Deconstructing the Archetypal Self-Other Dichotomy in William Shakespeare’s The Tempest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shakespeare’s The Tempest (1610-1611) is one of the controversial plays regarding whether to be placed in the purview of colonialism or anti-colonialism. The bard sketches two antithetical characters in the course of the play, Prospero and Caliban, who form the two extremes of the self against the other dichotomy. This study aims at proving Shakespeare’s proclaimed presuppositions at the realm of colonialism through his attempt to deconstruct the dichotomic discourse of colonialism via these two characters. The study also explains how the play starts with structuring two binary-oppositional spheres to lead readers eventually to question the very purpose of colonialism, which dehumanizes the colonized people. The data used in this study are generated through both primary and secondary sources of data collection, (i.e. the paly and other studies that give input to the discourse of the study). The paper moreover, focuses on Abdul R. JanMohamad’s concept of Manicheanism allegory to examine the backdrop of postcolonial view of self/other dichotomy. A critical discourse narrative technique is employed in the discussion section of the study based on the deconstruction apparatus, such as binary opposition, Manicheanism allegory and symbolism. The study also refers to Shakespeare’s symbolism of Prospero as a character who can be perceived as Columbus himself, and consequently as the representative of the colonial enterprise. At the end of the play, therefore, the language of Prospero becomes noticeably less hegemonic, as he realizes that the individuals on the island should be emancipated from his dominance. In this way, Prospero becomes the mouthpiece of Shakespeare himself, who conveys counter-colonial beliefs, such as the confusion of the biological and the cultural, and the colonizers’ claim of their superiority, over the colonized; and thus, their right to dominate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".