Herakles Ideological Analysis

From Wikireedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Introduction

Myths survive because they operate at the highest ideological level and help create a unifying general ideology and address society as whole and not just a subgroup but it will include contradictions that arise from the opposed interests of the sub-groups These will be ambiguities, motives or ethics of the characters and mutually exclusive motifs

Freedom in Herakles

Freedom or Eleutheria is what separated the Greeks from their slaves. Freedom makes men truly human. Aristotle even went as far as to say that freedom was a choice. Those governed by good character would never be enslaved. The ideology says those who cannot govern are slaves and this is to the benefit of the slaves as well as the free. This could be construed as a confusion of culture for nature. Slavs have no view point so no impact on cultural ideology.

To the aristocratic greek any paid work was akin to slavery. Gain drives the merchant the whip drives the slave. The aristocrat trained for competition and wars and did not to so by compulsion. To the working classes they saw the aristocrats as a type of social parasites. The working classes saw honor in virtue through industriousness. These are polar ideologies and Greek literature will declare a preference of one over the other.

Nicole Laraux says that Herakles is above politics because all Greeks claimed him yet Marxist Peter Rose says ideology can exist at above the City State level. Yet Herakles is not seen as purely an aristicratic hero.

As Greece developed they moved on from inter-family fights to more competition based feuds. In the Oddessy Eurylaos chides Odysseus for not taking part in the games and compares him unfavourable with the greedy merchant class. The ideas can be summarized as follows

Class Aristocracy. Activity' was sports, Object was glory Motive was free choice Merchants. Activity' was trade, Object was money Motive was greed Labourers. Activity' was Agriculture, Object was food Motive was necessity Motives and Modes

Herakles deeds are called athloi or contests. His feats not only being him glory Kleos but also immortality. In art he is depicted as victor the proverbial champion Kallinkos and looks very aristocratic let we are also presented with the myth of the Labours of Herakles. The Choice of Herakles is the hard road of, and to, virtue Arete

Aristotle calls him a serf. Aeschylus as a slave. His labours have no intrinsic value what mattered more was the conditons it was carried out under. Theseus seems to be a better aristocratic model performing nobel exploits. In contrast some of Herakles ae modelled after athletic contest while others such as cleaning the stables of Augeias are not and done under complusion and gain.

They are a curiuos mix of penance (for killing his children he does his twelve labours), slavery (sold to Omphale when he kills Iphitos glory, servitude (when [[character::Artemis finds him with the Kerynian hind he is let off when he says it is a necessity) and gain (cleaning of Augeias' stables) . The episode of Syleus and the vineyard the ambivalence here is that the ploughing is labor and a contest.

Sometimes there is an duty motive. (Clears Crete of wild animals), (Liberates Thebes) but he does not carry out deeds as debts of gratitude for past favours.

Herakles and frustration

The more meaningless the task the greater the heroism but there is an element of frustration. Monsters have many heads to decapitate, money for labor done is withheld. When he saves Hesione from a sea monster in return for an immortal horse is is cheated. Even when he saves Thebes and marries Megara as a reward he loses everyhthing when he is sent mad and kills his children. Eventually the frustration pays off and he is made immortal

We see the contradiction of laboring under free will and constraint. Burkett explains this by saying that even a common man working through drudergy can expect to enter the world of the gods. It also shows the pointlessness of labor in that you will always be cheated

Commentary

1

The ideological approach can be a good way of explaining the myth of Herakles but I have one criticism of the analysis as it is explained in the article. It gives the impression that the purpose of the aristocratic class was solely to assert their freewill through the absence of paid work so that


“Free, in the aristocratic sociolect meant having leisure for education, physical training and the pursuit of various forms of status competition… Greek aristocrats like to think that what they did [was] not subject to any form of compulsion but always a matter of free choice”

Although this is undoubtedly true I think the reality was more complicated. The physical training was not an end in itself but training through contests of the aristocratic warrior class. The heroic ethos was deeply ingrained in their culture and although it may not be viewed as explicit compulsion, if the aristocrat did not fight bravely he would be shunned by aristocratic society. There was also a more practical reason for the aristocratic lack of labour given that they were so often away on campaigns or business and relied on their wives and servants to run the household when they were away (think of Odysseus and Penelope). So I don’t think that the motives and freedom of choice of the aristocratic and other classes where so diametrically opposed and therefore, Herakles is not quite the paradoxical character that he seems to be at first sight.

Despite that, the ideological analysis seems to reconcile Herakles, the aristocrat bent on the pursuit of freewill and glory as well as the labouring figure doing penance, servitude and tasks for monetary gain. The ideological myth of Herakles seems to argue in favour of sustaining the aristocratic status quo to ensure the survival of the society from itself and from outsiders but he also becomes an “everyman” where road to virtue and immortality as seen through Herakles' exploits can be attained by the free, noble and heroic as well as those who are industrious, compelled and laboring

2

In a way, it does point how the aristocratic classes were strongly motivated to achieve glory because it didn’t only mean that they attained high status at “the upper end of a fiercely contested pecking-order” but it also meant for them that they were free and truly human; allowing them to develop “reason, self-control, courage, generosity, high-mindedness”. This is different from the external control, restrictions and constraints of slavery or of one’s basic needs. Csapo does allude to the difficulty in defining whether one is free or unfree. If the aristocrats felt strongly compelled to be at a high end of the spectrum, are they truly free? But I think Csapo’s tables of motives and modes, showing the aristocratic ideology of freedom: glory, gratitude, penance, and obligation do show some of the differences with the merchant or slave ideology – the emphasis is on developing the aristocrat’s own virtues. In contrast, the labour of the slave is unfree because the slave has to do it, it isn’t primarily to pursue a personal virtue (even though there might be a sense of virtue in fulfilling his role). The aristocratic view of the merchant’s labour I found interesting. They consider the merchant’s labour for gain as ‘unfree’, considered greed and considered that would drive them in the same way as the slave would be driven by hunger. I would actually question whether the merchant’s lust for gain is more akin to the aristocrat’s lust for status, in a sense both groups could be considered as having somewhat of a ‘choice’ of their actions. But it seems that in Archaic and Classical Greece this was not the case.

It is an interesting point that the Herakles myth might mediate between the polarities of the Greek society because of its complexity and contradictions but also that it is a “seductive enticement” to the other classes to accept the aristocratic view of labour

3

Although I found the analysis very enlightening I kept wondering what he meant by the aristocracy. The myths and worship of Herakles is very widespread, is Csapo equating Greece with Athens? Were the aristocracy the same throughout Greece? Did the aristocracy all have the same ideology?


Herakles is known over a long period of time. The first written references appear in the Archaic period but must have been know before that, in the Mycenaean (1). They continue through the Classical period , the Hellenistic, the Early Roman (I believe there is a central alter to Herakles in Rome) and the Imperial Roman periods.

Also he was also known over a large area , Mainland Greece, the Peloponnese, the Ionian Seaboard, the Aegean Islands (but not Crete?), Northern Turkey, the Black Sea and beyond, from the Eastern Mediterranean(2) to Spain, in Greater Greece and in Italy, and the the North African Coast.

Did they all have the same ideology?

A)

Perhaps a different ideology, that would be as useful, is that of the citizen. Although there are variations, the citizen in the Greek world was an adult male – not a young man, nor a woman, nor a foreigner, nor a slave. I believe that in Athens he had to have two Athenian parents. Later the definition altered but probably still held as its core ideology this Greek idea.

But again I think the appeal of Herakles is that although he appears to be a citizen (adult male and all that) he also becomes a none citizen by being a slave, dressing as a woman, being a foreigner, and “something forever youthful about the hero, who is always wandering, fighting, and nowhere at home” (1) p209, etc., etc.

I find the character of Herakles most unappealing; he's a murderer, a child killer, a rapist (as he is so tall and testosterone driven could he have had a double Y chromosome?) so wondered why he had such a following. Maybe it is because he is Everyman and shows what these none citizens can achieve. Not only that, but also a God/Hero; a man who has become a god. An inspiration for attaining the afterlife. (1)

He is also very connected with animals, always a likeable God. (1)

B)

Closely linked to the ideology of the citizen is that of an ambiguous sexuality. another interesting ideology we could link to Herakles? Akhilleus as well as Herakles dressed up in women's clothes and both had male 'favourites'. Interesting there is a suggestion that both took the passive role in sex with other males (Patrokles is thought to be older than Akhilleus); Herakles is said to have succumbed to to Pan's advances! But was he asleep? So Herakles is a role model to the sexual variation practioners of the classical world.

Herakles and Iolaus (nephew-lover) are said to be the role models for the Theban Sacred Band.(3)

Brian


(1) Burkert, W, Greek Religion (English translation 1985)

(2) Lane Fox, R, Travelling Heroes 2008

(3) Davidson, J, The Greeks and Greek Love 2007

The points you make about location and chronology are important (although I think Csapo is trying to address these, and his 'aristocracy' is primarily that of the Archaic period in this case, I suppose). But to ask 'do they all have the same ideology' is very valid - Sparta would not fit the mould, for instance, and as you point out, Archaic Greece is not Republican Rome, which isn't Imperial Rome. But Herakles is ubiquitous throughout all these eras, though he often looks different and behaves differently

4

If nothing else, he makes Odysseus' killing of the suitors look positively restrained and pragmatic and it is also why I find Herakles characterisation so problematic. You did not have to agree with the actions of Akhilleus, Oidipous and Odysseus but you empathize with their struggles, torment and inner demons. They represented something identifiable, a warrior class, a state, husband, father etc. Whereas Herakles seems more like a composite character embodying themes such as penance, heroism, frustration, nobility, athleticism, and revenge. The other interesting contrast is his indifference to 'home'. Being identified to a particular homeland has been a running theme in other stories but not Herakles. Not being strongly associated with a homeland means he can be identified with any Greek city state, which allows the ideology of the myth to spread further maybe.

Good point, all the heroes I can think of have a definite idea of 'home' - they're either heading towards or away from it, and yet Herakles doesn't have that imperative - most interesting That could be one of the reasons why I've never been as 'convinced' by the legends surrounding Herakles - there was almost too much, too confusing, too many deaths, too many women, too much of everything to keep track of and this sense that he wasn't a very successful hero - he was cheated and sold into slavery and constantly frustrated (as the article says) - his stories are a lot less satisfying than those of Jason and Theseus (for example).

The Herakles corpus seems very diffuse, doesn't it? Could this be because, unlike Akhilleus, Hektor, Odysseus, etc., Herakles doesn't have a Homer? He appears in Euripides, Aristophanes, Theokritos, etc., etc., but do you get the feeling that we presented with a series of different tales/episodes (folk-tales, almost?) that are told at different times by different authors (or artists) for different reasons, with no overarching narrative? The sequence of the various tasks is not set in stone, and,s we've already discovered, there are loads on images in the arts too, but even these lack unity. It may be that the idea of the 12 Labours only crystallised with the sculpting of the Olympia metopes (it's notable that he was originall assigned 10 tasks, but got disqualified twice!). Could this highlight the importance of narrative?

5

That the Ideological standpoint, such as any other method of analysis, has vast limitations - especially pertaining to mythology. I say this because mythology is specifically complex, varied, vast and debated. I may stand corrected, but I don't think there is any model that can fully take into consideration all the possible meanings or interpretations of a myth - the scope is just too wide.

That being said, I think ideological analysis is a quite useful tool to look at the myth of Herakles. Many of the points raised by the author in the article in particular are quite valid.

I have to, however, point out that I noticed something about the author's interpretation particular to the article - that was a problem for me in his analysis. He treats the various myths about Herakles, that were written down by various authors, as one huge collective myth. As he uses examples from the tales about Herakles to substantiate his arguments, or explain the viewpoints of ideology, he uses examples from different and at times vastly different versions of Herakles' story interchangeably as needed. If, based on ideology, one could interpret myths as having a particular class stance such interchangeability would only not be a mistake if the authors had the exact same class stance/opinions - which I'm sure is highly unlikely. Ideological theory holds the reason/motivation for creation in high importance, and as such careful attention should be paid to the creator and the context. Thus, I think his ideological analysis of Herakles - and in fact any ideological analysis on any myth - would be so much more effective if based on a single version of a myth by a single source. An analysis of stance and intention would be so much more accurate then.



That aside, the article raises pertinent questions about class and the creation, interpretation and appreciation of myth. Ideology also goes into greater depth regarding the reason for a certain myth than some other methods, such as psychoanalysis - which is more concerned with symbolism.



Questions raised for me personally in an ideological analysis of Herakles' tale are the interesting contrast between Herakles as hero in relation to aristocrat and as slave in relation to working class. On further thought I would also like to analyse the importance of Herakles as god and as mortal here, but further discussion will be in my assignment. Like some of my fellow students I found myself asking the question of 'who the aristocrats are', and how - even with a single version of a myth - it can be sure that everyone has the same class stance. I also think, whilst an ideological analysis could prove quite useful, one has to be careful to relate it to the context to which it refers if possible - as judgment to what the context to which it indicates is could be quite subjective.

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox