2. In a minimum of 200 words/maximum of 250 words, critically analyse the following speeches made by Juliet and Romeo and explain why and how these young lovers want to change their social identity.

Question

Remember to structure your answer as a single paragraph, not in bullet-points/as separate answers.

Your answer should contain the following:

-a clear explication (critical examination) of why Romeo and Juliet are willing to forsake their identities.
- Lastly, whether you disagree with their decision.

(Substantiate your stance: why do you disagree with their decision to change their social identities? How will you prove this by means of critical, textual analysis? Do not moralise, speculate or present uniformed/unsupportable opinions!).

Juliet
O Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a Capulet.

Romeo
[Aside] Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?
Juliet
'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? That which we call a rose,
By any other word would smell as sweet.
So Romeo would — were he not Romeo called —
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name, which is no part of thee,
Take all myself.

Romeo
[Aloud] I take thee at thy word.
Call me but love, and I'll be new baptized;
Henceforth I never will be Romeo.

Answer 1

In these young lovers’ speeches, Juliet and Romeo express their willingness to forsake their social identities as Capulet and Montague because their love transcends their family’s feud. Juliet proposes that Romeo denies his family and, therefore, his name to be with her, while Romeo agrees that he would forsake his name to be with her, stating that a name is nothing but a label that does not define one’s true essence. For them, their social identities bear no weight compared to their affection, and their love is of a higher value than the divisiveness that their families’ feud might cause.

Their motivation to change their social identities is clear from this conversation. They both believe that their family’s names are long-established enemies, and they cannot change this history. Thus, they must pay for the sins of the past with their identity, but they feel they can escape the feud’s grip by ignoring it. They wish to only care for and love one another without contemplating their families’ past misfortunes.

In conclusion, I cannot disagree with their decision because of the essence of their love that raises it above societal divisions. Their love is pure and genuine, and it has no place within society’s boundaries. They cannot be who their families want them to be, and their only prospect of living a meaningful life is to follow their hearts and hope for the best. Unfortunately, their decision causes a string of unfortunate events, including their deaths, but it shows that true love knows no social boundaries and can pave the way for the unlikely. The textual analysis supports their decision because it validates their love and what it symbolizes; love can only exist between two individuals and not within societal constructs.