Cultural Studies: Hamlet and Rosencrantz & Guildenstern

The Expendable Outsiders: Marginalization from Shakespeare’s Hamlet to Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead

Introduction: Power, Margins, and Modern Parallels

This blog is written as part of the Cultural Studies Thinking Activity given by Dr. Dilip Barad, Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University.

In the world of literature, power often defines existence. Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead together offer a compelling study of how those at the margins are trapped in systems far beyond their control. While Shakespeare portrays Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as mere tools within royal politics, Stoppard transforms them into symbols of existential confusion individuals lost in a universe indifferent to their fate. When read through a Cultural Studies lens, their marginalization resonates deeply with the modern corporate world, where employees are often reduced to “resources,” valued only until they serve their purpose.

Marginalization in Hamlet: The Sponge Metaphor

In Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are childhood friends summoned by King Claudius to spy on Hamlet. Their loyalty is transactional; they serve those in power to maintain their social position. Hamlet’s scathing metaphor captures their expendability:

“A sponge that soaks up the King’s countenance, his rewards, his authorities… when he needs what you have gleaned, it is but squeezing you, and, sponge, you shall be dry again.”

Hamlet, Act IV, Scene ii

This image encapsulates their marginal status  men who absorb favour from the monarchy but are eventually discarded. Their deaths, reported offstage, underline Shakespeare’s commentary on hierarchical power: those who serve authority are easily replaced, forgotten, and denied even the dignity of a final appearance. This pattern of “use and discard” mirrors how lower-level employees function in hierarchical institutions  necessary, yet invisible.

Existential Marginalization in Stoppard’s Reinterpretation

Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (1966) reimagines the same characters from the margins, placing them at the center yet denying them agency. They wander aimlessly, questioning their purpose:

“There must have been a moment, at the beginning, where we could have said—no. But somehow we missed it.”

Here, Stoppard deepens their marginalization through existential confusion. The two men become victims of a system (dramatic and philosophical) that operates without their control or understanding.They do not know the script, their roles, or even their identities. This disorientation mirrors the modern employee’s experience within corporate structures  where policies are made in boardrooms, and workers must comply without question, lost in the routine of meaningless tasks. Stoppard’s absurdist tone amplifies this alienation, transforming Elizabethan politics into a metaphor for twentieth-century existential anxiety. 

Personal Reflection: The Modern “Expendables”

Reflecting on the marginalization of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, I see a strong connection to how people in today’s society are often treated as replaceable “assets.” In the corporate world, much like in Elsinore’s court, individuals are valued not for who they are, but for what they can contribute to the system. When their role is completed or their usefulness fades, they are quietly replaced  just as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern disappear from the stage without acknowledgment.

This parallel has deepened my understanding of Cultural Studies and power dynamics. It shows that marginalization is not only a literary theme but a social reality. Those who lack control over systems  whether political, economic, or institutional often lose their identity within them. Through this lens, both plays remind me that awareness is a form of resistance: to see these hierarchies clearly is the first step in challenging them.

By studying these “expendable outsiders,” I realize that literature still mirrors our modern struggles  between individuality and conformity, purpose and survival.hey do not know the script, their roles, or even their identities. This disorientation mirrors the modern employee’s experience within corporate structures  where policies are made in boardrooms, and workers must comply without question, lost in the routine of meaningless tasks. Stoppard’s absurdist tone amplifies this alienation, transforming Elizabethan politics into a metaphor for twentieth-century existential anxiety.

 Corporate Parallels: From Court to Company

The parallels between the royal court and the corporate world are striking. Just as Claudius and Hamlet manipulate Rosencrantz and Guildenstern for personal ends, corporations today exploit workers for productivity, innovation, and profit. When downsizing or automation becomes necessary, these “little people” are simply removed from the system   much like the two courtiers who vanish without consequence.

In today’s globalized economy, employees often find themselves trapped in cycles of insecurity and silent obedience. The constant fear of being “replaced” echoes Stoppard’s title itself   Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead  not only physically, but symbolically as workers consumed by the system. Their story becomes a reflection of modern capitalist hierarchies, where power resides at the top, and individuality fades at the bottom.

Conclusion and Reflection

Through Shakespeare’s tragedy and Stoppard’s tragicomedy, we witness how cultural and economic systems marginalize those without power. In Hamlet, the mechanism is political; in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, it is existential. Both reveal how individuals become insignificant when caught in larger systems  whether of monarchy or market.

As a reader of Cultural Studies, this comparison offers a powerful insight: marginalization is not merely historical; it is structural. The courtiers of Elsinore and the employees of modern corporations share the same fate  existing within frameworks that value obedience over individuality. Recognizing this pattern helps us question not only the authority of kings or CEOs but the cultural systems that normalize such hierarchies.

In the end, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern remind us of a truth that transcends centuries that those who serve power without questioning it may find themselves erased, both in drama and in life.

Thank you