It became clear to me while working on my most recent book on Shakespeare that the Bard had already anticipated all of the core themes of what is now called existentialism – the philosophical movement that places, in Sartre’s pithy phrase, existence before essence. The German philosopher Heidegger is one of the core exponents of existentialism and one of his primary concepts was that of Dasein.
For those not familiar with Heidegger’s thought, a good first approximation of the meaning of Dasein is just “human being”. For a variety of reasons, Heidegger wanted to avoid the use of the word “human”. One of those is that he was arguing against “humanism” which he saw as being grounded in the metaphysical tradition that began with the Romans, continued through medieval Christianity, and ended up in modern science.
Heidegger’s notion of Dasein posited both qualities of humanity that had gone unnoticed and also contained a more positive vision for a new kind of life that we could embrace in the modern world. When I say that Shakespeare had already introduced that positive vision, I mean that his works imply the unique qualities of Dasein. In this post, I’ll demonstrate what I mean by applying just two of Heidegger’s most easily understandable ideas to the character of Macbeth.
The first concept we need is “thrownness” (Geworfenheit). Self-evidently, we are thrown into the world at birth. We get no choice in the matter. We are born and we must learn to deal with the situation. That is true in the biological sense that our bodies must adapt and acclimatise. It is also true in the social and familial senses. Our thrownness includes an entire set of socio-cultural relations and practices that we also do not choose but which we must learn to live with. Childhood and adolescence are the phases of life where we must get up to speed with the world around us and learn to fit in.
Of course, even young children are not completely powerless in the world. This raises the second concept of projection (Entwurf). We are thrown into a situation, but we are able to project goals, desires, and plans onto the world. Young children quickly learn that crying is a way to get what they want because when they cry, their parents will attend to them. That is a form of projection in Heidegger’s sense.
There’s an interesting philosophical problem here as relates to whether projection is a uniquely human trait. Doesn’t a pride of lions have a goal in mind when it hunts wildebeest? Doesn’t a spider project its web before spinning it? We might want to say that this kind of animal behaviour is carried out by instinct. In that case, what is missing is consciousness.
Whether consciousness is required for projection, it is nevertheless true that consciousness is a crucial part of existentialist ideas. The kind of projection the existentialists have in mind is active in the sense that it is deliberate as opposed to the passive or reactionary nature of instinctual behaviour. At least in his earlier philosophy, Heidegger foregrounded the notion of self-creation through projection. Sartre and others did the same.
One of the reasons why Shakespeare can be seen as a direct precursor to existentialism is because all of his greatest heroes are uniquely conscious of their situation (their throwness) and are trying to create for themselves a new identity (projection). However, even within the Shakespearean canon, Macbeth stands out as an exponent of self-creation because he tries to create for himself an identity that is forbidden to him. He wants to become king. More importantly, what Shakespeare shows us is the manner in which Macbeth firstly projects that identity and then wrestles with the issues raised by his own desire. That is why Macbeth is the consummate existentialist hero and an exponent of what Heidegger would later call Dasein.
Existentialism says that we are thrown into the world at birth and we must learn to adapt to the physical, biological, and socio-cultural milieu in which we find ourselves. This adaptation is a necessary part of growing up. However, it can lead to a form of living that the existentialists called inauthentic. Inauthenticity is the passive acceptance of our thrownness. We learn to fit into the world by shrinking ourselves down, curbing our desires so that we become unthreatening. By contrast, the authentic form of life is to take full possession of our projective capacities and create our own identity.
It can’t be a coincidence that arguably the two most important historical figures that inspired both existentialism and modern Western culture more generally were Socrates and Jesus. Both of them lived authentic lives which brought them into opposition with their societies to such an extent that those societies had them put to death. Thus, although it might sound nice to want to live “authentically”, in fact, it invariably brings us into conflict with friends, family, and the wider culture. In the most extreme examples, this conflict involves the potential of death. The most authentic form of being occurs when we are willing to place our lives on the line. That is why the subject of death takes an elevated position in existentialist thinking.
That is another reason why Shakespeare can be seen as an existentialist because he makes all of his greatest heroes put their lives on the line by pursuing a course of action that brings them into conflict with society. Macbeth stands out here also because his desire brings him into conflict with his own king and therefore the entire set of socio-political relations that forms the world into which he was thrown at birth. Let’s begin our exploration by understanding the world into which Macbeth is thrown.
Remember, thrownness is about the world we are thrust into at birth, which we have no choice about, and which we must spend the early part of our life learning how to navigate. Macbeth is born into the aristocracy of feudal Scotland. The social role of an aristocratic male of that era entailed military training as well as learning how to govern one’s estate. Macbeth has the title of thane which he would have inherited from his father. He is expected to do his duty to carry on the tradition of his family.
The role of thane had a key place in the larger system of social and political relations known as feudalism. A thane owned land and had to manage that land in order to contribute to his society economically. A thane needed military training so that he could perform when called upon by his king. Since Macbeth is cousin to King Duncan in the story, it is clear that he is a direct retainer of the king and must have sworn personal allegiance to him, probably at a young age. Macbeth is duty-bound to follow the instructions of his king.
Our throwness does not remain fixed throughout our life. It changes and evolves over time. In Shakespeare’s play, Macbeth’s throwness at the beginning of the story includes the fact that he is an experienced warrior probably in his 30s or 40s. King Duncan’s kingdom is under attack from a combination of Norwegian invaders and traitorous thanes. A crucial battle is underway and the enemy is winning. At the last moment, Macbeth and his best friend Banquo snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
What does this show? It shows that Macbeth is a faithful, loyal, and powerful servant to his king. His military prowess has been the difference been victory and defeat. He is also a good friend to Banquo and a good husband to his wife, having earned the spoils of war and increased the size of his estate. By the classical standards of the ancient and medieval worlds, Macbeth is a paragon of virtue.
What Shakespeare gives us in the opening scenes of the play is a model of the ideal warrior. But the story of Macbeth is not a medieval myth where the good guys defeat the bad guys or where the hero dies a glorious death. The Bard gives Macbeth a completely different challenge, one that is perfectly in keeping with later existentialist ideas. Macbeth is going to attempt to live an authentic life by creating his own identity.
To understand this, we must bear in mind that authority in the feudal system was absolute. The king’s command was the equivalent of the word of God. Macbeth may be the greatest warrior in the kingdom, but he did not choose the war. Rather, he was following orders from Duncan. Similarly, his receipt of the spoils of war comes not because he takes them but because Duncan bestows them on him. In fact, what Duncan is bestowing on Macbeth is more responsibility and therefore more subservience.
Now, we may say that all of this is exactly how it should be. Macbeth has proven his valour and his loyalty. A just society should reward such men and promote them to the highest offices. Existentialism is not concerned with those kinds of questions. It proceeds from the starting point of the individual, not the public good.
It is natural for us to embrace the thrownness of our existence. Our parents, our friends, and our society all want us to fit in. Most people also have a strong desire to fit in. This is especially true of the adolescent period of life, where being excluded from social groupings can be a major blow to self-esteem. Not only do we try and fit in, we usually try our best to excel.
That is what Shakespeare shows us with Macbeth. To be born a thane is no great achievement. It is just an accident of birth. Macbeth’s excellence as a warrior is something he must have attained through training and dedication. He has excelled in life, but his excellence has been entirely in service to his society. Therefore, Macbeth has only ever done what he was told to do. There is no ambiguity about that. It is exactly his role as a retainer to the king.
Let’s recall the existentialist ideas around projection and authenticity. Projection is about the goals that we pursue in life. Every society has a set of default social scripts that constitute a kind of projection because they set goals for us. We should grow up, get married, find a job, get a house, etc. To the extent that we adopt and embrace these goals, society will reward us in just the same way that King Duncan rewards Macbeth following the battle.
Providing rewards for performing well on command is how we train dogs or other animals. It promotes mindlessness. That is why, viewed existentially, Macbeth has been living unauthentically because he has always been following someone else’s orders and being rewarded for performing well on command. The projections that Macbeth has been following are only those given to him by society.
If Macbeth is going to live authentically, he needs to start to set his own agenda and to create his own identity. That is where the classic scene from early in the play comes into the picture. The three witches plant a different idea, a new projection, into Macbeth’s mind: the idea of becoming king. In order to achieve that, however, he will need to go against his society for the first time in his life.
Let’s set aside here all the debates about who is responsible for this idea. An argument can be made that Macbeth has simply swapped one set of ideas that were not his for a different set. You can say that the witches and Lady Macbeth have now taken over his projection. However, that misses the crucial point. What is required is for Macbeth to take responsibility for himself and, for a brief time in the story, that is exactly what he does.
Responsibility is a core concept in existentialism. If you are going to create yourself, then it is self evident that you must take responsibility because there can be nobody else to blame. The reason why people prefer to live inauthentically is precisely because they avoid responsibility. That’s what the Nuremberg defence is. I was just doing my job. I was just following orders. Society gives us readymade excuses by which we can justify our actions, allowing us to place the blame elsewhere.
Thus, if Macbeth is going to live authentically, he will need to take complete responsibility for his actions. One of the ways that Shakespeare shows us that is by giving Macbeth no ulterior motives for either his behaviour or for his desire. To understand that, we can contrast Macbeth with two other characters from Shakespeare’s oeuvre: Richard II and Henry IV.
Richard II is a bad king who treats Henry Bolingbroke unjustly. Bolingbroke uses this as an excuse to lead a rebellion. After the success of the rebellion, he takes the throne for himself. Did Bolingbroke always want to be king? Did he just use Richard II’s injustices as an excuse to take power? That is what Shakespeare implies in Henry IV. If that’s true, we say that Bolingbroke acted inauthentically. He lacked the courage to admit to himself what he really wanted.
Such excuses are entirely absent in the story of Macbeth. Duncan is a good and just king who handsomely rewards his servant for his valour in battle. Macbeth fully acknowledges that he has no personal grounds against the king, and there are no larger social, political, or moral reasons why Duncan should be deposed. Because there are no ulterior motives in play, Macbeth has no choice but to confront the truth of his own desire. He simply wants to be king. There is nothing more to it.
As a result, Macbeth’s desire has a childlike quality to it. Children simply want what they want. They feel no need to make excuses why. It is mostly during adolescence that we are taught the social scripts that we are to follow, and these amount to a series of ulterior motives. Why do I need to be educated? So you can get a job. Why do I need a job? So you can earn money. Why do I need money? So you can buy food and shelter. To a very large extent, learning to be an adult is learning to follow this chain of ulterior motives. In civilisation, this chain becomes so large that we get lost in it and we justify all of our actions according to ulterior motives. We never do anything Just Because™.
Authenticity in the existentialist sense is predicated on rediscovering the simplicity of wanting something Just Because™. Shakespeare shows us this by giving Macbeth no ulterior motives at all. He simply wants to be king. There is no further explanation. Because of that, Macbeth cannot make any excuses either to himself or to his society. There is not a single reason he can use to convince others why he should be king.
That brings us to yet another core existentialist concept: conscience. Macbeth cannot justify his desires or actions to anybody else, but he does engage in a magnificent battle with his own conscience both before committing the fateful deed and then immediately after. That is what makes him authentic in the existentialist sense.
Children want something Just Because™ and have no moral qualms about getting it. The same is not true of adults. Adults must take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. That is why it is far more difficult to live authentically as an adult. Not only will society punish us, we are also answerable to our own conscience for the consequences of our actions. What the existentialists noted, however, was that most people never activate their conscience. They live entirely according to the rewards and punishments of society. That is why, in Kierkegaard’s phrase, it is a blessing to despair. The battle against one’s own conscience is greater than any fought on a the field of war.
From an existentialist point of view, Macbeth’s downfall in the second half of the play is precisely that he stops listening to his conscience. Instead, he places his fate entirely in the hands of the three witches and their magic. Macbeth fails the existentialist test by returning to inauthenticity. He starts the play blindly following his king and ends it blindly following the three old hags.
What distinguishes Macbeth, however, is that he makes the attempt to live authentically by honestly confronting his own desire and weighing it against his conscience. He fails the test, but not in the way that most people imagine. To become king (of yourself) implies that there is no higher authority you can turn to for atonement. That is why existential responsibility is an enormous burden and why even the great warrior Macbeth scampers back to the witches to try and escape it.