As in my previous three posts, I'm share my Philosophy Fluency podcast script. This one below is for episode 5, Season 13, which explores a selection of my research thoughts on Cavendish and Shakespeare after attending the Cavendish on Literature conference last month.
For the reference bibliography of works cited in this episode, see the end of this blog post.
This episode is available to listen to on demand on Spotify 🔗
🎧
Hello and welcome to Philosophy Fluency, Season 13, episode 5. This week in London, UK, we have another heatwave so, I'll pour out some iced coffee and begin exploring a slightly different research angle to the trans reading of Shakespeare's character of Ariel in his play 'The Tempest' and Margaret Cavendish's character of the Princess in her play: 'The Convent of Pleasure'.
My discussion is within the fields of the History of Philosophy; Aesthetics, in particular the philosophy of literature and the philosophy of theatre; the Philosophy of Gender; LGBTQIAPD2S+ Philosophy; and Intersectional Feminist Philosophy.
In this episode, I shall continue to disseminate some of my latest Cavendish research thoughts and show its relevance to recent scholarship in academia.
In this episode, I shall take the parallel between Shakespeare's Ariel and Cavendish's Princess that Robin Haas draws in their paper, when she reads both these characters as transwomen.
I am currently exploring the following research questions:
Why read Ariel as being a transwoman as opposed to being a non-binary character? Such as either androgenous, which is a trans non-binary gender identity; or as genderfluid, which isn't an inherently transgender identity, that depends on whether the person or fictional character is still partially cisgender or not.
If there is a parallel to be drawn between Ariel and the Princess, then, if we were to interpret Ariel as non-binary, would this give us a non-binary understanding of the Princess or not?
If the Princess is non-binary, would this be a trans non-binary gender identity, such as essentially gender neutral, or androgynous? Or would the Princess be more like a third gender, akin to those in other cultures, such as the Muxes in Mexico who are often born male but present as non-binary or trans feminine and undertake female gender roles and jobs alongside women in female spaces? Or would the Princess be genderfluid, like the ever shape shifting character of Ariel? Would the Princess be a trans or non-trans type of genderfluid person?
Or, if we understand Robin Haas's argument to amount to the Princess as being more in line with being trans feminine rather than fully a trans woman, then would we end up with the Princess being somewhat non-binary, as in a feminine-aligned non-binary person?
Or, do the similarities and differences between Ariel and the Princess simply tell us that attempts to draw parallels break down? Why? Because, one could argue, Ariel is a spirit or somewhat non-human therefore inherently more genderless and shape shifting, whereas the Princess is very much a human being, hence gender and social roles and expectations and forming real relationships is a far more relevant concept to explore than it is with Ariel.
It would seem that Mary Ann Saunders's trans focused reading of Ariel¹, and Robin Elizabeth Haas's trans reading of the Princess² are unusual within Shakespeare and Cavendish scholarship.
In terms of LGBTQ+ readings of Ariel, especially within English Literature scholarship:
It is more typical of gender diverse approaches to interpretations of Ariel to argue that Ariel is a non-binary, perhaps a genderfluid, or an androgynous or a genderless character.
A standard reading of Ariel (on educational platforms) is described thus, and I quote:
"Ariel's gender is flexible, interpreted differently over time, enhancing his magical quality in the play."³
"Over the years, Ariel has been played by both male and female actors, and the character’s gender is open to artistic interpretation."⁴
For instance, in the Elizabethan times, in Shakespeare's era, the role of Ariel was played by young male actors because women by and large were not allowed to go into the acting profession. Later, in the Restoration period, the character of Ariel was played by women. This is perhaps relevant to our understanding of Robin Haas's interpretative approach, given that their research interest and specialisation apparently lies in the Restoration period, because her PhD student profile on the Department of English section of the Rutgers University website states, and I quote:
"They are particularly interested in questions of identity and performance on the Restoration stage and at the 18th-century masquerade"⁵
So perhaps there's some Restoration period staging assumptions at work within Robin Haas's trans approach to Shakespeare's and Cavendish's plays.
Nevertheless, more standard readings of Ariel highlight that Ariel is referred to using masculine pronouns during the play, including within stage directions (stating "his wings") and Ariel refers to himself with a male pronoun when he talks about "his quality"⁶.
Nonetheless, some explain away any masculine pronouns by reminding us that this might simply be the playwrighting convention of Shakespeare's time, given that all actors were men.
However, Jamieson points out in this educational resource that, and I quote:
"Consequently, directors have never taken a hard stance on Ariel's gender. In many ways, this is fitting, as the sexlessness of this spirit helps to perpetuate the airy magical quality for which Ariel is famous."⁷
Hence, for instance, other scholars and graduate students have explored the idea that Ariel is better understood as a non-binary character, outside of the male/female gender binary. For example, in the MA thesis: 'Gendering “Ariel and all his Quality” (I.II.193): Nonbinary Embodiment in Text and Performances of The Tempest.', Goga argues for a non-binary understanding of Ariel⁸. I've only just discovered this MA thesis, but I'd be interested to read it in more detail. What I can initially gather from the thesis abstract, is that this argument may amount to a trans non-binary, and more specifically, an androgenous, interpretation of Ariel⁹. Goga mentions that trans interpretations of Ariel are rare and feels that readings and some stagings of Ariel tend to fall into the gender binary of either masculine or feminine depictions¹⁰.
Do join me early next week for more Philosophy Fluency, in which I build on this week's episode. In the meantime, enjoy the sunshine!
Works cited in this episode:
¹Joubin, Alexa Alice, and Mary Ann S. Saunders. ‘The Tempest as Trans Archive: An Interview with Scholar Mary Ann S. Saunders’. Borrowers and Lenders The Journal of Shakespeare Appropriations 14, no. 2 (28 April 2023): 117–24. doi:10.18274/bl.v14i2.351.
https://borrowersojsazsu.tdl.org/borrowers/article/view/35
²Haas, Robin Elizabeth. ‘Collaboration, Publication, and Queer/Trans Recognition in Margaret Cavendish’s The Convent of Pleasure’. University of Southampton, (2025).
³Jamieson, Lee. ‘Who Was Ariel in Shakespeare’s “The Tempest?”’ ThoughtCo. (Updated on February 04, 2020) Last Accessed 9 July 2025.
https://www.thoughtco.com/ariel-in-the-tempest-2985274.
⁴Ibid
⁵Department of English. ‘Details’. Accessed 9 July 2025.
https://english.rutgers.edu/people/graduate-student-profiles/details.html?start=30.
⁶Jamieson (2020)
⁷Ibid
⁸Goga, Aurora Jonathan. 'Gendering “Ariel and all his Quality” (I.II.193): Nonbinary Embodiment in Text and Performances of The Tempest.' Master’s Thesis in English Literature and Culture, Department of Foreign Languages, University of Bergen (May 2022)
⁹Ibid
¹⁰Ibid
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.