March 2009 Archives

Over the past few weeks we have been reading and talking a lot about the phallocentric economy of representation that Irigaray associates not only with Freud, but with the very structure of the patriarchal society and culture in which we live.

It has been suggested that Irigaray critiques Freud and, by extension, a phallocentric culture by leveraging "reasonable doubt" against the sometimes absurd claims of the famed psychoanalyst. By deconstructing the conventional wisdom in her cryptic quest for a viable alternative. These tactics tax the imagination, and consequently fall short of the standard required for doubt to be "reasonable." She provides no such alternative because:

1. she cannot. To do so would be an acknowledgment that any proposed system is superior to the current system and falls victim to that "fallacy of dichotomy" - a "phallocentric" argument that what is not male must be female. Those "interpretive modalities of the female function": "be/become, have/not have sex (organ), phallic/non-phallic, penis/clitoris or else penis/vagina, plus/minus, clearly representable/dark continent, logos/silence or idle chatter, desire for mother/desire to be the mother, etc." (22)  Irigaray already comes dangerously close by labeling herself as "outside," necessitating the existence of an "inside." In doing so, she has created a "same" (her account of "phallocentric law") and an "other" (her rebuttal against such a system).

Incidentally, is it possible that a "feminine space" already exists in the current system - a common discourse cohabited by the masculine and the feminine? This system can really only be considered phallocentric if we grant the penis the role of "master signifier," which implies that there can be only one -- a proposal I cannot take seriously. As has already been suggested, people might be a bit more complex than either Freud's or Irigaray's reductionist accounts suggest.

2. her proposed theories, by some accounts, are "crazy" (i.e. lacking reason). Wild speculation might provoke debate (and rightfully so), but is conjecture a suitable substitute for convention?

Which brings me to my new buzz-word: phallocentric-centricity. On page 27 Irigaray accuses psychoanalysts of perpetuating "conventional" modes of thought (or at least her perceptions of what constitutes convention, i.e. the male paradigm): "The interpreters of dreams themselves had no desire but to rediscover the same. Everywhere." By similar measures, Irigaray commits the same blunder, interpreting everything in terms of her own phallocentric language and leaving her readers hypersensitive to the double entendres of our daily discourse (much in the same fashion as Freud, the "father" of psychoanalysis).

In other words, if we look hard enough and long enough*, we can discover phallocentrism anywhere. Everywhere.








* If you suppressed the urge to shout "that's what she said!" upon reading this sentence, then you proved my point.

This is just a note regarding the point made in the podcast involving the studies that transpired in Freud's office (or lack thereof?).  I felt it was a bit too long to be a comment.

One issue that was brought to my attention with regards to the podcast was that neither Freud nor Irigaray carried out experiments to support their claims.  Freud relied on observations of his patients.  He mentions this with regards to his essay on Femininity:

"It brings forward nothing but observed facts, almost without any speculative additions..." (113)

In class, this statement was negated with the mention of Freud's weaving theory.  But, allowing for one exception (as he mentions he has no proof for said theory), let's take a look at his other, "factual" points.

He also mentions with regards to his subjects: "And since our investigations have been carried out on people who were by no means seriously abnormal, I think we should regard their outcome as deserving belief (121)."  Though one page prior when discussing how "almost all my women patients told me they had been seduced by their father.  I was driven to recognize in the end that these reports were untrue..." 

Here we run into two problems.  The first is that although his patients were not seriously abnormal, he determined (somehow...) that what they told him was inaccurate.  So the patients do not deserve to be believed? So, from where did he draw his conclusions?  The second is that he throws out what a majority of cases tells him.  In normal situations, you want to listen to what the majority says.  If you throw out 7 cases that disprove your theory and hold onto the 3 that support it, that's just not good science. 

So, returning to the point made in the podcast, is Freud's work based on anything other than his own assumptions?  How did society ever accept such an unfounded theory as Freud presented?  What's more confusing is the question of how did his theory get so much momentum that another individual had to devote an entire section of her book to the assault of the theory?

Although my point about Irigaray's opinion of the child imitating the mother's act of having a baby was meant mostly as humor, the counterpoint does raise an interesting thought.  Perhaps Irigaray's tactic of  using Freud's words against him is in part because without performing any studies of her own, she is left only with what Freud tries to establish, and can use logic based on his statements to discredit them, but cannot present any solid new theory in it's place without such study?  Or perhaps I am trying to look at this field of study with too much of a physical science point of view?  Either way, seeing some field notes from Freud, so one might try to see how he arrived at his conclusions, would be nice.

The concepts that Feud and Irigaray propose on libidinal development and economies of representation are very abstract and detached from reality for the majority of the time,  but there have been certain examples and instances given in which they ring remarkably true.  For me this occurred, due to past experiences, when Irigaray juxtaposed Freud's descriptions of the female libidinal development and melancholia (Speculum p. 66-69).  This made me wonder, could there be some other reason that these concepts, aside from their seeming ridiculousness, don't regularly apply or appear in my reality? One answer that came to mind was that maybe not all humans have had the experiences necessary to be able to relate to what is being proposed. Maybe the concepts of libidinal development and economies of representation are not as universally applicable as proposed.  As we have discussed it is a mix of biology and environment, nature and nurture that molds who we are. Could it be that these concepts seem irrelevant to me because my environment and biology are so distinctly different, so alien, from the environs of those who proposed them? If this were true then it would be just by plain luck that some of Freud's and Irigaray's concepts ring true to me, but this seems very unlikely. An alternative scenario that came to mind was that there are certain triggers, or instances in which phallocentric concepts are brought into play. Rather than being something historical as was previously proposed, could it be something instantaneous that brings the concepts to life? For me this seemed very likely. For the majority of the time these phallocentric concepts remain distant and irrelevant, but there are certain situations where something triggers them in me and I see/think/function through the lens of phallocentricism. The only trigger that I have been able to distinctly identify thus far is the gaze. The gaze triggers in me a distinct economy under which I judge those around me by a strict and shallow set of parameters (sex appeal, ethnicity, social status, stereotypical social cliques, etc). This economy is only triggered by the gaze of strangers, not by those who I know or interact with on a regular basis.  I am sure that there are other triggers such as these that I encounter regularly and am just unaware of, but I have yet to identify them.

Podcast by Bryan Herling and Scott Kelly

Disclaimer: Both Scott Kelly and I (Bryan Herling) disagree strongly with both Freud and Irigaray.  As a result of this, we had some difficulty with the podcast, and tried to discuss any topic we could latch onto.  As a result, some of our conversation may seem a bit controversial.  Please understand before you finish those death threats and throw them through our windows, that we do not necessarily agree with some of the topics or viewpoints that we discuss, it is only a result of the topic at hand.

March 23-27.m4a

What we've been covering these past two weeks has been provoking, but almost aggravatingly so. To start off with--phallocentrism. I think Kwame mentioned this in his post, and it has been a question that has been surfacing (to me, at least) throughout the lectures: Where in the world does phallocentrism end? What is not phallocentric? I think we mentioned in class that there is a phallocentric-centrism, and I would have to agree. The way that we are stressing this concept makes it appear pervasive, inescapable. Even Irigaray's reference to "the other" is phallocentric, which complicates...everything, the whole argument, perhaps.

Is phallocentrism escapable or is it a useless term that we are making much too big a deal about? I think that this "phallocentrism" occurred with the onset of written language. In a book called The Alphabet and the Goddess by Leonard Shlain, there is a chapter dedicated to "Image/Word" in which Shalin theorizes that the introduction of written language led to "explosive changes", namely that it subconsciously encouraged/forced patriarchal characteristics into society. This seems like a ridiculous statement at first, but a closer look makes this explanation entirely feasible: before language, there used to be art (symbols, logos, hieroglyphics and the like), which had the feminine qualities and allowed the brain to use a more holistic, simultaneous, synthetic and concrete approach when one utilizes that mode of communication.

However, with the onset of language, this encouraged the brain to use what we would now define as more "male" qualities: linear, sequential, reductionist, and abstract thinking. Writing and the alphabet, says Shlain, has upset the energy of the female yin and male yang, which, when there was non-writing and/or art forms, the female had more power.

"A medium of communication is not merely a passive conduit for the transmission of information but rather an active force in creating new social patterns and new perceptual realities... The alphabet, independent of the spoken languages it transcribes or the information it makes available, has its own intrinsic impacts."

His theories are not at all new in the academic world but are difficult to summarize without making the arguments seem silly. The entire book is very interesting and worth looking into.

Anyways, to expand on Shlain's theory that this created "new social patterns", I want to turn to linguistics and ask if language itself is sexist and further perpetuates this male-orientedism. Linguistic relativism says that language does influence our perceptions of the world and so, I wonder whether phallocentrism, apparently manifested in all aspects of life, and undoubtedly throughout language ("the other"), subliminally affects anyone using it to be more prone to phallocentric tendencies, whether it be by addressing or complying to them. Would "mimicry" on Irigaray's part be problematic, then, aside from how she structures her essay? To de-root this deep-seeded tradition with use of language, wouldn't we have to revamp language entirely? This example of language displays (I think) that phallocentrism is basically built into our society and to somehow change this would cause total chaos--it would be infeasible.

Another thing that frustrates me is that although I agree that gender neutrality is somehow reinforcing the same structure of power, I do not think that we can play up the numerous differences in order to, not fix the problem, but open it up to other possibilities. I personally don't think this is possible because if there is a diversity of structures, there is also a need to have one set norm. Just look at English--there are so many "forms" and usages of English throughout the country, but there is that need to have a "Standard English" in certain, mostly formal, situations. I don't think society can function well without having an accepted mode of action/conduct.

The main thing, then, that troubles me about this piece is that I personally don't feel that there are any conclusions to be drawn yet. Irigaray's actions seem somewhat ideal to me (like someone mentioned in class, "She's asking for something impossible"), and even I, who call myself a feminist, am a bit uncertain of what to make of all the information I've received.

Another small, technical thing that bothers me is that Irigaray's piece was written at least 30 years after Freud's death. We keep using the term that she's "holding the mirror up to Freud", but it's not as if Freud has a chance to retaliate. This isn't an important point, although I certainly think it would be interesting to see what he would have had to say.

I apologize for my thoughts being all over the place!

We have discussed for around two weeks now about trying to break this plague of phallocentrism that is suffocating society. More so then phallocentrism, but the existence of a clear gender dichotomy between the two main sexes has been a prevailing force in views on how our society operates. This divided world has been given much criticism in our class and by scholars on the outside, but I beg the question, why? What is wrong with this view where different things are expected of men then of women? Men and women bring different things to the table, and that should be perfectly ok. They are biologically built very different which better suit them for certain roles. This lashing out against a gender dichotomy baffles me. There was a time when women were looked down upon, but that time has passed and society realizes that it was an archaic and mistaken view. I understand when a man's work is value more highly than a women's work, and the obviously fallacy here becomes apparent, but we as a society have evolved passed that. This will probably come off as very phallocentric and I am probably a bit bias, but I want to know if I'm the only one that feels that a gender neutral would be a bad thing.

Last week, we briefly discussed Irigaray's critique of "an age-old oculocentrism".  Following this discussion, I found myself wondering what is so problematic about valuing vision more than the other senses.  This is what I discovered... 

Firstly, Irigaray emphasizes the importance of vision in relation to Freud's castration complex.  Freud asserts that little girls notice the difference, which forces them to "fall victim to envy for the penis".  This sole focus on the visible aspect, in turn, makes it seem like women really are lacking something.  Women have "nothing to see".  Irigaray explains further:  "The contract, the collusion, between one sex/organ and the victory won by visual dominance therefore leaves woman with her sexual void, with an 'actual castration' carried out in actual fact." (pg 47-48)

Is it possible that had Freud considered the other senses in his analysis, he would be less certain about his theory regarding the castration complex? 

Upon further examination, I found some outside sources which also illustrate the troubles associated with oculocentrism.  Irigaray states:  "Investment in the look is not as privileged in women as in men.  More than any other sense, the eye objectifies and it masters...In our culture the predominance of the look over smell, taste, touch and hearing has brought about an impoverishment of bodily relations." (quoted in Interview in Les femmes, la pornographie et l'erotisme - http://www.springerlink.com/content/9b10kuyrrpwgk1qp/fulltext.pdf).

I found this statement to be especially compelling.  It does seem true that touch often relates to the feminine while vision relates more so to the masculine.  As a result, valuing vision above the other senses excludes and even subjugates the feminine.  The objectification of women is one example in which vision works to subjugate the feminine.

 

I believe that my understanding of oculocentrism and its implications is still very underdeveloped, so if anyone has further insights on this topic, I would appreciate reading them! 

There has been much talk in class concerning phallocentrism. Most of the discussion concerning phallocentrism is to defend Irigaray's writing style. From what I can understand from our discussions and from what little I can understand in the book, Freud's writing (with thesis, structure, etc.) is masculine form of writing. By requesting a book with a thesis and structure we are being phallocentric. Based on this I couldn't help but wonder...Is it possible not to be phallocentric? Not in the sense of a penis, but is it possible not to think in the mindset of your sex and gender

Jonathan Morrow

Professor Long

Research Progress Assignment Part 1

28 March 2009

 

 

 

Bowers, Susan. "Medusa and the Female Gaze." NWSA Journal 2 (1990): 217-235, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4316018&Search=yes&term=Medusa&term=Gaze&term=Female&list=hide&searchUri=/action/doBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DMedusa%2Band%2Bthe%2BFemale%2BGaze%26wc%3Don%26dc%3DAll%2BDisciplines&item=2&ttl=608&returnArticleService=showArticle.

 

This article investigates and discuses the gaze from a feminine perspective rather than the typical male perspective. It also links the concept of "the gaze" to ancient Greek texts, providing a useful and rare bridge between the two approaches we have used for learning about patriarchal force and political power.

 

 

 

 

Heron, John. "The Phenomenology of Social Encounter: The Gaze." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 31 (1970): 243-264, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2105742&Search=yes&term=social&term=gaze&term=encounter&term=Phenomenology&list=hide&searchUri=/action/doBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DThe%2BPhenomenology%2Bof%2Bsocial%2Bencounter%253A%2Bthe%2Bgaze%26gw%3Djtx%26prq%3DJohn%2BHeron%26S.

 

This article provides a foundation for the biological, psychological, and philosophical study of the gaze. It provides crucial concepts and vocabulary which are indispensible when attempting to interpret works on or related to the gaze.

 

 

 

 

Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness (Routledge Classics). New York: Routledge, 2003.

 

This essay is generally regarded as establishing the foundation for phenomenological existentialism. It discusses in detail the concepts of sex, consciousness, and most importantly the gaze. It uses negation extensively as a means to investigate and interpret the world, consciousness, the gaze, and the sexes. All of these topics along with the lens and means by which they are investigated (negation) are important and relevant to the study of the gaze and the course in general.

 

 

Stack, George, and Robert Plant. "The Phenomenon of "The Look"." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 42 (1982): 359-373, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2107492&Search=yes&term=Stack&term=look&term=Plant&term=Robert&term=J.&term=Phenomenom&term=George&list=hide&searchUri=/action/doAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3DThe%2BPhenomenom%2Bof%2Bthe%2Blook%26f0%3Dti%26c0%3DOR%26q1%3DGeorge%2BJ.%2.

 

This article provides both a basic and intensive look at the concept of the gaze. It gives concepts, vocabulary, and references which are important when studying the gaze. It succeeds in outlining and defining the major aspects of the gaze or, as it is called in this article, "the look" and then applies them more acutely.

 

 

In Wednesday's class, we discussed the topic of values placed on gender. I think it was Carly that mentioned that society places certain values and defines gender roles at a very early age. If the baby is a boy, he gets blue and if its a girl, she gets pink. Dr. Long reaffirmed this from his own personal experience with his young daughter's infatuation with Disney Princess Dolls. Also, discussed, was how society put a greater value on males. Males are considered more valuable as they are traditionally the primary bread winner. Females are delegated the task of the nurturer, raising children and taking care of the home. While I do agree that society does place these values on each gender, I do not put the whole blame on society.

Instead, I think it is important to look back in history and examine gender roles. Everyone can there are obvious biological differences between men and women. I think that gender roles and the values placed on them by society are a result of biology. Back in the Stone Age, men were the hunters because they were, generally speaking, naturally stronger than women. As hunters, and sole providers of food for the family, men obviously were considered more important by society. This has mostly stayed the same until very recently ( last 100 or so years), but much progress has been made in equality for women. Just look at the television show "Leave it to Beaver". It was a typical societal gender stereotype where the man comes home from a hard days work to find his wife cooking supper.I think this is the beginnings of a male dominated society. It really comes down to biological differences and a perception of men that has been passed down throughout time. 

While reading Speculum of the Other Woman we have repeatedly discussed the style in which Luce Irigaray is writing. There have been many complaints arguing that the work would have been more understandable as a whole if she were to have a clear thesis followed by a series of warranted claims. If I remember correctly, Dr. Long alluded to the style used by Irigaray as a means to negate not only Freud's theories but the broader concepts of patriarchal expression as a whole.

I for one found that this would have been a better read had there been a clear thesis and focus that was developed and connected throughout; however, I am certain others would argue as Dr. Long suggested, that I am just a product of the patriarchal forces of society that have dowsed me since I was a child. I found that this style of writing, used by Irigaray, is known as "écriture feminine" which literally means "gendered women's writing." Under this French literary theory, it is believed that language is not a "neutral medium" and the argument is made that language functions as an instrument of patriarchal expression. It is for this reason that Irigaray uses écriture féminine as an antithesis of masculine writing, or in other words as a means of escape for women. In the case of Speculum of the Other Woman, I feel that it is precisely as Dr. Long stated. Irigaray uses this literary theory to further her major purpose to negate the theories of Freud while overall defecting from the writing style she feels is phallocentric and patriarchal in nature.

    The strategy employed by Luce Irigaray in the Speculum of the Other Woman has been debated among the class in the last week but I have finally reached what I believe to be her basic strategy: reasonable doubt

    As Irigaray works through Freud's arguments she systematically negates them, primarily by proposing equally reasonable theories. Freud's arguments lose legitimacy when she proposes alternative explanations. For example, when Freud claims that children have hatred towards their mother when they have another child and as a result exhibit regressive behavior, Irigaray poses the question, "Could it not also be an attempt to imitate the mother, to have a baby(p.45)?" Whether this is a "reasonable" theory is debatable (seems equally as crazy to me), but its presence casts doubt on Freud's theories. Freud's theories, which he liked to propose as water tight, are no longer as credible. This is also seen her segment, The "Reasons" Why a Girl Hates Her Mother and a Boy Goes on Loving His and throughout the book as a whole. She creates reasonable doubt for the reader, thereby destroying Freud's legitimacy and essentially negating the truthfulness of his claims.

    This is potentially very problematic, however, for Irigaray. While her newly proposed theories successfully ruin Freud's they don't replace them. I am no more likely to buy her theories than I am to buy his because the reasonable doubt goes both ways. So, is here point to simply negate Freud as an authoritative source? If she wishes to assert her own theories in replacement of Freud's then I find her strategy less than appealing. The question of her purpose was brought up in class today and I think it is important for understanding this text but I have yet to discover it. What exactly is Irigaray's purpose?

It was certainly interesting to hear all the back and forth of the legitimacy involved in the development and perpetualization of this "economy of representation". And there were a few points at which I got lost in trying to keep track of who said what about which text and all the rest. So here is my two cents.

 

 I think that what Dan said about our evolutionary history is correct. Back when we first started walking upright, the cave man days, females where the natural nurtures and men where the natural aggressive hunters (if for no other reason that only the females could feed the young at first, and since they were always around to do this, they fell into the role of the natural care givers). I think this is the beginning of the history of our "human nature" that Freud uses to legitimize his arguments about what is "normal". I don't think that this had anything to do with any pre-wired programming in our brain, but was just the most practical arrangement. Look at other animals, such as penguins and seahorses, where the father plays an extensive role in the early stages of their offspring's life, simply because that is the most practical arrangement for the way they are set up biologically. This is what I believe created the economy of representation we discussed.

 

 But a major problem with this, and its perpetualization, is that we as a species evolved beyond it, to a point where we have enough leisure time for either parent to be the primary care giver, and a system that has jobs that either sex can perform and be the primary bread winner for a family. As we did this though our social norms and expectations failed to evolve with it, and it is only recently that this is beginning to change. Because of this I feel that what Freud hits upon are the phantom symptoms of an old arrangement with no basis in psychology but rather our own self imposed social conditioning, our "economy of representation", which by Freud's time had become out dated and useless to the functioning of society as a whole.

Here is the Weekly Roundup Podcast from Andrea and Ruth for March 16 through 20, 2009.

Sigmund Freud's view of women in Femininity is overall outdated. I feel his theories are rooted in Victorian Era principles that were driven primarily by patriarchal power.

This is evident in Freud's association between male and female, especially pertaining to his consideration of masculinity exclusively bearing active characteristics and femininity bearing passive characteristics. During the Victorian Era, men were active in the public sphere compared to women. The very aspect of doing work and providing for a family deemed men truly masculine. The gender role of women was basically to give birth and raise children. Freud seems to use this as an underlying concept in his theories. He establishes the gender roles of the Victorian Era as the defining traits of male and female and calls these traits "normal."
 
Today these gender roles are outdated. Women can attain jobs and hold positions in both public and private spheres that were once exclusively for males. I think this is what we were really getting at in class-the fact that Freud's theories are outdated. That isn't to say that the theories are useless though. I think we could develop new theories based on his ideas.

I'm confused with this "penis" envy theory. What if you had a family of 5 in which the majority were female(3 daughters)? Wouldn't the majority claim themselves to be "normal"? And how on earth would the daughters know what a penis is at that age? I'm pretty sure it is not common for a father to walk around naked. So would Freud consider this family structure weak? If I was the only male child out of 6 then wouldnt I have "vagina" envy? Oh God...

Here is the weekly roundup podcast for March 2 through the 6th, produced by Jonathan and Kwame.

On Wednesday, as Chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee for the UPUA, I hosted a Tuition Awareness Day in the HUB with speakers from 12pm-1pm on the steps of Old Main. The point of the day was to empower the students with information about what is going on with tuition/appropriations/aid this year with the hope that this empowerment would lead to sparking student interest and activism on this issue on an individual and organic level. 

Hannah sort of touched on this in the post below but I guess I need more clarification on this issue. During our class discussions of hermeneutics, the idea of the reader completing the reading/writing process came up. We discussed how this opens up new meanings within the text and how it allowed for interpretation of the text. An example was then brought up about movies with ambiguous endings.

Maybe I'm just naive or uninformed, but I have a lot of trouble coming to terms with this--especially with works of fiction. While I think that everyone is entitled to interpret texts as they wish, shouldn't the author's ideas be the only legitimate ones? Take for example the example of a movie with an ambiguous ending. Sure each viewer can leave the movie theater with their own ideas about what happens next in the lives of the characters, but isn't what the writer's idea about what happens the only rightful one?

The reason I think this is because if I were to write a piece of fiction, I may choose to leave the ending of the piece vague. However, while other people might think they know what will happen next or what the characters were thinking, I would argue that as the author, only my ideas are the legitimate ones (since I created the character). I know there are some English majors in the class and I would be really interested in hearing what you think.

One of my favorite quotes is a quote by Thoreau, in which he states "It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right."  This type of mentality and belief in a greater justice beyond the law persists throughout Antigone.  Although our class has had a few discussions about Antigone's "glory-seeking" and her "self-pitying" last words, I personally see the entirety of her actions as a respectable form of civil disobedience. 

As seen in lines 69-77, Antigone states that she is willing to perform a "crime of piety" because it would avoid dishonoring the gods.  Because she believes that honoring Polyneices and the gods is most important, she disregards Kreon's proclamation.  For Antigone, disobeying the law is the most effective way to honor her brother--to do what is "right".

Antigone's dedication to her belief can be further seen in her confession to completing the action:  "I don't deny it; I admit the deed was mine." (line 443)

Not only does Antigone take a great risk in burying Polyneices, but she also displays a willingness to accept the punishment of death.  This is a key component to effective civil disobedience.  Furthermore, the actual suffering of Antigone, specifically through her realization that she will die unmarried, gives credibility to her action. 

"I go thus cursed, unmarried, to dwell without a home" (line 867) 

Personally, I don't view these words as complaints or self-pity.  Rather, Antigone's suffering is necessary to display her true commitment.  If death had no daunting effects whatsoever, anyone may be inclined to risk death for any sort of cause or belief.  This, of course, is not the case.  Antigone completed an act that she believed to be of greater importance than herself and was willing to endure the consequences, however unpleasant they may be.

 

Having recently participated in the largest act of civil disobedience on global warming in American history on Monday (check it out!), I have developed a newfound respect for Antigone as a character.  Whether or not to risk arrest to show my support for a cause was not an easy decision to make.  Yet, having made that decision, I became aware of the importance of participating in an extreme act as a means to demonstrate the seriousness of an issue.  Antigone did not attempt to reason with Kreon or try to convince him that his proclamation was wrong; rather, she immediately dove into a risky (nonviolent and direct) action to honor Polyneices.  And though I would not label Antigone as a hero, I do believe she is the best character in The Theban Plays. 

I was really interested in the things we talked about today in class, and I was hoping to use this post to keep the conversation going even if we don't really get to come back to it very much. So there are a few things I thought we really talked about:

Interpretation:

Why do we even analyze texts? What's the purpose of reading so deeply into things? Aren't these just meant for entertainment?

These plays definitely are entertaining (at least I think so), and the purpose of Greek theater may have been to entertain an audience. One purpose of art in general is definitely to entertain, or to make us feel a certain way--comedies make us laugh, horror scares us, etc. However, it's easy to look at a text, or even the whole genre of plays or literature or even art as a single entity within a culture. It's also important to remember that art affects culture and affects the way we think about things, just as cultural values end up being manifested in art. For example, say we determined that the Greeks had a progressive view of women (this is hypothetical), that value manifests itself in Antigone and Antigone helps to perpetuate that progressive view. They work on each other. But culture is a nebulous term, and individuals are also constantly influencing and being influenced by culture. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the way art entertains us tells us something about ourselves--why do we laugh at the things that we do? Why do certain things scare us? And what cultural values do we see manifesting themselves in (or in the case of the Greek tragedies, whose roots are in) the specific piece of entertainment or art. That's why, for instance, the portrayal of women in these plays is so significant--it says a lot about the roots of the values we have related to sex and gender now.

Does the Author have the final say in a text's meaning? Is the author's interpretation the best one, the final one?

If you were in class today, I think you have a pretty good idea where I stand on this one, but some explanation as to why is in order. In simple terms: the communication process isn't simple--we don't just transmit meaning directly into someone else's mind. How many times do we know what we want to express, but when we actually say it in words, it's totally misunderstood, unclear or even offensive? The same is true of art and literature. An author can set out to write a text about race and how everyone is created equal, and when she's finished, she might think it's progressive, and others might realize how racist it is in its perpetuation of stereotypes. Basically, I think that the reader has, in some ways, more authority than the author, because we have access to the full communication process, we've read the text and reacted to it, so we know something that the author can only guess at, something that I think is as much a part of the text's meaning as the words themselves. Of course, the author gives us context--who was he? what culture did he come from? etc. and these factors go into the text's meaning, but what the author MEANT to say isn't half as important as what he actually SAID.

Truth/Facts:

Why do we, as a generation, demand concrete meanings from, say, a text? Why do we object so strongly to "over-analyzing" or "reading too deep?"

I have a few theories about this one. One comes from a sad observation that I've made. A former professor of mine summed it up beautifully: he talked about knowledge as divided up between technological, scientific and something like "philosophical," or something relating to the humanities. As far back, I think, as Sputnik, Western education has focussed obsessively on technology, and so technological knowledge is progressing forward at a very rapid pace. Since technology is so linked to science, and science has benifits that are overtly tangible, like more advanced medicine, scientific knowledge is also progressing pretty rapidly. Philosophical knowledge, or "humanities" knowledge, is suffering neglect as a result of our pointed pouring of our resources. Who has time for "subjective speculation" when we have access to "objective facts?" I think that's the way it's seen, and I think that's one reason why the humanities seem to be suffering greatly while schools like engineering and medicine seem to be doing fine.

I know we talked about more than just this, but I feel this post is long enough. Hope you guys feel free to talk about it all!

During class today I realized the importance of interpretation and philosophy.  I aspire to go to law school after I graduate from Penn State and never understood why people always tell me to take philosophy classes for the LSATs.  However, today I began to understand why people keep telling me this; much of law has to do with interpretation.  For example, the interpretation of a deposition can really change a trial.  However, I'm not completely sold on this.  I also believe that our society heavily relies of fact and that people easily believe facts over someone's interpretation.  I still haven't completely organized my thoughts on this, but I'd really appreciate feedback, to help make sense of this.  

After taking a step back and looking at the Oedipus trilogy on a grander scale, something that stuck out to me was the abundance of suicides that take place. To clarify, we see Jocasta start the habit by hanging herself. Oedipus shortly thereafter performs an act of self-mutilation, which would escalate to his suicide (I argue that his going into the forest in the second play is a willingness to accept his own death and is suicide). Polynice was perfectly aware of his father's curse and went to his own death. Eurydice and Haemon both stab themselves at the close of Antigone.

Now, I found it odd that suicide was so prevalent in this play so I researched the Greek view on the act. I found that it was usually looked down upon unless in special circumstances as described by Plato. This next passage comes from the Stanford Encyclopedia:

"However, Plato recognized four exceptions to this principle: (1) when one's mind is morally corrupted and one's character can therefore not be salvaged (Laws IX 854a3-5), (2) when the self-killing is done by judicial order, as in the case of Socrates, (3) when the self-killing is compelled by extreme and unavoidable personal misfortune, and (4) when the self-killing results from shame at having participated in grossly unjust actions."

Now, I think we can see the latter two principles here apply. I think we can all agree that in all of the tragedies and the deaths in the play arise from the initial acts by Oedipus. When viewing the play through the lens of Oedipus having no control over his life and being a victim of fate, I believe that it can be classified as extreme and unavoidable personal misfortune. Thus the self-killing (at least for Oedipus and Jocasta) arises from having participated in grossly unjust actions.

What do people think about the high number of suicides in this trilogy? Do we think that the individuals were justified under Plato's views or possibly something else. Do we view the people committing these acts as less honorable or more honorable? Briefly, I think that the act of suicide is shameful and as a black mark on the characters that committed them. I even feel this away about Oedipus's decision to blind himself. I feel that a more noble and viable decision could have been made by all of the characters charged with self-destruction.

Throughout the story I viewed Antigone as a hero who cares nothing more than to bring honor to her brother Polynices and her family. By dying I assumed that she would bring honor to her family and may be viewed as a martyr and a tragic hero. Little did I know that as Antigone was about to die, she had a little fit in which she complained and drowned herself in self-pity. In class we have had mostly good things to say about Antigone, but now after reading her blunder in her final scene, it seems that Antigone is far from honorable. 

I know we discussed this in class yesterday, but it was something I was thinking about before it was brought up, but I couldn't make sense of my thoughts at the time.  I wasn't sure if we were reading too far into the Greek Tragedies because I was sure the authors could not have possibly thought of all of the topics we discuss in class!  I mean we do a really good job of picking apart the characters, themes, and plot.  However, I've come to my own conclusion that on some of the things we evaluate in class were probably given much thought to when they were coming up with these complex characters (such as whether characters like Antigone which don't portray the stereotypical Greek women), but I feel as if other times we argue things that we ourselves have over thought.  I could be wrong considering this is the whole reason we analyze text, but a part of me is convinced that these authors did not give this much thought into writing these plays.  

In class today, we discussed the various views with which the character of Antigone could be analyzed.  Two quotes mentioned brought to mind a third option besides that of the hero or the sick/twisted.

"Alas!  Speak out!  You'll be more hateful still if you stay silent.  No, proclaim my plan out loud to all!" (86-87)

"Yet how could I have won more glorious renown than by the act of placing my own brother in a tomb?" (502-503)

These lines support the view of Antigone as a glory seeker.  Being a more masculine character to begin with, Antigone never really had a chance for glory while helping her father, Oedipus.  Oedipus' demise freed her from the responsibilities of assisting him.  The demise of her brother then would have presented Antigone with an opportunity to gain fame and glory for herself.  From the text, I believe that she does actually love (in a sister-brother way) her brother, but it seems that the method she uses to respectfully bury him are a bit showy, and are meant to draw attention to herself.  What do you guys think?


This next part, you can totally disregard if you wish, as there is no possible way for it to be anything more than a coincidence.  It's just something I noticed.  In a few Native cultures, a corpse was prepared for burial by first leaving it out for birds to pick at for a few weeks.  This was considered proper because the birds would leave the bones, which were then buried in an ossuary.  To be left for the wolves would mean that many bones would be taken and scattered, and could therefore not be buried. This in the back of my mind, I happened to notice that when Antigone mentions her brother's corpse, she mentions it being left out for birds to consume, where whenever Kreon or his men mention it, they mention it being left for birds, dogs or savage beasts.  Just throwing that little fun fact out there.

Here, for your viewing pleasure, is the weekly roundup podcast by Max and August.  Oedipi Pictures Presents the weekly roundup podcast for February 23-27, 2009.

    Antigone, the Theban Play, tells the tragic story of the rulers of Thebes with Antigone vindicated as a true heroin. Antigone proves her heroism through her ability to look beyond the mortal realm and act selflessly in reverence to the Gods and a higher justice alone. She is willing to sacrifice everything to do what is right. In many regards she is similar to Athena and her actions show her attempts to be Athena-like. There was one snag in her plan that prevented her success, however. She lacked Zeus' thunderbolts, which was Athena's most important weapon. In other words, she lacked force to back her power.

    In Oedipus at Colonus, Antigone proves that she is level-headed and is acting in the best interests of the people of Thebes and of the Gods. For example, her persistent attempts to reconcile her brother and father starting at line 1181 is all for the hope of a prosperous and peaceful Thebes. "Abundant words, which give delight or show distress or stir up pity in some way, sometimes impart a voice to those whose voice was mute (line 1281-83)," is Antigone's way of trying to help her brother be more persuasive with their father. She clearly has a hand in creating the parameters of their discussion, or lack there of. And later when this proves futile she turns her attention towards her brother pleading, "I supplicate you, Polyneices, be persuaded (line 1414)." As was discussed in class, her failure to persuade first her father and then her brother was by no means a result of her use of inefficient rhetoric but her lack of force. She didn't have the upper hand in the situation and therefore failed in preventing the destruction she knew laid ahead. Polyneices had armed forces and weapons at his disposal to back his declarations. Without a force that trumped Polyneices' army, Antigone had no chance of convincing him to back down. If she possessed a legitimate force that she could command then it is impossible (for me to believe) that the story would have played out in the same way.

    This lack of force behind her words, however powerful they might be, is the critical difference between her and Athena. Both set out to protect the people of their cities, Thebes and Athens, and both intended to set precedents about Justice. Granted, the justice that Athena focused on was a more democratic approach as opposed to the older retributive ways and Antigone was trying to prove that the laws of the Gods and her vision of a higher justice trump any of mans' laws. Athena was successful in her attempts as seen in The Eumenides and Antigone failed. This is not to say that she wasn't completely unsuccessful, however. Antigone couldn't prevent the tragedies that occurred, like Athena prevented the destruction of Orestes, but she was able to make an example of it at least. As Antigone is lead away to the place that is to be her tomb, her final words are, "Look on me, oh rulers of Thebes, the last of your house who remains, see what I suffer, from what kind of men, for revering reverence (Antigone, line 939-43)." She speaks directly to the future rulers and warns them, which is part of her goal. She is successful in this regard.

    Her status as a mortal may seem like an obvious factor in her downfall but Antigone was able to circumvent even the most basic mortal quality - mortality. By consciously making the decision to give up her life in order to honor her brother's death she no longer lives in the mortal realm, per se. She becomes elevated above it because there is no punishment that could affect her anymore. She recognizes that her future in Hades will last far longer than her time on earth, which leads her to proclaim that, "I must please those down below a longer time than those up here, since I shall lie there always (Antigone, line 74-76)." Clearly, her focus is no longer on her time on earth which releases her from all of the bonds of mortality. By accepting her own death, an amazing feat on its own, she evaded what makes mortals inferior, which is their inability to live forever. In this manner, Antigone, a mortal by most standards, proved she was capable of encompassing God-like qualities and living forever, if only through the lesson she left behind.

    In my opinion, Antigone's greatest victory was her ability to evade the title of a tragic character. Yes, she was in effect unfairly murdered for mourning her brother and she did suffer from her inferior position as a woman, but she left this world because she decided to. From the moment she heard of her brother's death and Kreon's proclamation, she willingly succumbed to her inevitable death. In the end, Kreon became the tragic character because he made the pivotal mistake of insisting on adherence to his laws, made in conflict to all counsel, and his focus on the corruptive qualities of men, namely money. When the guards brought news to Kreon that Polyneices had been buried he accused them of taking bribes. Later, when the prophet foresaw his destruction and the fall of Thebes he accursed the prophet for being a "money-loving breed (Antigone line 1055)." Kreon eventually was persuaded to see the wrongness of his actions, but too late. By the end of the play, Kreon is the tragic character and Antigone a righteous, Goddess like figure.

    Antigone most certainly took lessons from Athena's play book and she was nearly successful. It is a shame that her lack of force is the reason she had to die along with so many others to rectify a mistake she could have prevented. But she is not Athena's failed apprentice but rather a star pupil constrained by external forces.

Something that I found very interesting in Antigone is the distinction between human law and divine law. In the play, Antigone ignores the laws that Kreon has enacted in order to fulfill the laws of the Gods (proper burial of Polyneices). In lines 450-457, Antigone attacks Kreon's authority and argues that:

"It was not Zeus who made this proclamation; nor was it Justice dwelling with the gods below who set in place such laws as these for humankind; nor did I think that your proclamations had such strength that, mortal as you are, you could outrun those laws that are the gods', unwritten and unshakable. Their laws are not for now or yesterday, but live forever; no one knows when first they came to light."

In essence Antigone (or Sophocles depending on how you look at it) is arguing that divine law will ultimately overpower human law in every situation.  Kreon, on the other hand, scoffs at Antigone's claim and remains convinced that since he is the king what he says goes.  We see this attitude continue for the most part until the deaths of Haimon and Eurydike when he finally sees that divine law triumphs human law.

When I read this, I could also not help but also think about the conversations we had in class regarding the prophecy about Oedipus in Oedipus the King.  Oedipus thought that he could in a sense outwit the gods and escape the prophecy but no matter how hard he tried, he still ended up killing his father and marrying his mother.  I can't help but think that perhaps Sophocles wrote these plays to show everyone that you can never escape the will of the gods.