Sensitive Objects and their Role in Othello: Object-Oriented Ontology in Shakespeare

Like many of Shakespeare’s tragedies, the plot of Othello is driven by secrets, lies, and misunderstandings. Othello, however, is unique in that these falsities are caused, deepened, and maintained by objects. These objects are so crucial that, in looking at the play through object-oriented ontology, they take on the role of actors despite having no dialogue or visible action of their own. Cassio’s rank as Othello’s lieutenant is a conceptual thing that begins the play by invoking jealousy and anger from the scheming Iago, along with Iago’s belief that his wife, Emilia has slept with both Othello and Cassio. Rank and jealousy continue to play a role by being the source that brings Cassio and Desdemona together. Similarly, Othello’s handkerchief acts as a character meant to complicate the plot by insinuating Desdemona’s (fabricated) lack of loyalty. In Othello, objects are independent in the way that they are able to influence the human characters without the human characters influencing them.

Graham Harman is an academic that has published on object-oriented ontology for nearly 20 years, however, he refers to it as object-oriented philosophy, defines OOO as the theory in which objects “withdraw” from human contact but also have individual characteristics that make them independent, however, there are relationships between things that must be accounted for. He also differentiates between two types of objects: real and sensual. Real objects cannot be examined in a practical way since humans cannot perceive them for what they really are. Oppositely, sensual objects exist for the sole purpose of another object or human (Harman 187). This essay will look at “real objects,” their characteristics, and their interactions between each other.

Like all of Shakespeare’s plays, there are countless criticisms of Othello. Even more, many of these critics have focused on the significance of the handkerchief. However, very few have looked at Othello through the lens of object-oriented ontology. Sujata Iyengar examines previous claims of OOO and goes through her own process of figuring out how the handkerchief and the bed where Desdemona was smothered act in the play. She conducts her experiment by watching three performances of Othello in languages she does not understand. She figures that by focusing less on language she could properly observe the presence that the handkerchief and bed have on stage. She concludes that the objects allow people to avoid blame and that “a focus on material trappings a… is what enables tragedy to become comedy” in certain portrayals of Othello (Iyengar 11). Andrew Sofer similarly focuses on the handkerchief and makes the claim that it “exerts an uncanny power over both characters and audience, and it propels the action as it repeatedly emerges in the right place at the wrong time. It seems almost to bend the characters to its own enigmatic will” (Sofer 367). He argues that the handkerchief possesses a kind of “magic,” and that it “models for us the glamorous process by which a thing becomes a charm” as it passes between the hands of the characters (Sofer 372). Harry Berger looks at Othello in the exact opposite way; he sees Othello and Desdemona as being responsible for losing the handkerchief, not the other way around.

He says: “On the one hand, she does not deserve to keep it if she has violated what it represents; if on the other hand, she loses it in spite of his conjuration, she violates what it represents. Thus by helping Desdemona lose the handkerchief and by disremembering the episode, Othello facilitates the production of the ocular proof that will give him vantage to exclaim on her” (Berger 236).

Berger’s claim reinforces that the only characters with influence are the humans. He refuses to see that objects have any power of their own. Ian Smith takes an entirely different approach by focusing on “the handkerchief, its relation to Othello, and its role in constructing an idea of blackness and race that places severe constraints on black subjectivity” rather than a white handkerchief that represents Desdemona’s whiteness and purity (Smith 3). He looks at the history of handkerchiefs when they came into fashion, the wealth they signified, etc. He does not see the handkerchief as anything more than a nonacting symbol that only carries the meaning intended by Shakespeare.

In order to show the independence of an object, or a conceptual object in this case, we must first look at Act 2, Scene 3, immediately after Othello stripped Cassio of his rank. There is no physical representation of Cassio’s former position, but the concept of it is important enough to cause distress. Cassio says, “Reputation, reputation, reputation! O, I have lost my / reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself, and / what remains is bestial. My reputation, Iago, my reputation!” (245–247). Having lost his rank, Cassio’s dialogue shows that it is an object that is separate from him and has its own significance. His reputation had been part of him, but upon being taken away, it becomes an individual ready to take on a role within the play. It sparks a struggle for power in both Iago and Cassio. It also ignites Desdemona’s need to spend time with Cassio and to create suspicion between her and Othello much like the handkerchief that will be discussed later.

Another conceptual object is Iago’s jealousy and anger towards Othello. This stems from Iago’s belief that Othello slept with Emilia:

But for my sport and profit. I hate the Moor:

And it is thought abroad that ’twixt my sheets

He has done my office: I know not if’t be true,

But I, for mere suspicion in that kind,

Will do as if for surety. (1.3.372–376)

This belief of disloyalty on the part of his wife is visible proof of the jealousy that, while a part of Iago, is the thing that causes him to take action. It is another object that wields influence over human characters. Berger describes jealousy as a “self-begotten monster” (240). In this instance it is not Iago that is the monster, but rather the feelings of envy that have overtaken him, feelings that have their own agenda. This becomes even more strange when Iago’s character talks on the topic of jealousy, and it is his own envy that projects itself and puts blame on others. While discussing Cassio’s intentions with Othello, Iago says:

O, beware, my lord, of jealousy:

It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock

The meat it feeds on. (187–189)

There is irony in that Iago is openly speaking of that which is plaguing him, and his jealousy is clearly — at least clearly in the eyes of the audience — mocking Othello, the man he is envious of. It can be argued that Iago does not see the sense of irony in his words, but rather it is his jealousy, an object that is a part of him but also possesses its own individuality, acting of its own accord. The plot is then driven by a thing that Iago knows of but has no control over.

The rank that once belonged to Cassio continues to act a part further into the play. It is the antithesis of Iago’s angered jealousy; they are two opposing forces that maintain and further the story’s plot. It wasn’t enough that Cassio’s fall from favor created a chance for Iago to gain power. Instead, the absence of the rank, a character now of its own free will, becomes a reason for the time that Desdemona and Cassio spend together. In Act 3, Scene 4, we can see how the words of Desdemona to Cassio are sure to cause tension in the relationship between Othello and Desdemona:

As I have spoken for you all my best

And stood within the blank of his displeasure

For my free speech! You must awhile be patient:

What I can do I will, and more I will

Than for myself I dare: let that suffice you (132–136).

Desdemona’s willingness to go against her husband and face his displeasure shows that she loves Cassio enough to fight for his position. Cassio and his former rank are two obviously different entities or else there would be no fight to get it back. By insisting that Othello should forgive Cassio and return his former position to him, Desdemona is standing against her husband. She knows Othello’s stance on the matter, yet she is more than willing to do everything she can for the sake of Cassio. She claims that she will do more for Cassio than she will do for herself. Rank, in its absence and presence, acts as both a joining and parting force; it joins Cassio and Desdemona but wedges itself between all of the other characters. The handkerchief is a visible object that acts in exactly the same way.

From the beginning, the handkerchief is seen as highly important; it was the first token of love that Othello gave Desdemona. If nothing else, it is symbolic of their feelings towards one another. However, when Othello tells of the handkerchief’s history — whether the story is true or not — it becomes the deciding factor in Desdemona’s loyalty to Othello. The belief in its power, though not proven, is what imbues it with power that results in actual consequences. Othello says of the handkerchief:

Did an Egyptian to my mother give:

She was a charmer, and could almost read

The thoughts of people: she told her, while she kept it,

’Twould make her amiable and subdue my father

Entirely to her love, but if she lost it

Or made a gift of it, my father’s eye

Should hold her loathèd and his spirits should hunt

After new fancies: she, dying, gave it me,

And bid me, when my fate would have me wived,

To give it her: I did so; and take heed on’t,

Make it a darling like your precious eye:

To lose’t or give’t away were such perdition

As nothing else could match. (3.4.55–68)

The loss of this important object causes much strife, however, there is a mystery behind its origins and appearance in the play that causes one to consider that the handkerchief influences the play separately from the human characters. The characters believe the handkerchief to be a sign of loyalty, and the lack of handkerchief to be a sign of a lack of loyalty, but this is a human-made construct. The object that is the handkerchief does not determine this. The handkerchief, however, does have power of its own that the other characters are not aware of. Iyengar looks at the Folio and Quarto in an attempt to figure out how the handkerchief is moving between the scenes. One would think that it is simply being passed from hand to hand amongst the characters, but there is no proof of that in the lines of the play. In response to Act 3, Scene 3 Iyengar says that the handkerchief covers its actions with mystery:

Sometime after Desdemona’s sympathetic words and the lovers’ exit, Emilia sees and obtains the handkerchief. What happens in the space between those lines? Does Othello angrily push the napkin away from him and leave it on the ground, or on a table? (Iyengar 5)

There are too many unanswered questions. Nothing regarding the whereabouts of the handkerchief is accounted for; it shows up whenever it is most convenient in terms of furthering the plot. Iago, despite his extreme effort, has as little control over the handkerchief as he does his jealousy. Readers think of Iago as the mastermind behind his plan to gain power and ruin lives, but really, the handkerchief does not act upon Iago’s command. Instead, it is an object that works beside the invisible object of anger and envy. The objects’ motivations, however, for aiding Iago is unclear. As real objects, humans — characters and audience — cannot perceive them for what they truly are. Their intentions will remain hidden, for jealousy is dubious, and “The handkerchief is unpredictable… so light that it threatens to render the tragedy farcical” (Iyengar 6).

Andrew Sofer tries to explain that handkerchief properties stem from magical belief. He says that “magic in Othello can be defined as self-authenticating, self-consuming emotion: once you believe it’s real, it’s real. Whether it exists independently of consciousness or not, magic is shown to work effectively wherever and whenever consciousness of magic is present” (Sofer 372). I agree that the character’s mindsets determine the influence an object can wield, but there is more to it than that. Regardless of a character’s or an audience’s preconceived notions of how things work, there is an aspect of them that cannot be understood and that cannot be explained by “magic.” The handkerchief is not what Harman would call a “sensual object.” Yes, a handkerchief does exist to be used by a person, but in the context of this play, that is not its sole purpose. Instead, the handkerchief is performing its natural role in the world of Othello. It is showing up at peculiar times in the hands of characters who should not have been able to obtain it simply because that is where the handkerchief is meant to be.

If the character list in Othello did not consist of objects, the plot would be lacking. Cassio’s plan to regain his rank would not be influenced by jealousy or the handkerchief. Instead, there would only be Cassio talking to his good friend Othello who probably would not have taken away the position in the first place. Object-oriented ontology allows us to see the value objects have in a play without being under the control of human characters. Things play their own part; it is the natural order.

Works Cited

Berger, Harry. “Impertinent Trifling: Desdemona’s Handkerchief.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 47, no. 3, 1996, JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2871376.

Harman, Graham. “The Well-Wrought Broken Hammer: Object-Oriented Literary Criticism.” New Literary History, vol. 43 no. 2, 2012, Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/nlh.2012.0016.

Iyengar, Sujata. “Beds, Handkerchiefs, and Moving Objects in Othello”, Humanities Commons, http://dx.doi.org/10.17613/M6883H

Shakespeare, William. Othello, The Moor of Venice. William Shakespeare: Complete Works, edited by Jonathan Bate and Eric Rasmussen. Penguin Random House, 2022, pp. 5033–5210.

Smith, Ian. “Othello’s Black Handkerchief.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 64, no. 1, 2013, pp. 1–25. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24778431.

Sofer, Andrew. “The Stage Properties of Othello’s Handkerchief”, Comparative Drama, vol. 31, no. 3, 1997, JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41153872

Stevens, Anne H. Literary Theory and Criticism: An Introduction. Broadview Press, 2021.