Political and Personal Identities

The family and the clan, and later on the state, nation or church, assume the same function which the individual mother had originally for the child. -- Erich Fromm, page 39


Fromm's interest in the powerful psychological effects of individual psychology were really highlighted for me in Aeneas' story throughout The Aeneid. Aeneas' drive to visit his father in the Underworld and desire to embrace him showed his deep need for familial rootedness. In my opinion there was also a certain tension between this desire and his responsibility to establish a community in a new land. Ultimately he trudges ahead with his responsibility and creates rootedness at the community level, therefore looking beyond his personal desires and taking his people or society's future into account.

I appreciated the pairing of readings this week because they reminded me of the important linkages between personal identity as defined by familial history and political identity as defined by shared customs, values, and laws. In The Aeneid, the authority of the state depends heavily on Aeneas' family's energy and resources. He is an appropriate and good leader because of his heritage (e.g., his father's reputation) as well as his own valor and choices.

As we have seen throughout this semester's readings, we often define ourselves through our families -- in essence family ties are used as a language from which we learn values and customs. In this light it is only natural for us to look more deeply at the way we talk about our individual identities and our families in the past and present communications in order to understand our own human development.

Historical Narration Emerges with Style(s)

In reading Herodotus and Thucydides, I was struck by how sophisticated it was of both of them to, in their own way, analyze a set of events and retell those events through prose in their own voice. If we look back on the semester's readings we know that the origins of 'documenting' history (and values and norms) came from an oral tradition that used memesis. So here we have two authors that effectively separated themselves from the historical knowledge and broke it down according to their own methodologies -- that's pretty impressive!

A major difference between the two of them is their stylistic approach to the prose. Thucydides takes on a very detached narrative style (one could say with a smack of academic flair?), where aside from describing his methodology at the beginning, he does not refer to himself at all. Herodotus on the other hand takes on a much more personable approach where he is constantly referring back to himself and his own opinions as a way to contextualize the source of the material he is presenting.  We know that both accounts of the wars they document are not perfect as they are writing from their own ethnocentric perspective. However throughout much of Western history (especially after the Enlightenment), we have been inclined as a society to follow a Thucydides-type of approach to narrating history, where we remove ourselves from the narration in order to appear objective. Personally I prefer the approach Herodotus takes: explicitly subjective if equally manipulative! I suppose it comes down to the ongoing questions we keep asking in this course: is it better to reach for Truth even if we know we will never be perfect in reaching it? Or is it better to realize our limitations as humans and through that realization, evolve beyond seeking one Truth?

Amartya Sen and Protagoras vs. Plato

A division of responsibility that places the burden of looking after a person's interest on another person can lead to the loss of many important things in the form of motivation, involvement and self-knowledge that the person herself may be in a unique position to have. 
- Amartya Sen in Development as Freedom (1999)

After listening to the interview and reading a review of his book, I was drawn to bring out my copy of Development as Freedom that I read in undergrad in order to freshen my mind on his theories. And then I came across the above quote, underlined by myself 5 years ago! After reading Plato and Protagoras this week, this quote struck me as very pragmatic. 

In Plato's allegory of the cave, he argues that the individual who is able to reach Truth should be put in charge of the group so he can lead them towards it. In the fragments of Protagoras we learn of a completely different set of values: we only have what we experience and whether there's Truth or not, it behooves us to agree on the best choice for us somehow. Protagoras' study of language was perhaps an attempt at providing us with the tools necessary to discuss how we should find that "better" situation for ourselves, as a society. 

Reading the above quote again in this light and being aware that our world suffers many injustices and that even if there is an "ideal" we won't agree on it anytime soon or may be too selfish to pursue it, doesn't this quote just make SENSE? Shouldn't we be driving our own destinies regardless of Truth???

Electra's Cage

These joys I have from you. They are not mine to own.

(Electra, lines 1301-1302)

Of the many discussion points teeming from reading Sophocles' Electra in conjunction with Euripides' Orestes, it is the characterization of Electra that engaged me the most. In Electra, she is living a tortured life because she refuses to turn a blind eye to the injustice of her father's death which can be interpreted as stubborn or honorable or both. She has a strong spirit which she shows through her use of language: "In such a state, my friends, one cannot be moderate and restrained nor pious either. Evil is all around me, evil is what I am compelled to practice" (lines 308-310). She never bows down in an argument with her mother nor her sister and it is only when Orestes tells her he is alive and back does she allow someone else to take the reins in her life (emotionally speaking). 

Going back to the opening quote above, this is Electra speaking to Orestes, after he tells her that when their killing mission is over she will be able to at last freely show her joy. I just find it so striking that she is so easily able to carry the weight of her anger and thirst for justice and yet be unable to consider feeling joy for herself once her need for justice is served. 

I am not sure what Sophocles is trying to convey -- maybe that both men and women are capable of feeling an injustice upon them but not going so far as to say that women should do anything about it without men's help? Taking it one step further, consider that Clytemnestra is the most hated character in the play in part for taking her destiny into her own hands. Ok, she did so at the cost of a life, but isn't the value of life arbitrary in these plays anyways? Characters seem to choose when to care about someone's life or death depending on the machinations of the story. That may be too far a reach, but it's a thought to consider about the power that women do and don't have in these plays...

3 Sentences for Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound

Write 3 sentences, each one representing an idea of importance for you related to Aeschylus and our discussion. Do not write more than one sentence. If it helps, make believe that you are deciding what 3 sentences will remain of a larger work which no longer exists with the remaining sentences existing in no autograph manuscripts but only quoted by later thinkers. This is in addition to your normal journal ideas.

• Despite our individual mortality as humans, we possess an intrinsic need to progress, at times described as a "blind hope," but which is ultimately difficult to rationalize.

• Knowledge aligned with a moral purpose goes beyond brute force even if it doesn't save someone from the pain of that force.

• The source of morality is difficult to pinpoint and is often on the edge of subjectivity. 

Evolutionary religion as an index of historical change AKA Forethought is a god?!

As was mentioned during last week's class discussion, the Greek gods' social structure mirrors human society in that there is a distinct hierarchy and often they are driven primarily by emotions and desires. We see this in Prometheus Bound when we hear of Io's sufferings due to Zeus' desire for her and Hera's jealous response to this.

However the gods are also immortal and therefore able to learn from their past mistakes because the punishment they receive for their actions can't kill them. This makes them impetuous and fearless but also able to "evolve" quickly in the stories they inhabit. In this particular Greek tragedy we are faced with a god (Prometheus) that knew he would be punished for his actions and goes ahead with them because he believes that he is doing right. This shows perseverance in the face of an oppressing power (Zeus).

The more interesting purpose that I believe Prometheus Bound serves is that of helping to rationalize the evolution of human society. The gods are an external force that imposes their whims on mortals. In this particular myth, Prometheus imposes fire, innovation, and ultimately progress on them. In later Western depictions, it is MAN (and woman!) who is born with the ability to innovate. How did that change come about??

Oral Epic Identities AKA Relaying the Message

This week's readings reminded me that as much as things change, they often stay the same.

Let's start off with Havelock's statement that, He [Homer] is at once a storyteller and also a tribal encyclopedist (page 83). Throughout his 4th chapter Havelock describes how the poet intermingled the use of sounds, rhythms, repetitions, and bodily movements with the content of the story itself in order to engage the audience. By doing so he ensured comprehension of the messages within the epic as well as their sustainability for future generations. In this case the poet understood the capabilities of his audience and used the necessary strategies to successfully transfer information and knowledge, as noted by Havelock: The Homeric poet controlled the culture in which he lived for the simple reason that his poetry became and remained the only authorised version of important utterance (page 145). So the Homeric poet was essentially the sole expert at creating these oral epics and as such controlled the creation of identities that defined the social and ethical boundaries of the time (e.g., honor).

If we then tie in Havelock's interpretation of Plato's criticism of poetry, we can begin to see an evolution of thought. Plato lived in a time where rational analysis was a burgeoning discourse that challenged the process of learning by 'imitation'. With the rise of new strategies and tools for communication (i.e., prose) a new system of relaying the broad messages of social and ethical conduct was on the rise. Individuals were encouraged to learn how to analyze their world and deduce on their own how to identify themselves within it.

I would compare this divide to the current divide between traditional mass media and interactive new media where the identities that define social and ethical rules are created not by a sole source but by multiple ones using new strategies.