Iago's Motives
Whitehead and Shakespeare
on the nature of a Villain
Why do people harm others, sometimes in terrible ways? Process philosophy suggests two primary reasons: First, they are subjectively influenced by factors beyond their control—historical, social, biological, familial, and even demonic forces. These influences are both outside them and inside them. They include powerful temptations, felt consciously and unconsciously. They are negative lures for feeling.
Second, they act out of personal decisions made in response to those outer and inner influences. While these decisions are affected by the influences, they cannot be fully understood or explained by them. The decisions transcend the influences. Consider Iago, whose actions reflect both the weight of his past and his deliberate decisions to inflict harm.
Why did Iago do it? He is the villain in Shakespeare's Othello, but let him also stand for many villains whose motives we try to understand. Iago lies, manipulates, and deceives, weaving a web of treachery that ultimately leads to the deaths of Othello, Desdemona, and others. His schemes are so thorough and destructive that Othello, driven by Iago's lies about Desdemona's supposed infidelity, ends his own life.
We might attribute Iago's actions to jealousy over Cassio’s (a soldier and Iago's lieutenant) promotion, his unproven suspicion that Othello slept with his wife, Emilia, and his general resentment toward those he believes have wronged him. Yet, these reasons seem insufficient to fully account for the depth of his cruelty and the scale of destruction he causes.
Some scholars suggest that these reasons are mere pretexts, masking a deeper, more insidious desire for power and control. Coleridge famously described Iago's behavior as driven by "motiveless malignity," implying that his evil may not be fully rooted in any rational motive but rather in a destructive impulse that transcends reason.
At this point, we may think Shakespeare made a strategic decision—to create a character whose motives were not entirely clear and which, even if fully understood, do not "explain" Iago’s behavior. This has been referred to as "strategic opacity." By leaving Iago’s true motives ambiguous, Shakespeare forces the audience to confront the unsettling reality that some forms of evil cannot be easily rationalized. This ambiguity adds to Iago’s menace, challenging our desire to find neat explanations for villainy, making him a more terrifying figure—a symbol of evil that resists categorization or explanation.
But this strategic opacity illustrates something even deeper: the fact that people often make decisions that transcend their conscious motivations, whatever those motivations might be, and thus cannot be fully explained at all. This has an existential implication, aligned with Whitehead’s "ontological principle," which posits that at the heart of every moment of experience there is an act of decision that cannot be entirely explained by prior causes or motives. In Iago’s case, his decisions reflect this deeper truth: they are acts of self-creativity, moments of experience choosing their course, irreducible to simple rationalization.
True, the act of the will may be influenced by countless factors—including motivations that come from society, from the devil (if the devil exists), and from God, such as the "initial aim" toward goodness felt in the depths of the heart. But ultimately, it transcends explanations in terms of these influential factors. The will is not merely a product of these influences; rather, it chooses among them and weaves them into its own unique whole. This act of decision is an expression of self-creativity, where the individual integrates and responds to the array of influences—positive or negative—shaping their experience, yet does so in a way that cannot be fully reduced to any external cause or motive.
Moreover, this process of decision is further complicated by Whitehead’s insight that there are future expressions of self-creativity—decisions yet to be made—that are not yet actualized. This means that the ground of self-creativity in each moment also has future dimensions that have not yet come into existence. The future, according to Whitehead, remains open—filled with possibilities for new decisions and acts of self-creation that cannot be fully anticipated or explained by the past. In Iago's case, as with all human beings, future acts of decision will shape his destiny in ways that cannot be entirely predicted.
In this way, Shakespeare’s portrayal of Iago reflects a profound existential reality: that human decisions, especially those involving evil, contain an element of freedom, creativity, and unpredictability. Ultimately, Iago’s behavior transcends any straightforward explanation, illustrating Whitehead's view that at the core of every decision is something beyond motive—an act of will that defies full comprehension, weaving past, present, and future possibilities into the unique reality of each moment.
This, then, is the mystery of certain instances of moral evil. They can be partially explained by appeal to factors influencing them—environmental, biological, social, historical, family history, and traumatic memories—but even when we take these into account, they cannot be fully explained. In the case of Iago, as in the case of many acts of evil, no amount of analysis of motives—whether rooted in jealousy, malice, or desire for power—can fully account for the actions themselves. At the heart of such acts lies an existential mystery: a decision that transcends rational explanation, an exercise of self-creativity that chooses from among countless influences but ultimately shapes something unique and irreducible.
In this way, we are confronted with the unsettling reality that certain forms of moral evil emerge not from neatly understandable causes but from the profound freedom inherent in every act of decision. This is the mystery Shakespeare offers us with Iago, and it is a mystery that Whitehead’s ontological principle helps us grasp: at the core of experience, including acts of evil, there is a creative decision that cannot be entirely explained by its antecedents, and thus remains enigmatic.
- Jay McDaniel
Second, they act out of personal decisions made in response to those outer and inner influences. While these decisions are affected by the influences, they cannot be fully understood or explained by them. The decisions transcend the influences. Consider Iago, whose actions reflect both the weight of his past and his deliberate decisions to inflict harm.
Why did Iago do it? He is the villain in Shakespeare's Othello, but let him also stand for many villains whose motives we try to understand. Iago lies, manipulates, and deceives, weaving a web of treachery that ultimately leads to the deaths of Othello, Desdemona, and others. His schemes are so thorough and destructive that Othello, driven by Iago's lies about Desdemona's supposed infidelity, ends his own life.
We might attribute Iago's actions to jealousy over Cassio’s (a soldier and Iago's lieutenant) promotion, his unproven suspicion that Othello slept with his wife, Emilia, and his general resentment toward those he believes have wronged him. Yet, these reasons seem insufficient to fully account for the depth of his cruelty and the scale of destruction he causes.
Some scholars suggest that these reasons are mere pretexts, masking a deeper, more insidious desire for power and control. Coleridge famously described Iago's behavior as driven by "motiveless malignity," implying that his evil may not be fully rooted in any rational motive but rather in a destructive impulse that transcends reason.
At this point, we may think Shakespeare made a strategic decision—to create a character whose motives were not entirely clear and which, even if fully understood, do not "explain" Iago’s behavior. This has been referred to as "strategic opacity." By leaving Iago’s true motives ambiguous, Shakespeare forces the audience to confront the unsettling reality that some forms of evil cannot be easily rationalized. This ambiguity adds to Iago’s menace, challenging our desire to find neat explanations for villainy, making him a more terrifying figure—a symbol of evil that resists categorization or explanation.
But this strategic opacity illustrates something even deeper: the fact that people often make decisions that transcend their conscious motivations, whatever those motivations might be, and thus cannot be fully explained at all. This has an existential implication, aligned with Whitehead’s "ontological principle," which posits that at the heart of every moment of experience there is an act of decision that cannot be entirely explained by prior causes or motives. In Iago’s case, his decisions reflect this deeper truth: they are acts of self-creativity, moments of experience choosing their course, irreducible to simple rationalization.
True, the act of the will may be influenced by countless factors—including motivations that come from society, from the devil (if the devil exists), and from God, such as the "initial aim" toward goodness felt in the depths of the heart. But ultimately, it transcends explanations in terms of these influential factors. The will is not merely a product of these influences; rather, it chooses among them and weaves them into its own unique whole. This act of decision is an expression of self-creativity, where the individual integrates and responds to the array of influences—positive or negative—shaping their experience, yet does so in a way that cannot be fully reduced to any external cause or motive.
Moreover, this process of decision is further complicated by Whitehead’s insight that there are future expressions of self-creativity—decisions yet to be made—that are not yet actualized. This means that the ground of self-creativity in each moment also has future dimensions that have not yet come into existence. The future, according to Whitehead, remains open—filled with possibilities for new decisions and acts of self-creation that cannot be fully anticipated or explained by the past. In Iago's case, as with all human beings, future acts of decision will shape his destiny in ways that cannot be entirely predicted.
In this way, Shakespeare’s portrayal of Iago reflects a profound existential reality: that human decisions, especially those involving evil, contain an element of freedom, creativity, and unpredictability. Ultimately, Iago’s behavior transcends any straightforward explanation, illustrating Whitehead's view that at the core of every decision is something beyond motive—an act of will that defies full comprehension, weaving past, present, and future possibilities into the unique reality of each moment.
This, then, is the mystery of certain instances of moral evil. They can be partially explained by appeal to factors influencing them—environmental, biological, social, historical, family history, and traumatic memories—but even when we take these into account, they cannot be fully explained. In the case of Iago, as in the case of many acts of evil, no amount of analysis of motives—whether rooted in jealousy, malice, or desire for power—can fully account for the actions themselves. At the heart of such acts lies an existential mystery: a decision that transcends rational explanation, an exercise of self-creativity that chooses from among countless influences but ultimately shapes something unique and irreducible.
In this way, we are confronted with the unsettling reality that certain forms of moral evil emerge not from neatly understandable causes but from the profound freedom inherent in every act of decision. This is the mystery Shakespeare offers us with Iago, and it is a mystery that Whitehead’s ontological principle helps us grasp: at the core of experience, including acts of evil, there is a creative decision that cannot be entirely explained by its antecedents, and thus remains enigmatic.
- Jay McDaniel