Hello everyone.

It's lovely to see you here today.

My name's Dr.

Clayton, and I'm gonna to guide you through Learning Journey today.

So today's lesson's called Romeo and Juliet, exploring individualism and the status quo.

So we're going to be thinking about how we can see characters challenging traditional structures of social authority such as their parents and the law and how we can perhaps see that's a challenge to the status quo in society.

We're going to be thinking about how Shakespeare presents these challenges and what his intentions might have been.

So if you're ready, grab your pen, laptop with everything with this lesson and let's get started.

So by the end of the lesson, you'll be able to explore how Shakespeare represents ideas for individualism and the status quo in Romeo and Juliet.

So we have three words there we're going to be using as our keywords.

They've identified in bold throughout the learner material, and I've tried to conduct as well, so you can see them being used in context.

So first goes individualism, which means the social theory favouring freedom of action of individuals over collective or state control.

We're going to be thinking of how we might interpret some of the actions of the characters in the play as challenges to traditional structures of social authority and what Shakespeare might be saying about those challenges.

Our second keyword is autonomy, which means the ability to make your own decisions about what to do.

Towards the end of the 16th century, individuals began to be associated with independence and autonomy, began to be thinking of how Shakespeare might be presenting this autonomy as a challenge to the status quo.

So our final keyword is status quo, which means the existing state of affairs, especially regarding social or political issues.

We're going to be thinking about how Shakespeare presents the status quo, not only in Romeo and Juliet, but also how he might present it in his other plays as well, and think about why he might be presenting the status quo in this manner.

So I'll just give you a moment to write down those key words and their definitions.

So pause the video, write them down now.

Fantastic.

Let's get started with the lesson.

So we have two learning cycles in our lesson today.

For our first learning cycle, we're going to be thinking of how we might interpret some of the characters in the play as challenging traditional structures of social authority and how that desire for autonomy might be seen as challenges to the status quo.

We're going to be thinking about how the feud in Romeo and Juliet might represent the status quo and how Shakespeare might present the consequences of these challenges to traditional structures of social authority and the status quo.

For our second learning cycle, we're going to briefly think about how Shakespeare presents the status quo in some of his other plays, and then think about his intentions.

Why might he want to present the status quo in this manner? So let's just start by contextualising this lesson in terms of individuality and the Elizabethan period.

So individualism is one of our key words, means the social theory favouring freedom of action for individuals over traditional structures of social authority.

Associated individuals should be able to do as they please regardless of society's rules or expectations.

Now, in the 16th century, individuals were thought of as part of a social and familial network, they're expected to conform to traditional structures of social authority.

So expected to obey their families and act in a way that benefited their social and family networks through marriage or job opportunities.

However, Romeo and Juliet was written at the end of the 16th century when individuality was begun to be associated with autonomy and individualism rather being part of a social network.

So individuality was starting to be associated with being able to make your own decisions and following your own desires.

So we're gonna be thinking about how Shakespeare might be responding the social change and how individuality was seen through Romeo and Juliet.

So as I said, I think we can read Romeo and Juliet as Shakespeare exploring this new idea of individuality as challenging traditional structures of social authority.

So what I'd like you to start off by thinking about is what traditional structures of social authority do you think are present in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet? Now if you're going through with someone else, you might talk about ideas with them.

If going through this by yourself, you might just think your ideas.

So pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone, some great ideas there.

They might have said parental authority is a traditional structure of social authority in Romeo and Juliet.

We see Lord Capulet in particular trying to exert control over Juliet's life, and it was an expectation in Elizabethan England that children would obey their parents.

You also might have said the rule of law was the traditional structure of social authority.

We see the Prince trying to control social behaviour in act one, scene one by saying that anyone who disturbs the peace of Verona again will forfeit their life.

They also might have said, we see religion as a means of social authority in Romero and Juliet.

We see the influence of Friar Lawrence throughout the play and how he determines the actions of behaviours of the characters.

We know that religion was an integral aspect of Elizabethan society.

So now that we've thought about what traditional structures of social authority we can see in Romeo Juliet, let's think about how Shakespeare represents them as being challenged in the play.

So what I'd like you to do is think about how parental control, the rule of law and religion, are challenged by individuality in Romeo and Juliet.

Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone, fantastic ideas there.

Let's talk through some of the things you might have said.

Now, if we think about parental control, we see Romeo and Juliet defy parental control throughout Romeo and Juliet.

Not only do they marry without their parents' permission, but they disregard the feud between their families through their marriage.

So we can see them place their individual desires over their familial duty throughout the play.

In terms of rule of law, the Prince calls the violence to end in act one, scene one.

Yet we continue to see violence between the male characters throughout the play.

We might link that violence to their desire to satisfy their individual honour.

For example, the duel between Mercutio and Tybalt is created outta their desire to satisfy their individual honour.

We also might connect this violence to familial honour as well.

So Mercutio and Count Paris are both relatives of Prince Escalus, yet they are two characters who engage in duels within the play.

So disregarding his author as a lawmaker, but also disregarding their familial duty.

In terms of religion, we might think of act five, scene three, where we see Juliet specifically rejecting Friar Lawrence's offer of a convent in order to remain with Romeo and take her own life to be with him.

She's choosing to follow her individual desires rather than follow Friar Lawrence.

So now for a quick check for understanding.

What I'd like you to do is tell me whether the following statement is true or false.

So is it true or false that Shakespeare represents a conflict to an individuality in traditional authority in Romeo and Juliet? Pause the video.

Take a few moments to think about it.

The correct answer is true.

Now I'd like to tell me why it's true.

So pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

You might have said the traditional structure of social authority, parental control, religion, and the rule of law are challenged by individuality in Romeo and Juliet.

So very well done if you got those right.

Now, as well as challenging traditional authority, we might also see individualism in conflict with the status quo.

Now, status quo is one of our key words, means existing state of affairs, especially regarding social or political issues.

Now in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, we might see the feud between the Montagues and Capulets as representing the status quo for the following reasons.

So it reinforces male identity, it shows violence as integral to masculinity.

It demonstrates their loyalty to their ancestors.

It reinforces family loyalty.

Individuals are bound together into separate factions by the feud.

It also clarifies the social structure.

So at the beginning of the play, we see the servants of the fight separated into their social structures.

So servants fight servants, young noble men fight young noblemen.

So what I'd like us to think about now is how the status quo might relate to these ideas of individuality and autonomy.

So I'd like to think about the following information.

Shakespeare never gives a reason for the feud.

Merely that it is an ancient grudge.

All of the members of each household feel bound to the feud.

So for example, Tybalt hates Romeo merely because he's a Montague.

We also arguably see how the feuds perpetuated through Count Paris.

He's set to marry into the Capulet family, and we see him express his like for a Montague in act five scene three, and assumes that Romeo is engaging in dishonourable activity because he's a Montague.

So we see how the feud continues.

It's taken up by those marrying into the families.

So what I'd like you to do is think about how we might see the feud as preserving a status quo that's threatened by autonomy and individuality.

How's the feud preserve a status quo and social networks rather than independence? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

That was a really hard question.

I heard some fantastic ideas.

One of our OAT peoples Aisha said, I think the few preserves the status quo against autonomy and individuality because the characters do not form their own opinions of each other as individuals.

They see everyone as tied to their families and judge them according to that.

Furthermore, the lack of reason behind the feud should they see themselves as bound to the feud, merely 'cause it's part of their family history.

So what I'd like you to do now is think about whether you agree with Asia's ideas.

Why or why not? Pause the video.

Take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

It was great to see people thinking about those ideas about Count Paris and use them to extend Aisha's ideas.

So soon as someone seems to be joining one of the families, they then become an extension of the family feud rather than separate individual.

So now for a quick check for understanding, what I'd like you to do is tell me whether the following statement is true or false.

So is it true or false? We might interpret the Montague and Capulet feud as preserving the status quo in Romeo and Juliet.

Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

The correct answer is true.

Now I'd like you to tell me why it's true.

So pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

You might have said potentially we might see the feud as upholding stereotypes of male identity and as clarifying distinct social structures.

So very well done if you've got those right.

Amazing work everyone.

Now the first task of the lesson, we're going to start to think about what shapes we might have been trying to say about individualism and autonomy.

So arguably we might see Shakespeare as exploring the negative consequences of individualism.

So what I'd like you to do is explore that statement by answering the following questions.

So question one, Romeo, Juliet, Tybalt, Mercutio, and Count Paris, all arguably ignore traditional structures of social authority.

What are the consequences of this for them? Number two, arguably we might see the status quo as being threatened at the end of Romeo Juliet, since the feud ends.

What might the consequence of threatening the status quo be? So pause the video, answer the questions now.

Welcome back everyone, fantastic work there.

What I'd like us to do now is look at the answers, one of our OAT peoples, Jacob, and think about how we might extend his ideas.

So question one, Romeo, Juliet, Tybalt, Mercutio, and Count Paris all arguably ignore traditional structures of social authority.

What are the consequences of this? And Jacob said, Romeo, Juliet, Tybalt, Mercutio, and Count Paris all die in Romeo and Juliet.

Now this is true and certainly a negative consequence.

However, we can push this idea further to become more nuanced.

So what I'd like you to think about is how do we extend Jacob's idea to explore the idea as the younger generation who lose their lives? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

Some great ideas there.

And you might have thought, if the younger generation lose their lives, there is no future.

We might express that like this.

Specifically Shakespeare shows the younger generation who lose their lives because of how they challenged traditional authority.

Perhaps Shakespeare suggesting a society that promotes individualism has no future.

So now let's think about question two.

Again, I'd like to think about how we could extend Jacob's ideas.

So question two was arguably we might see the status quo as being threatened at the end of Romeo and Juliet since the feud ends.

What might the consequence of threatening status quo be? And Jacob said, if the feud reinforces family loyalties, then maybe the consequence of threatening status quo are that family ties would start to break down.

This is a very valid nuanced point.

However, the feud does more than reinforce family loyalties.

So we could extend Jacob's ideas further.

So what I'd like to think about is how to extend them to explore the idea that feud represents distinct social hierarchies.

Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

Some great ideas there about how the feud also reinforces social hierarchies.

Now we might express that by saying something like, moreover, if the feud reinforces social hierarchies, perhaps challenging the status quo would result in a breakdown of distinct social structures.

So now we're going to move on to the second learning cycle.

We're going to start to think about Shakespeare's intentions.

Amazing work everyone.

We;re now in our second learning cycle.

We're going to think about why Shakespeare might present the status quo in this way.

Now Shakespeare's plays often explore the idea of the status quo.

So the existing state affairs, especially regarding social or political issues.

For example, in Macbeth, these usurper Macbeth is killed, and Malcolm, King Duncan's son takes the throne.

In Twelfth night, Malvolio desires Olivia, a woman above his social station, and he is presented as a fool and a hypocrite.

In Much Ado About Nothing, Beatrice declares she does not need a husband.

However, she marries Benedict at the end of the play.

So what I'd like you to think about is whether you see Shakespeare as maintaining or challenging the status quo in these examples.

Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

Fantastic ideas there.

Now one of our OAT people Andeep said I think he is maintaining the status quo.

He's shown that people shouldn't try to move beyond their social station and that women's rightful place in society is as a wife.

Furthermore, I think he's showing the social order is restored at the end of the plays.

The fact this is the ending implies that's how he believes society should be.

So what I'd like you to think about is whether or not you agree with Andeep.

Why or why not.

Pause the video.

Take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

Now, this is something you might like to take forward and think about when you read another Shakespeare play.

How is Shakespeare presenting the status quo? Is it being maintained or challenged? It's something that will really help you interrogate what Shakespeare might be saying about society.

So now for a quick check for understanding, what I'd like you to do is tell me whether the following statement is true or false.

So is it true or false that arguably Shakespeare's plays often present the status quo as being maintained? Pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

The correct answer is true.

Now I'd like you to tell me why it's true.

So pause the video, take a few moments to think about it.

Welcome back everyone.

You might have said we might interpret Shakespeare's plays as showing social order being restored and the consequence of trying to rise above your social station.

So very well done if you got those right.

Fantastic, everyone.

Now the final task of the lesson, but we're going to think about why Shakespeare might be presenting the status quo in this manner.

So what I'd like you to do is think about why you think Shakespeare might want to preserve the status quo and social order over promoting individuality.

You might think about the following ideas.

So Queen Elizabeth the first faced constant threats throughout her rule, from political rivals to religious opponents.

Why might Shakespeare want to encourage people not to challenge traditional social structures? Queen Elizabeth the first and other members of the court supported Shakespeare's plays.

How might this influence the way Shakespeare presents this status quo? So pause a video, take a few minutes to discuss.

Welcome back everyone, some great discussions there.

What I'd like you to do is think about Sofia's ideas.

Do you agree, why or why not? So Sofia said, I think Shakespeare wants to preserve the status quo and social order because that aligned his views with those of Queen Elizabeth The first.

If he wanted her support, he needed to construct a view of society where he rewarded following societal norms. There were consequences if you tried to disrupt the social order.

So pause the video, think about whether or not you agree with Sofia's ideas.

Welcome back everyone.

Now, I think this is why it's always so vital to bring our ideas about a text back to the writer's intentions.

If we're thinking that Shakespeare's writing a play in a way that would appeal to a monarch that reveals something not only about the way he's portraying society, but also about the power dynamics of society.

Are Shakespeare plays so enduring because they present an acceptable view of society to the powerful figures in society? That's something you might like take away and think about.

You all did amazing today everyone.

Here's a summary of what we covered.

Romeo and Juliet's secret marriage creates a conflict between individual desire and traditional authority.

We see Romeo and Juliet not only challenging their obedience to their parents, but also challenging the nature of the feud by choosing to ignore the wishes of their family networks.

We also arguably see the rule of law and religion being challenged by individual desire.

So we can see Prince Escalus who represents the law as demanding that violence should stop in act one, scene one.

But this command is ignored by many of the characters throughout the play because of the desire to satisfy the individual honour.

Arguably, we might also interpret Juliet's refusal to leave the tomb with Friar Lawrence and join a convent in act five scene three as religion being challenged by Juliet's desire to be with Romeo.

Potentially we might see the feud as preserving the status quo that's threatened by individualism, so you might see the feud as reinforcing social hierarchies and male identities, as well as establishing bonds of family loyalty.

We see the feud as the opposite of individuality in the play because a feud means the characters see everyone as tied to their families and judge them according to that.

Shakespeare's depiction of individualism may represent Elizabethan anxiety about the social cost of individualism.

We might interpret Romeo and Juliet as demonstrating the potential consequences of individualism on society and the status quo.

The younger characters don't follow traditional structures of social authority and they're the ones who lose their lives.

So maybe Shakespeare's saying a society of individuals doesn't have a future.

We also might suggest that social hierarchies would break down through individualism.

I really hope you enjoyed the lesson everyone.

I hope to see you for another lesson soon, goodbye.