encapsulates the tragedy of their existence: they are absorbed by the system of power that eventually consumes them. Shakespeare uses this image to critique how authority manipulates and discards the powerless, turning human beings into mere tools of political convenience.

🟠 Modern Parallels to Corporate Power

The marginalization of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Shakespeare’s Hamlet strongly mirrors the experiences of modern workers in global corporate systems. Both are caught in structures where power flows from the top, and those at the bottom are treated as temporary and expendable. Through a Cultural Studies lens, their situation reflects social inequality, economic exploitation, and the loss of individual identity in systems of control.

🔹 1. Use and Disposability

In Hamlet, King Claudius uses Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as tools to spy on Hamlet and gather information for his political advantage. Similarly, in today’s corporate world, employees are often valued only for their immediate usefulness to company goals. When their function ends—such as during downsizing or restructuring—they are easily dismissed.

This shows that both in the royal court and in modern capitalism, individuals are not valued for who they are but for what they can provide. Once their purpose is fulfilled, they become disposable assets, reflecting the harsh reality of hierarchical control.

🔹 2. The “Sponge” Metaphor and Corporate Absorption

When Hamlet calls Rosencrantz a “sponge”, he exposes how they absorb the king’s rewards and words, only to be “squeezed” dry when no longer needed.

This metaphor applies perfectly to corporate systems where workers absorb company values, culture, and workload but are ultimately drained of creativity and replaced when profit demands change. The “sponge” becomes a symbol of how people lose individuality and autonomy in pursuit of institutional approval.

🔹 3. Power Hierarchies and Exploitation

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern represent those who serve without understanding the motives of those in power. In corporations, workers similarly operate under top-down decision-making, where executives control policies while employees bear the consequences of decisions like relocation or layoffs.

This structure reflects systemic inequality—the same kind of imbalance that Shakespeare dramatizes through royal politics, where loyalty to power offers no true security.

🔹 4. Cultural Studies Perspective

From a Cultural Studies viewpoint, both Shakespeare’s monarchy and modern capitalism function as systems of control and exclusion. They sustain themselves through obedience, hierarchy, and the exploitation of those with less power.

This interpretation allows us to see Hamlet not merely as a personal tragedy but as a social commentary on institutional domination, connecting Elizabethan politics to global corporate culture.

🔹 5. Reflection on Modern Displacement

Just as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are removed from the narrative and die unseen, modern workers facing corporate downsizing experience similar erasure—losing identity, voice, and stability.

Their fate mirrors the emotional and economic displacement caused by globalization, automation, and profit-driven policies in today’s world.

🟠 Existential Questions in Stoppard’s Reinterpretation

• Reimagining the Marginal Figures

Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead reinterprets Shakespeare’s minor courtiers as central figures, yet this shift ironically amplifies their existential insignificance. In Hamlet, they exist on the edges of power—used by the king and dismissed by the prince. Stoppard brings them to the center only to reveal the emptiness of that position. As they search for purpose, their dialogue becomes circular, echoing the absurdist theatre tradition of Beckett’s Waiting for Godot.

“We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us.” – Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead

This line captures their trapped existence — moving without progress, speaking without clarity, and living without control.

•  Identity and Meaning in an Indifferent World

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern constantly question who they are and what they are meant to do. Their confusion over names, memory, and purpose mirrors the loss of self in modern society. Like individuals in bureaucratic or corporate structures, they perform duties without understanding the system they serve.

Stoppard’s world denies them stability; every attempt at meaning dissolves into chance. The coin toss that always lands on heads symbolizes a universe without logic, where randomness replaces reason and fate mocks free will.

•  From Tragedy to Absurdity

In Shakespeare’s tragedy, the courtiers’ deaths are barely mentioned. Stoppard, however, magnifies their deaths into a philosophical statement about human insignificance. Their realization — “There must have been a moment… when we could have said no” — expresses the modern individual’s illusion of choice within systems that have already defined their outcome.

Here, death loses its moral or emotional weight; it becomes routine, almost bureaucratic — much like the mechanized processes of modern life that consume individuality.

 Reflection of Modern Alienation

Stoppard’s reinterpretation transforms Hamlet’s political hierarchy into a metaphor for the modern world’s structural control. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern resemble ordinary people trapped in institutions where they are known only by their functions, not their humanity. Their growing awareness that they are “secondary players” parallels the existential alienation of workers who realize their dispensability in corporate or global systems.

Even as they gain consciousness of their fate, they remain unable to alter it — a powerful symbol of modern helplessness.

 Philosophical Insight

The universe of Stoppard’s play is silent and indifferent. No divine or moral authority guides them, echoing existential thinkers like Albert Camus, who saw life as inherently absurd. Meaning must be constructed through human effort, yet Stoppard’s characters fail to achieve it. Their death, accepted without protest, reflects the human struggle to find significance in a meaningless world.

Cultural and Economic Power Structures

•  Power and Hierarchy in Hamlet

In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, society operates through a rigid hierarchy where power flows downward—from the throne to courtiers, from rulers to subjects. Within this political system, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern exist as “little people”, instruments used by King Claudius to spy on Hamlet. Their loyalty is not rewarded with respect or safety; rather, they become disposable extensions of royal authority.

Hamlet’s description of Rosencrantz as a “sponge that soaks up the king’s favor” perfectly captures this dynamic. It shows how individuals within a power structure absorb the will of those above them, only to be “squeezed out” when their usefulness ends. This critique of monarchy and social hierarchy reflects Shakespeare’s broader understanding of how power dehumanizes and objectifies subordinates.

 Stoppard’s Reimagining: From Political to Existential Power

Tom Stoppard, in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, reworks Shakespeare’s political world into a philosophical and economic allegory of modern life. The power once embodied by kings and princes becomes symbolic of institutional and systemic control—the invisible mechanisms of modern bureaucracies and corporations.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are no longer just victims of royal politics; they are caught in an absurd system that mirrors modern capitalism, where human beings are treated as replaceable parts in a vast machine. Their fate is decided not by moral failure but by structural inevitability—they exist merely to perform functions that lead to their own erasure.

“There must have been a moment… when we could have said no.” – Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead

This line reflects the illusion of autonomy within systems that determine human roles long before individuals act. Stoppard transforms Shakespeare’s political tragedy into an existential commentary on the loss of agency in modern economies.

 Contemporary Resonances: Job Insecurity and Global Systems

Stoppard’s reinterpretation powerfully resonates with contemporary issues of job insecurity and corporate control. In today’s globalized world, workers often face the same displacement that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern experience—being valued only for their function, not their identity. When companies downsize, relocate, or automate labor, employees are treated as expendable “assets,” echoing the way Shakespeare’s courtiers are sacrificed to maintain royal order.

Through this lens, Stoppard’s play becomes a metaphor for the modern corporate condition, where individuals navigate systems that promise stability but deliver alienation.

 Comparative Critique of Power

While Shakespeare critiques feudal authority and loyalty built on manipulation, Stoppard critiques postmodern structures of control—those rooted in economics, technology, and existential uncertainty. Both playwrights expose how systems marginalize the powerless, though their contexts differ: one political, the other philosophical.

In both worlds, the “little people” remain voiceless. Whether under a king’s command or a corporation’s contract, they are defined by usefulness, not humanity.

Through their respective portrayals of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, both Shakespeare and Stoppard reveal how cultural and economic systems perpetuate marginalization. Shakespeare’s Renaissance court and Stoppard’s modern absurdity share a single truth: those without power are often unseen, unheard, and ultimately erased. Stoppard’s existential lens intensifies this truth for the modern era, reflecting a world where identity and labor are constantly under threat. The transformation from royal servitude to corporate vulnerability marks not progress, but continuity — a persistent reminder of how deeply the structures of power shape human destiny.

Personal Reflection

Studying the marginalization of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Hamlet and Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead has reshaped my understanding of how power operates in both literature and life. In Shakespeare’s world, these two characters are tools of authority—used, manipulated, and ultimately discarded once their purpose is served. They represent individuals who exist on the edges of power, visible only when needed and forgotten when they are no longer useful. This treatment reflects how human worth is often measured by function rather than by individuality.

In today’s global and corporate culture, this same pattern continues in a different form. Workers in large companies, employees in temporary contracts, and even young professionals in competitive markets are often treated as dispensable assets—valued for their productivity but ignored as people. The uncertainty and insecurity they experience mirror Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s helplessness in the face of royal command or fate. Both are trapped in systems that define their lives without their consent. The emotional distance between the powerful and the powerless remains a striking constant across centuries.

Through this comparison, Cultural Studies helps me see literature not as a distant artistic product, but as a mirror to human realities. It teaches that marginalization is not merely a theme—it is a structure of experience shaped by culture, economy, and ideology. By analyzing how Shakespeare and Stoppard represent the powerless, I can better understand how cultural narratives still control the way people think about success, hierarchy, and human value.

Ultimately, the fate of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern invites me to question the moral cost of progress and power in modern life. Their story urges us to look beyond systems of control—to restore a sense of empathy and individuality in a world that often rewards conformity and forgets humanity. This reflection strengthens my belief that Cultural Studies is not only about reading texts but also about reading the world, critically and compassionately.

Conclusion

Through a Cultural Studies lens, both Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead reveal how power systems shape, use, and ultimately silence marginalized individuals. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, though minor in appearance, embody the struggles of those trapped within hierarchies—whether royal, corporate, or existential. Their roles expose the cyclical nature of domination, where the powerless are absorbed, controlled, and discarded by those who hold authority.

Stoppard’s reinterpretation transforms their quiet tragedy into a reflection on modern alienation, showing how individuals lose identity and purpose in institutional and economic systems. Together, both texts illuminate a persistent truth across centuries: that human value is often measured by utility rather than individuality.

By linking Elizabethan politics to modern capitalism and existential uncertainty, this study highlights how literature mirrors the structures of real life. Cultural Studies thus enables us not just to read texts, but to read the world—to recognize patterns of control, question systems of hierarchy, and affirm the enduring human need for autonomy, dignity, and meaning.

References:

• Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Fingerprint! Publishing, 2015.
• Hamlet: Entire Play. shakespeare.mit.edu/hamlet/full.html.
• Google Books. www.google.co.in/books/edition/Real_and_Imaginary_Spaces_in_Tom_Stoppar/0gxkEQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=3.+Tom+Stoppard+%E2%80%94+Rosencrantz+and+Guildenstern+Are+Dead&pg=PT146&printsec=frontcover.

•