本文認為莎翁名劇《哈姆雷特》在某種程度上可以用馬克思後殖民主義次文本概念加以詮釋，並可以將其所刻畫的主人翁看成心境複雜的殖民者雛形。我處理的是殖民思維中的唯物母題－我認為哈姆雷特一角體現一個社會現象：意識不決定人的存有，人依賴驚異的社會現象來決定意識。也就是說，不只人的社會生活，從野蠻的社會學中，我們也發現，是社會存有決定人的意識，意識無法決定人的存有。本文不認為殖民者有什麼原罪，卻主張人本身是有問題的－某種程度上是本惡的，尤其是成為殖民者時，他自自然然地便產生問題。這兒，我要討論的議題是如何正確地詮釋殖民者在其資本殖民旅行冒險過程中所展現出來的認知方法。Greenblatt、Kristeva以及和哈劇相關論述均說明，野蠻的概念很容易被殖民者濫用。Kristeva 警告，外國人常被異化，被視為陌生人、野蠻人甚至敵人－我們討厭他們，恨他們，但是這些在社群中不產生任何廣泛政治意義的「野蠻」外國人其實是我們心中的他者，因為他們提醒我們，「他者」的確存在。Greenblatt的後殖民唯物理論則提醒，「自我」與「他者」之間存在全新層次的辯證關係。想像力量大，尤其是「將驚異概念加以殖民」的想像尤其巨大，透過野蠻的社會學中的驚異概念，殖民者生動地再現陌生人的野性，並且製作目錄加以保存、取用、學習，最後達成「擁有」的文化資本累積目的。莎翁的哈姆雷特一角性好攻擊、話多義長，某種程度上，深刻而廣泛的體現唯物思想本質，因此在前現代文學中，頗具代表性。不管是想的，說的，還是做的，即便是從事復仇（與殖民無關），他總是咄咄逼人，好像高人一等。觀察事情也好，與人相處也罷，他不但書空咄咄，更喜以史詩式的野蠻概念物化自我。其人言辭令人激賞，卻常有殖民者野蠻化別人、異化他者的深重嫌疑。筆者認為，異化深埋其人靈魂，等待時機孵化新的他者，以讓此他者轉而育成較為可信的自我。故本文細細論述他如何將Elsinore所有的人野蠻化，包括其國王、大臣、賓客、朋友、家人等，母親和女友等女性亦無一倖免。最後他還不忘凝視自己，將自我帶進無止無盡的野蠻國度，讓自我與他者進行無窮無盡的唯物辯證，其目的其實只是為了定位自我。總之，這個知識份子雖然擁有令人無比訝異甚至心嚮往之的巨大靈魂，但亦有許多盲點：一方面對父親言辭中昭昭然之父權意識，他不發一言；另一方面，看父親的代理人，即Claudius，他卻一貫地迅速回到殖民旅人的身份，無論是道德上，還是宗教上，都充滿偏見。尤有甚者，我們發現，他嚴重忽略普羅大眾之階級利益，起碼，他的長篇獨白從不紆尊降貴，為社會底層喉舌。簡言之，此一悲劇人物或許能扮演倍極虛無的文明人，或輪廓深刻、懂得自省的英雄；但對受過殖民之害的讀者，他則可能提供一個擅長文化霸權操作的殖民者畫像。

This paper proposes to read Hamlet as a text with post-colonial subtext and its hero as a prototype of colonizer. As demonstrated in the textual analysis, the potent symbol of ”hot blood” and the image of barbarism it entails is the subject. What I’m dealing with here is Marxian materialistic motif embedded in a colonial wish--through an intense study on the sociological poetics of that barbarian image, the hero, I argue, can be seen to embody the social being who relies on the sociality of the marvelous to determine consciousness, not the other way around. This paper does not see colonizer as being sinful, but rather man as being problematic, i.e., when man becomes colonizer, he becomes problematic by default. The issue presented here is therefore to correctly interpret the colonizer’s cognitive method in their capitalistic colonial venture.A homological study of Greenblatt, Kristeva, and texts of Hamlet shows that the concept of barbarism could be easily, and probably necessarily, appropriated by the colonizer in the act of colonizing. Kristeva warns that we tend to alienate the foreigners and see them as strangers, barbarians, and enemies. Though we detest and hate them, the barbaric foreigners, who usually live out of meaningful political context, are the Other in ourselves, because it is them that awaken the dormant possibility of the existence of otherness. On the other hand, Greenblatt’s materialistic theory of colonialism calls our attention to a new level of dialectical relationship between Self and Other. Through the power of imagination, particularly ”the colonizing of the marvelous,” the colonizer graphically represents the barbarity of the strangers, and creates categories for the benefit of inventory and learning, and finally achieves the goal of ”possession.”As could be inferred from his many philippic tirades, Hamlet is the materialistic man who thinks, speaks and acts like he is superior to other people while engaging in his revenge business. Hamlet insists on looking at everyman and everything with merciless excoriation and even compound the idea of the Self with materialistic thought of barbarism of epical proportions. Alienation seems to bury deep in his soul, waiting to hatch a new Other which will in turn breed a more authentic Self. This paper attempts to show how Hamlet barbarizes the Elsinoreans including kings, subjects, courtiers, friends, family, and the second sex, his mother and girl friend. He even barbarizes himself to purchase persuasion. With his ghost father, he seems blind-folded, since as an intellectual, he seems to hold no grudge against his monarchical-patriarchal image; but with the fatherly surrogate, Claudius, he seems to come back too soon to the identity of the traveler-colonizer, who with moral and religious prejudice seems to take a dim view of the welfare of the community. In sum, with all the rest of the key Elsinoreans and probably to his audience, he assumes the role of the nihilistic civilized Christian humanist individual; to us centuries later and far away, he may look like a civilized hero of high profile, but unfortunately also a Western capitalist colonizer deeply and finely versed in hegemonic manipulation.