ABSTRACT

William Shakespeare is revered internationally as the greatest playwright in the English language, yet education reform in the English speaking world is informed primarily by the market order promoted by economists such as Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, rather than the kind of humanism we might associate with Shakespeare. This is significant, as the economic theory that guides contemporary education policy draws upon ideas about the self and society that are rejected by Shakespeare in his plays. For example, Antony and Cleopatra exposes the aridity of social theory that denies the value of irrationality, Macbeth reveals the danger of moral flexibility and King Lear challenges the wisdom of commodification. The utility of Shakespeare’s plays as means to explore our present socioeconomic system has long been acknowledged and stems from Shakespeare’s location at the junction between feudalism and capitalism: writing against this breach, Renaissance playwrights were uniquely positioned to reflect upon the nascent market order. 1 In addition, the study of Shakespeare’s plays enables us to interrogate the Renaissance values that are considered by Hayek to be foundational to the neoliberal project. 2 Since the banking crisis of 2007-08, there has been mounting concern over governance in states that have embraced neoliberal policy. Various writers have attempted to explain the increasing gulf between rich and poor; home owners and renters; the educated and those who lack access to education (see for example Noam Chomsky’s discussion of social tensions, 3 Thomas Piketty’s analysis of the market order 4 and Stephen Ball’s critique of neoliberal education reform). 5 Although these writers identify the practical shortcomings of neoliberal economic policy and articulate their objections to what Michael Sandel describes as neoliberalism’s dehumanising and debasing social policy, 6 the basis of the ideas they identify as hazardous remains hazy.