Elle Miller

Chris Young
Philosophy 105
21th November 2014

Neither thexterior nor the inward man - Hamlet and Personal Identity

Its a dark, cold winter night outside Elsinore Castle in Denmark. An officer named
Bernardo comes walking along the guard platform to relieve the watchman Francisco of
his duties. In the depths of darkness, the men cannot see each other. Bernardo hears a
footstep near him and, in surprise, cries, Whos there?1
Most readers know and remember William Shakespeares tragic play Hamlet for the
main character Hamlets famous to be or not to be speech (and some can recite it in
their sleep), or they nod and smile in recognition when Hamlet says to Ophelia, get thee
to a nunnery,2 or they can clearly imagine the scene of the traveling players dramatic
reenactment of the late King Hamlets death by the hand of the usurper Claudius. But in
many cases the reader overlooks the very first line in the play, spoken by a minor
character - Whos there? Hamlet significantly begins with an urgent questioning of
identity: the question, whos there, an alternate of who are you, which is a motif that
carries a significant theme echoed throughout the entire play, and is used to develop the
1

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Edited by Philip Edwards. Cambridge

[Cambridgeshire]: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
2

Ibid.

inner conflict of the main character, Hamlet. Who am I? Society references ones
personal identity as what makes one the person one is, what makes one an individual
and different from others, or it is the way one sees or defines oneself, the network of
values and convictions that structure a persons life. Hamlet is a character whose actions
and inactions are driven by his struggle to define himself in the dichotomy between
inward and outward identity. The question of whos there, a question posed in the
beginning externally from one character to another, is the question Hamlet asks himself
throughout the play, and Hamlets thoughts and actions are windows into this mindset.
Hamlet is a character threatened by this question, and the dichotomy of the definition of
identity between the outer man, which is the man that is a cultural subject, and the inner
man, which is the consciousness. I will argue that in the course of the play, Hamlet is at
war with the finding of meaning in these dual concepts of identity, but Hamlets thoughts,
speech, and actions, in opposition to himself and other characters convey that for Hamlet
the reality of identity lies within the individual, and that at the end of the play, his
statement This is I, / the Dane,3 ultimately reinforces the philosophical claim that
philosophers John Locke and Elizabeth Wolgast make that states that identity exists in the
consciousness and the self. In this paper, I will prove this by looking at several
philosophical viewpoints on personal identity, and specifically at Hamlets conversation
with the ghost of his father in Act I, scene V, the implications of Hamlets insanity, and
Hamlets final fights with Laertes in Act V, scene i and scene ii, beside Ophelias grave,
to show the progression of Hamlets mindset on personal identity.

Ibid.

The question of inward versus outward identity is made complex by the nature of
the issue itself because in this context identity is not simple, but polarized. That is, it
compromises a total concept whose two conflicting aspects are public and private, or
what the character Claudius terms thexterior4 and the inward man5 (Hamlet 2.2.4).
To address this issue in Hamlet, and answer the question of identity at the fundamental
level, the connection and dichotomy of inward and outward dimensions of identity must
first be determined. Seventeenth century philosopher John Locke, in his philosophical
work An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, gives an argument for inner
identity, stating, Consciousness makes personal identity For, since consciousness
always accompanies thinking, and it is that which makes every one to be what he calls
self, and thereby distinguishes himself from all other thinking things, in this alone
consists personal identity, i.e. the sameness of a rational being: and as far as this
consciousness can be extended backwards to any past action or thought, so far reaches
the identity of that person; it is the same self now it was then6 In this statement Locke
is saying that identity not only exists in the consciousness, wherever that may exist, but
consists entirely of the consciousness. Contemporary professor of Philosophy Elizabeth
Wolgast, in her philosophical article Personal Identity: Many Criteria, provides
explanation for many of the ways in which society defines the self, from practical to

Ibid.

Ibid.

Locke, John. "Of Identity and Diversity." In An Essay Concerning Human

Understanding. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.

idealistic criteria, and states, Each of us is a particular and enduring person. We change
in many ways over time but our identity remains the same a centre which holds what
is most intimately involved in someones conscious life.7 In this statement Wolgast is
making a point that is similar to Lockes that states that though one changes in many
ways over time, identity remains constant in the self.
Conversely to these points of view, English theorists Jeffrey T. Nealon and Susan
Searls Giroux, in the chapter on Subjectivity in their analytical theory-based textbook
The Theory Toolbox, discuss the dichotomy between the self and the subject, as
factions of identity, stating, We tend to think of the self as that which is primary,
untouched by cultural influences. We like to believe that our selfhood is the essence of
our unique individuality: the intrinsic, singular qualities that define us as who we are to
understand the self as an inwardly generated phenomenon, a notion of personhood
based on the particular (yet strangely abstract) qualities that make us who we are. On the
other hand, the subject is an outwardly generated concept, an effect, an understanding of
personhood based on the social laws or codes to which we are made to answeralways
understood in reference to preexisting social conditions and categories.8 This statement
gives an argument counter to Lockes and Wolgasts, that humans are cultural subjects,
and the product is identity. Thus, through these three viewpoints, I have set up the
conflicted issue of outer versus inner identity.

7
8

Wolgast, E. (1999), Personal Identity. Philosophical Investigations, 22: 297311.

Nealon, Jeffrey T., and Susan Searls Giroux. Subjectivity. In The Theory Toolbox: Critical
Concepts for the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc, 2012. p. 36-37.

In Hamlet, the plot focuses around Prince Hamlets struggle to fulfill his promise to
his dead father, to seek revenge on his uncle and thus to claim his destiny, or decide
which destiny he will choose, or determine whether or not he even has a destiny at all.
The first major indication of Hamlets identity crisis comes in the scene where Hamlet
meets his fathers ghost, setting up the issue of identity for the rest of the play. In the
darkness, the ghost speaks out to Hamlet, claiming to be the spirit of Hamlets father,
calling Hamlet to revenge his death. The ghosts story confirms Hamlets fears about his
murderous uncle, and when the dawn breaks, the ghost disappears, and Hamlet, intensely
moved by the bold reality of the situation, swears to remember and obey the ghost. As he
leaves with Marcellus and Horatio, Hamlet bemoans the responsibility he now carries:
The time is out of joint: O cursed spite / That ever I was born to set it right!9 (I.v.189
190). Hamlets identity is instantly affected by the newly enforced responsibility that he
carries, and this is evident through the statement, that ever I was born to set it right
which represents Hamlets claim to his identity as it has been presented to him outwardly.
The ghosts demand for Hamlet to seek revenge upon Claudius, and Hamlets subsequent
reaction, is the pivotal event of Act I and sets the main plot of the play into motion while
defining the issue of Hamlets personal identity, because his mission to kill his uncle has
made him a cultural subject, a product of outside forces, while he tries to reconcile this
image of himself to his inner identity.
The relation between appearance and reality, or outward and inner identity, is
crucially important when looking at one of the central tensions in Hamlets identity
9

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Edited by Philip Edwards. Cambridge

[Cambridgeshire]: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

conflict: his madness. Hamlets inability to derive morality from the act of revenge he has
been asked to perform leads him to the idea of feigning madness, which becomes his
primary mode of interacting with other people for most of the following three acts, and is
a principal tactic that Shakespeare uses to develop his character. Hamlets decision to
feign madness, in order to keep the other characters from guessing his motives for his
acts, is a prime example of the way in which Hamlet relies on outer identity, or the notion
of himself as a cultural subject, categorized social conditions. At times, this leads him
perilously close to the cliffs edge of sanity, teetering into the abyss of actual madness,
and in fact it is impossible to say for certain whether or not Hamlet is truly mad, and, if
so, when his act becomes reality. Hamlet says to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, I
essentially am not in madness, / But mad in craft.10 Thus, Hamlet is acting like he is mad
when he is not, in order to deceive the King and Queen. Hamlets action questions
whether deception plays a role in developing an identity, as many believe that Hamlet is
truly going mad and associate lunacy with his identity. Hamlet, aware of the fact that
people base identities on how others act, acts differently to display and even give himself
the identity of a lunatic, which displays his temporary surrender to subjectivity.
The fifth and final act of the play sees the culmination of violence from the buildup
of tensions in all the relationships of the play, and also the resolution of Hamlets conflict
of identity. For many, the resolution could be argued either way, but I argue that Hamlet
emerges to dominate the fifth act as a new man, claiming identity within the self. In Act
V scene i, in the churchyard, two gravediggers shovel out a grave for Ophelia and Hamlet
10

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Edited by Philip Edwards. Cambridge

[Cambridgeshire]: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

and Horatio enter at a distance and watch the gravediggers work. One gravedigger, called
in the text a clown, does not recognize Hamlet as the prince and gives an illustration of
the young prince Hamlets life, telling him that the Hamlet that he has heard of had gone
mad and been sent to England, and answers his question of How came he mad? with
Faith, een with losing his wits.11 Through this exchange, Hamlet learns of his identity
voiced in the words of the clown, who gives him an outward perspective on his own self.
Later in the scene, when watching Laertes leap into Ophelias grave, Hamlet advances on
him and declares his sorrow for Ophelias death, boldly stating, This is I, / Hamlet the
Dane.12 This line shows that Hamlet has achieved a sense of his own identity within
himself, counter to the cultural subjectivity he has endured over the course of the play,
and he proclaims it. This is further reinforced in the last scene of the play, Act V, scene ii,
when Hamlet speaks directly to Laertess accusations, What I have done I here
proclaim was madness. / Wast Hamlet wronged Laertes? Never Hamlet. / If Hamlet
himself be tane away, / And when hes not himself does wrong Laertes, / Then Hamlet
does it not, Hamlet denies it. / Who does it then? His madness His madness is poor
Hamlets enemy.13 In this quote, Hamlet is actively separating his madness, or his
outwardly perceived self, from the centre which holds what is most intimately involved
in someones conscious life,14 or his inner identity, which he believes is Hamlet.

11

Ibid.

12

Ibid.

13

Ibid.

14

Wolgast, E. (1999), Personal Identity. Philosophical Investigations, 22: 297311.

Shakespeares Hamlet provides a social commentary on the concept of personal

identity, and main character Hamlet is a character faced with the problem of the primacy
of inwardness, affected by the need for outward confirmation of its content; or the
concept of self at war with subjectivity. The predicament of identity uncovered thus far in
Hamlet is shown by the dichotomy of inwardness versus outwarness. One the one hand,
inwardness requires outward expression for verification, because without display, the
existence of inward identity is uncertain. On the other hand, outward expression is an
inconstant definition of identity, because it is a subjected self, subservient to social
categories and convention. Hamlets thoughts and actions voice the inner threat of the
question of identity, and the definition of identity between the outer man, which is the
man that is a cultural subject, and the inner man, which is the consciousness. Hamlets
statements in the final act of the play convey that the character Hamlet stands
philosophically with both Locke and Wolgast, stating that identity exists within. The
question Whos there, posed in the beginning of the play by one frightened guard to
another, is indirectly answered by the pronouncements that the main character Hamlet
gives at the end, when he tells his foe Laertes who he is; Hamlet, and who he is not; his
madness.