Destiny and Oedipus – A different approach
Destiny and Oedipus –
A different approach:
A psychoanalytic point of view on the nature, the origins and the controllability of destiny as it manifests itself in the Oedipus myth and tragedy and interpreted by four experts on Oedipus’ story.
Abstract
The myth of Oedipus became mostly known through Sophocles’ tragedy: Oedipus Rex. It is not intended to comment on the aesthetics of the tragedy or do a critical review on the literacy art of Sophocles. This pilot study attempts to propose psychoanalytic explanations regarding the actions of Oedipus based on the tragedy and the myth. This pilot study will focus on the nature of destiny and fate in the myth and tragedy and try to understand the terms in a psychoanalytic context. Our main intention is to see fate as something human rooted in the human psyche, in the human unconscious instead of a prophesy given by the gods which men are doomed to follow
and not being able to act otherwise. We will see fate as the material humans begin their lives with, but not as a chain of behaviors and events that are entirely out of our control. This paper includes interviews of people very familiar with the ancient myth and tragedy of Oedipus, that give their point of view on Oedipus’ actions and the nature and role of fate in Oedipus’ life. Literary review will add a psychoanalytic perspective in the understanding of Oedipus and his actions. The work of Sigmund Freud will be excessively used as he was the one to bring to light the universality of the Oedipus complex and connect it with the story of Oedipus.
Introduction
Fate and destiny are concepts used in the everyday discourse of the Greeks even in the 21 century. Experience teaches us that in the Greek culture and society, catastrophic events are usually attributed to a divine power called fate (moira) and positive events are attributed to luck. In the Sophoclean tragedy of Oedipus Rex as well as in the Oedipus myth destiny and fate seem to play a determining role to the life of Oedipus (Winnington – Ingram 1980). This pilot study intends to understand the nature of the so called fate in the Oedipus Rex Tragedy and myth.
Winnington – Ingram (1980) states that moirai (fate-destiny) determine the course of life and the death of a man. Based on the same author fate is inevitable and bound to happen. No man can defy his fate and remain unpunished. In connection with a man’s fate is his daimon; a divine power that coexists in a man determining the outcome of his life. This daimon might be good (eudaimon) of disastrous (dusdaimon) (Winnington-Ingram 1980) . According to Winnington-Ingram (1980) fate is also seen as divine justice, specifically in Oedipus Rex Tragedy; the child has to pay for the sins of his parents. Oedipus was not responsible for the rape of Chrysippus but justice must be served, Laius has to pay for his actions. The ancient Greek saying ‘parental sins torture the children’ is still commonly used among Greeks. The theme of god given justice is evident in the writings of the specific author. Nothing can remain unpunished; hubris is always followed by nemesis. Winnington-Ingram (1980) speaks of the primitive and cruel dimension of fate that leads any man to disaster. In every man exists an internal fight between determinism/fate and free- will; destiny or fate set limitations upon a man’s freedom.
Superhuman powers bring down any man that attempts to defy the limitations of fate (Winnington-Ingram 1980). Oedipus from this perspective is seen as a stooge of destiny acting without being aware of what he is doing. He is seen as a puppet in the hands of a divine power that preplanned the course of his life. When it comes to taking responsibility though, Oedipus is seen as a free agent that has to pay for his actions.
‘When he killed his father and wedded his mother, Oedipus was a victim of the gods, but, when he blinded himself, he was a free agent.’ (Winnington-Ingram 1980: 74)
As the author goes on he interprets fate in a different way. He connects fate with Oedipus’ character. He states that Oedipus’ fate comes to light trough his actions that derive from his character, in that way we might see destiny as closely connected to a man’s character (Winnington-Ingram, 1980). This last view describes fate-destiny as something coming from the inside and not just opposed by an external god on a man. A destiny coming from inside a man derived from his character and manifested by his actions, poses responsibility on the man and not an external divine power.
According to Nussbaum (1986) any human no matter how wonderful he is, might become monstrous in his attempt to control the world. Oedipus due to his ambition and arrogance committed murder and married a woman old enough to be his mother, he tried to defy his destiny and the limitations of nature and society set upon every human. Nussbaum (1986) seems to attribute the title of destiny to justice set by nature but she also takes into account the character and actions of a man and the way he tries to overcome those limitations. The external destiny is fused with the human’s quality and this fusion leads the man’s life.
As it will be demonstrated later by the data analysis, the scholars of Oedipus are ambivalent regarding the nature of destiny and at what degree Oedipus is responsible for his actions as a free-agent. In Winnington-Ingram’s (1980) discourse this ambivalence is obvious; on the one hand he speaks of a god given destiny ascribed to Oedipus from birth and on the other hand he speaks of Oedipus’ responsibility for he acted as a free-agent. Fate is seen as god given and derived from a man’s character and actions at the same time. If destiny is both under a man’s control, derived from his character and actions, and uncontrollable, opposed on a man by an external force; Oedipus’ actions equally are and aren’t his responsibility.
Kitto (1939) asks:
‘Is Sophocles telling us that man is only a plaything of fate?’ (Kitto 1939: 138)
Kitto’s (1939) ideas are similar to Nussbaum’s statements. He speaks of Oedipus’ character and connects it with Oedipus’ fate. He presents Oedipus as an intelligent, determined, self-reliant man but at the same time hot-tempered with a sense of omnipotence. Kitto (1939), states that Oedipus’ virtues in combination with his vices lead him to disaster. The ambiguity in Oedipus’ character is considered to be part of his destiny and the cause of his actions. This ambiguity leads the audience to both hate Oedipus and be empathetic towards him. Kitto states:
‘If he (Oedipus) was not a man of intelligence; he would not be able to solve the riddle of Sphinx. (…) But (…) he was blind enough to marry a woman old enough to be his other (…)’ (Kitto 1939: 139)
Moreover, Kitto (1939) uses other people’s actions and characters as causes of Oedipus’ actions and destruction. The fact that Laius raped Chrysippus and with Jocasta’s agreement tortured and abandoned Oedipus affected, according to the author, Oedipus’ character, actions and fate. From the review of the myth we note that Oedipus’ destiny was in fact Laius’ destiny. The first prophesy concerned Laius and it was presented as a curse falling upon Laius for the rape of young Chrysippus (Kitto 1939). Kitto (1939) also focuses on the similarities between Oedipus’ and Laius’ character and claims that these similarities had a deterministic role in the murder of Laius.
In the actual Oedipus Rex Tragedy, written by Sophocles, fate does not play any part (Knox 1957). Sophocles tragedy begins from the moment that Oedipus tries to find the miasma (the sinner) of the city. The events taking place in the tragedy itself, were not mentioned at all in the prophesy. The oracle’s prophesy only revealed that Oedipus would kill his father and marry his mother; events that took place long before the moment the Tragedy begins. The self blinding of Oedipus and the suicide of Jocasta were the actions of two free agents (Knox, 1957). The way that Oedipus and Jocasta take responsibility for their actions and punish themselves shows that even if some events in life might be accidental and part of an uncontrollable destiny, they way a person confronts these events is derived from the person’s character and free will. In this pilot study though, it is intended to see Oedipus in a holistic way, as the hero of a tragedy written by Sophocles as well as the man mention in the ancient myth. It is true that destiny might not take place in the tragedy but according to the myth it foregoes the events that are presented in the play.
Oedipus is presented by the scholars of ancient Greek Tragedy as a man with no insight. More specifically Winnington-Ingram (1980) states that Oedipus was a man of great intelligence that solved the riddle of Sphinx, but he lacked insight, he could not see what he did even when Tiresias clearly accused him of the death of Laius. Oedipus in the end saw that he was the most ignorant of all people regarding self-knowledge and personal insight (Winnington-Ingram, 1980). Oedipus was searching for the truth in the outside world, in his intelligence and academic knowledge; whilst the truth was inside him manifested by his actions and his character. When the truth was revealed Oedipus blinded himself as a symbol of admitting that his senses had deceived him. The tragedy, according to Winnington-Ingram (1980) teaches us how limited and how fragile our intelligence and knowledge are.
Similarly Leo Aylen (1964) states that not only Oedipus’ ignorance affects his destiny, but also the fact that he acted as if he knew things he did not know. Arrogance, after all, is a trait that most, if not all, of the scholars attribute to Oedipus (Aylen 1964; Winnington-Ingram 1980; Knox 1957; Kitto 1939).
‘(…) Oedipus trusts his intellect too much and he must
learn how fallible it is.’ (Winnington-Ingram 1980:183)
The review of classical literature is mainly focused on the aesthetics of the tragedy written by Sophocles but it does reveal a lot regarding the nature of destiny in the Oedipus myth and Oedipus’ motives regarding the murder of Laius and the marriage with Jocasta. On the other hand psychoanalytic literature review has likewise much to offer in the deeper understanding of Oedipus’ character and actions and consequently has much to offer to the study of fate in the Oedipus tragedy and myth.
Freud borrowed Oedipus’ name to baptize the concept of the Oedipus complex (Freud 1910b). In 1910 Freud states that the myth of Oedipus reveals the infantile wishes of murdering the father in order to marry the mother (Freud 1910a). According to the Oedipus complex the mother and the feeding process become the prototype for the infant’s future sexual satisfaction (Freud 1916). The Oedipus complex is considered by psychoanalysts to be universal and independent from society and culture (Deveraux 1963). Freud (1924) states: ‘(…) themes of the Oedipus situation (are) traced in the different literatures of the world’ (Freud 1924: 64). During the oedipal stage, that according to Freud (1916-17) manifests it self in the third year of life, the boy wishes to replace the father, who is seen as an enemy, in his relationship with the mother; for girls the exact opposite thing happens, they try to replace the mother in her relationship with the father; but as we are talking about Oedipus we will focus on the male Oedipus complex (Freud 1923). The type of Oedipus complex presented in the Oedipus myth is the positive Oedipus complex, during which the child is hostile towards the parent of the same sex and chooses as a love - object the parent of the opposite sex (Freud 1925). Oedipus did kill his father (parent of the same sex) and married his mother (parent of the opposite sex). Freud (1924) also talked of ‘the dissolution’ of the Oedipus complex. According to Freud’s theory the dissolution of the Oedipus complex for boys comes when they fail to fulfill their wish of killing the father and obtaining the mother. In Oedipus’ case we cannot speak of dissolution of the Oedipus complex, as he committed patricide and incest. On the other hand Oedipus is a fictional hero and in that way his actions might be considered as unconscious wishes. For Freud (1908) creativity is a way to approach our fantasies and wishes without shame. He stated that creative art, works like a dream- for wish fulfillment (Freud 1900, 1908). In that way we might see Oedipus not as a real man but as the creation of Sophocles or the society (when we speak of the myth) and consequently we might see the oedipal murder and incest taking place not as actual events but as wish fulfillments in a work of art and not in reality. That is one way to look at it, but many psychoanalysts treat Oedipus and his story as an actual person acting in reality.
Bemporad (1995) states that Oedipus’ story reveals the universality of the Oedipus complex and he sees the Oedipus complex as a form of destiny, something we cannot defy. The Oedipus complex is considered to be a developmental stage in every child’s life which leads to the formation of the super ego (Freud 1923). No matter what we do we will experience the oedipal conflicts. Bemporad (1995) mentions that the reason Oedipus Rex Tragedy is so powerful is because everyone can see parts of himself in Oedipus. Bemporads’ argument seems to be valid as the purpose of the tragedy was to help the audience experience its’ darker wishes and lead it to catharsis.
According to Michels (1986), the main themes in Oedipus’ myth and tragedy are patricide and incest. Michels (1986), goes a bit further and tries to interpret Oedipus’ actions. He states that the causes for Oedipus’ behavior rest in the fact that he was abused and abandoned as an infant (Laius forced nails in the infant Oedipus’ ankles and send him on the mountain of Kithaironas to die). Michels continues his argument by assuming that Laius and Jocasta projected their sins and punishment on Oedipus while Oedipus himself ‘remained impulsive and prone to attacks of narcissistic rage’ (Michels, 1986). Michels (1986) speaks of Oedipus in terms of psychopathology and characterizes him arrogant, impulsive, stubborn and hot tempered.
We could indeed see Oedipus as a narcissistic personality based on the characteristics attributed to him both by scholars of the ancient Greek tragedy and by psychoanalysts. Bromberg (1983) presents the qualities of a narcissistic person: vanity, exhibitionism, arrogance-ingratitude; all of which are attributed to Oedipus’ personality as previously mentioned. We could say that Oedipus achieved to return to a state of narcissistic completeness as he had satisfied his mother as a son, as a sexual partner and as the man that gave her children (Manninen 1993).
The necessity for authority and aggression towards figures of authority is presented both in the tragedy and the myth of Oedipus. Oedipus in several occasions provokes intense arguments with older men; Laius, Tiresias and the shepherd (Michels 1986). It should be noted that the men that fall under Oedipus’ aggression and insults at some point of his life had authority over him. Laius was his father that tortured and abandoned him to die, the shepherd decided that he would not leave Oedipus to die when he had to decide to abandon him on the wounds or give him to another family, and Tiresias, the extremely respected prophet, knew the truth regarding Oedipus’ origin actions. Oedipus’ aggression towards older men-father figures because of the authority they obtained reinforces our idea of an existing Oedipus complex in Oedipus (Freud 1939).
Devereux (1953) focused on the reasons behind Laius’ murder. He speaks of the parental need to project the responsibility regarding the Oedipus complex entirely upon the child. There seems to be a connection between Oedipus’ destiny and Laius’ destiny, while destiny is understood in terms of a man’s character and actions (Deveraux 1953). The particular author seems to have the tendency to attribute most of the responsibility regarding Laius’ murder to Laius’ character and previous actions instead of finding Oedipus and his character responsible. In the author’s exact words:
‘What they called “Fate” was merely the personification of man’s character-structure and of his need to act out those of his intra-psychic conflicts which determine the course of his life’ (Deveraux 1953:138)
Deveraux (1953), places Laius’ fate onto the rape of Chrysippus and his in general, violent character.
Related to destiny and responsibility is the self punishment of Oedipus. After the truth was revealed Oedipus blinded himself, blindness is seen as punishment for the sin of incest, it is a symbolic castration (Caldwell 1974). Regarding the nature of destiny opposed to a man’s free will, Caldwell (1974) seems to believe that Oedipus acted out driven from his destiny and the only time he acted as a free agent against the determinism of fate is when he decides to punish himself by self blinding. This view resembles Winnington-Ingram’s (1980), statement based on which Oedipus was a puppet of fate when he killed his father and wedded his mother and a free agent only when it comes to his punishment.
As mentioned in the review of the classical studies on Oedipus he lacked insight, psychoanalysts seem to agree with that statement. According to Michels (1986), Oedipus unconsciously knew from the beginning that he killed his father and married his mother, but due to his little insight and weak self-knowledge he could not see or consciously accept the truth. Caldwell (1974) also focuses on the matter of insight in Oedipus. He states that Oedipus’ acquisition of insight and self knowledge is symbolized by his self blindness.
The blindness and the self exile of Oedipus are also used as symbols for Oedipus’ fall. Oedipus loses the throne of Thebes, his wife, his family, his father, his self respect, the respect of others. According to Pasquali (1987) the fall itself symbolizes the formation of the super ego in the child. Freud (1924) reported that the main purpose of the existence of the Oedipus complex is the formation of the super ego. The formation of the super ego is obvious in Oedipus as his punishment comes from himself not an external authority. As mentioned before self blinding can be seen as a symbol of self castration (Caldwell, 1974) which is the appropriate punishment for incest and patricide. The fact that the Oedipus complex becomes Oedipus’ reality means that his self punishment/ self castration, derived by his super ego, must be an act of reality too and not acted out in fantasy.
According to Pasquali (1987), the two major taboos in the mind of any man are incest and death, and Oedipus experiences both. She goes on by introducing the very interesting idea that incest is seen as a way to defy death. The same author also mentions the actions of Laius and Jocasta towards the infantile Oedipus. In order to save themselves they tortured and abandoned their child. They defied the laws of nature; naturally children outlive their parents or take their parents place and authority in the family and the society.
‘A parent who really looks forward to his child’s growing up (…) must accept that he has to die if he does not want to be killed’ (Pasquali, 1987:480).
According to the myth and the tragedy Oedipus, was not aware that Laius was his father and Jocasta his mother and still he is held responsible for murdering his father and committing incest with his mother. Moreover Oedipus is considered to be a loving son towards his adopting parents Polybus and Meropi as he leaves them forever out of fear that the prophesy might come true and he ends up hurting them. This situation of being a loving son on the one hand and disrespectful towards older men and perhaps father figures on the other hand it is a situation of ambivalence and splitting. The Kleinian theory is considered to be the most appropriate to explain the splitting (Klein 1937). According to Klein the baby loves and hates the mother at the same time. When the mother nourishes him he loves her, when the mother is absent and does not immediately fulfills his every need and wish he hates her (Klein 1937). In Oedipus’ case we might see Polybus and Meropi as the good object that nourished and loved Oedipus and on the other hand Laius and Jocasta, the biological parents, as the bad object that tortured and abandoned young Oedipus. Oedipus instead of feeling ambivalent emotions towards the same object he projected all his hatred to a wholly bad object Laius and Jocasta and all his love towards a wholly good object the parental couple of Polybus and Meropi. He protected the good parents from his murderous urges and destroyed by murder and incest the bad parents. The speculations regarding the Kleinian theory of splitting might explain Oedipus’ ambivalent characteristics and actions mentioned above.
This pilot study intended to review the classical and psychoanalytic literature referring to Oedipus. The main interest was to examine the causes behind Oedipus’ actions. Their causes as stated in the relevant literature are entirely or partly attributed to Oedipus’ fate, but the nature of this fate or destiny is not clearly presented. Four experts on Oedipus myth and tragedy were interviewed regarding the causes of Oedipus’ actions and the role and nature of fate/destiny in the tragedy and myth. The guidelines of Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) were used to conduct the interviews, collect, organize and analyze the data (Smith 2003). Of all the qualitative methods IPA was chosen as the most suitable as it allows the researcher to have a specific hypothesis from the beginning (Smith 2003). The themes derived from the data analysis along with the procedures followed for the collection and analysis of the data are presented next.
Methodology
Participants
Qualitative inquiry typically focuses in depth on a relatively small sample selected purposefully (Patton, 1990). Four (N=4) Greek Cypriots (2 males and two females) with extended knowledge on the Oedipus myth and the Oedipus Rex tragedy had agreed to participate in the study and gave permission to tape the interviews and use them for the purpose of this study. With the permission of the interviewees some of their personal information will be mentioned as proof of their expertise regarding the myth and tragedy of Oedipus Rex.
Mrs. G. has been a professor of modern and ancient Greek as well as Latin and history in both Gymnasiums and Lyceums in Cyprus for the past thirty years. The past three years she is working at the Cyprus Ministry of Education as a consultant in matters of education and teaching methods. Last year she presented an article on ancient Greek tragedy and the way it should be taught in the ancient theatre of Epidaurus. In that lecture she specifically discussed the role and nature of destiny and fate in the Sophoclean tragedy.
Mr. K. is a well known actor, director and theatre owner in Cyprus and Greece. Though he did not direct an Oedipus Rex tragedy he played the role of Oedipus Rex in a performance of Oedipus Rex in Cyprus and Greece.
Mr. P. is a director working in Cyprus, Greece and Bulgaria for many years. He directed Oedipus Rex a few years back with a Bulgarian stable. He is very interested in psychoanalysis and he mentioned that he sees the self-blindness of Oedipus as a symbolic self-castration.
Miss. S. is a graduate of the five-year theatrical theory program of the University of Thessaloniki.
Instrumentation
The interviews took the form of a general discussion than strictly question – answer form. The interviews were based on six big questions-themes: what is destiny in the Oedipus myth and tragedy, what is the role of destiny in the life and actions of Oedipus, what is the interviewees understanding and comments on the Oedipus complex, were from Oedipus’ actions derive, is Oedipus responsible for his actions (paradox of fate-responsibility), the arrogance in Oedipus. Due to the interviewees’ expertise on the theme of the study the previously mentioned questions were just a framework. The participants were eager to share their personal views on the subject in question and the interruptions on behalf of the interviewer were limited to minimum. The intention was to give the participants the liberty of exposing their personal understandings on the subject and revealing as much personal experiences related to the theme as possible. A brief introduction was used to gather personal information regarding the participants.
Procedures
The interviews were arranged over the phone and it was quite difficult to get hold of the participants as they are very busy and important people. The interviews were conducted in the participants’ homes or offices, wherever it was more convenient for them. The interviews began with a short introduction to the theme of the study and some clarifications regarding the psychoanalytic theory when it was necessary. The interviews were focused mainly on the Oedipus myth and tragedy with a special interest in the reasons Oedipus acted the way he did and the nature and role of fate in both the myth and tragedy. Some of the participants were extremely prepared for the interview and provided transcripts they have written regarding the subject under discussion; but will not be used in this study as the study is based on the participants’ interviews. The interviews ranged in duration between 30 and 40 minutes and permission, to record and transcript the interviews, was obtained from all participants. Interviews were conducted in Greek and translated into English.
Data collection
The data collection for this pilot study followed the guidelines of IPA, which is the method used for the data analysis as well (Smith, 2003). In-depth open-ended questions were used for the conduction of the interviews. Often the interviewees would not focus on the specific question asked but the were not interrupted by the interviewer as it was important to have the interviewee free to report anything he/she considered to e relevant. It was important that the participants presented a holistic view of their understanding of the subject related not only to their academic knowledge but to their personal experiences as well (Smith, 2003). Mainly, the interview guide consisted of exploring the participants’ thoughts and understandings regarding the role of fate-destiny in Oedipus myth and the Sophoclean tragedy as well as the reasons behind Oedipus’ actions. The structure of the interviews and the sequence of questions were not strict; as it was not possible to place boundaries on the responses of the specific participants who were experts on the subject in discussion. The participants would adequately answer a question each time, extending their way of thinking on higher levels of interpretation each time, so that there was no need for repeated questions for purposes of clarification. Leading questions that influenced the direction of the responses were avoided. The role of the interviewer with each participant was to listen actively and to move the conversation forward by building on what each participant had to say. Throughout the interviews the interviewer made sure that the concepts under consideration were accurately understood. The interviewer attempted to make the participants feel comfortable during the interview with mainly non verbal signs (sitting position towards the interviewee, showing interest in what the interviewee was saying, constant interest – eye contact- to what the interviewee was saying). Expressions both verbal and non verbal that indicated the interviewers approval or disapproval towards the interviewees statements were avoided. Between questions there was enough time left for the interviewee to fully express his thoughts on the question asked.
Data analysis
Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) was adopted for the interviews’ analysis in this pilot study. It was selected among other qualitative methods as it permits the researcher to have a hypothesis regarding the subject he wants to explore (Smith, 2003). The complexity of the subject and the fairly homogeneous sample selected for it’s expertise on the subject in question were crucial factors for the selection of IPA as the method of analysis (Smith, 2003). The interviews were taped, transcribed and translated from Greek to English. The translated transcripts were read many times by the author to achieve full understanding of each interviewer’s statements. Raw data themes were collected and studied. The analysis of the raw data themes leaded to the themes the study would focus on. The themes are: the role and nature of destiny-fate in Oedipus rex and myth, Oedipus’ character and actions, Laius’ character and actions, similarities between Laius’ and Oedipus’ character, ‘why Oedipus killed Laius?’, the Oedipus complex, boundaries- limitations, responsibility-punishment, truth and the intentions of Sophocles that effect the way he presented Oedipus Rex. The derived themes were correlating with each other and with the main theme of destiny-fate. All the themes were used both by the participants (during the interviews) and by the interviewer (during data analysis) as ways to approach and interpret the main theme of destiny and fate in Oedipus’ life. After the list of themes was conducted for each interview the next step was to find common or totally opposite statements, regarding each theme, among the participants’ answers. It was intended to explore how the interviewees, based on their knowledge and their life philosophy, interpret the role and nature of fate in Oedipus’ story.
Results and discussion
The main theme derived form the raw data answers the question: “what is the role and nature of fate – destiny in the Oedipus Rex tragedy and the Oedipus myth. Seven other themes, used for the deeper understanding of the main theme, also derived from the data. Verbatim quotes from the interviews will be used to illustrate the findings. In the following tables the emerged themes will be presented, discussed and interpreted in correspondence with each other along with quotes from the interviewees’ responses. In order to approach the main theme of fate we must first analyze the rest of the themes as they are used to fully interpret the theme of fate.
1. A man’s character:
The first group of themes refers to a man’s character and actions that, based on the participants’ perceptions, are connected with the main theme of fate. Oedipus’ and Laius’ character along with the ambivalent characteristics in Oedipus and the similarities among Oedipus’ and Laius’ character will be explored in this section of the study.
Table 1 presents the first theme which is Oedipus’ character:
Table 1.1: Theme 1.1: Oedipus’ character
Characteristics attributed to Oedipus by the participants:
- Arrogant
- self-centered
- stubborn
- selfish
- would not compromise
- aggressive (aggression over logic)
- hot tempered
- snobby
- meant to be king/brought up as king
- wants to have authority
- has a sense of omnipotence
- self- confident
- extraordinary
- man of great intelligence
- altruist
- proud
- believes that with logic he can do anything
- impulsive
- primitive
- sophisticated
- believes he has no limitations
- charismatic
- brave
- responsible
- good/caring leader
- self confident
Table 1.1 presents the personality traits of Oedipus as stated by all of the participants in this study. It is interesting that all the interviewees had more or less the same perception regarding Oedipus’ character.
Participant G. stated:
‘Oedipus was a great man, both his virtues and vices are excessive, he is not an ordinary man. He was intelligent and strong, sophisticated but at the same time primitive, impulsive and weak. (...) His arrogance and stubbornness were the causes of Laius’ murder.’
Similarly participant K. reported:
‘Oedipus feels omnipotent able to do anything with the power of his mind and logic. (…) He was a man of great intelligence able to solve Sphinx’s riddle but at the same time unable to see the truth regarding his biological parents and the miasma of the city’.
As indicated in table 1.1 and the quotes mentioned above there are many ambivalent traits in Oedipus’ character. He is considered to be both a man of virtue and a man of great vices. Table 1.2 presents the ambivalent characteristics in Oedipus’ character:
Table 1.2: Ambivalent characteristics in Oedipus’ character
Oedipus’ Virtues: Oedipus’ Vices:
- selfish
- good leader
- intelligent
- sophisticated
- logic - altruist
- egocentric
- can’t see the truth
- primitive
- impulsive/aggressive
The participants in their answers, regarding the reasons behind Oedipus’ actions, focused on Laius’ character and actions as well. The characteristics attributed to Laius are presented in table 1.3:
Table 1.3: Theme 1.2: Laius’ character:
Characteristics attributed to Laius by the participants:
- defies the laws of nature (tries to kill his son to save himself)
- rapper (Chrysippus)
- torturer
- selfish
- egocentric
- sinner
- stubborn
- hot tempered
- arrogant
- impulsive
- hot tempered
- king
- actions before logic
- symbol of authority
- aggressive
Table 1.3 presents the second theme that rose through the interviews and the data analysis. All the participants used the exact same words to characterize Laius. The characteristics of Laius as well as the characteristics of Oedipus derived in the participants’ effort to give explanations regarding the reasons behind Laius’ murder and the nature of fate/destiny.
Interviewee P. stated:
‘(…) Laius’ arrogance and hot tempered character lead to his death. (…) he (Laius) was an egocentric man that cared only about himself (…) he raped Chrysippus and tried to murder his own son.’
In the same line of thinking participant S. reported:
‘(…) he (Laius) needed to have authority and force it onto others. (…) At the crossroad Laius offended Oedipus and tries to push him off the road, he was aggressive and did not compromise; if he did compromise Oedipus would not have killed him.’
All of the participants declared that there are many similarities in Oedipus’ and Laius’ characters and that those similarities lead to the fight at the crossroad. Table 1.4 presents the similar personality traits between Oedipus and Laius.
Table 1.4: Theme 1.3 Similarities among Oedipus’ and Laius’ character
Similarities among Oedipus and Laius as stated by the participants:
- arrogant
- hot tempered
- selfish
- stubborn
- born to become kings
- impulsive
- egocentric
- action before logic
The similarities among Oedipus’ and Laius’ character presented in table 1.4 were mentioned by all the interviewees. Great focus was given during the interviews to the similar way of thinking and acting regarding Oedipus and Laius. The participants stated that the similarities indicate that Oedipus was Laius’ son and used that as proof for the existence of the Oedipus complex in Oedipus and as reason for Laius’ murder. The connection between the character similarities with the Oedipus complex and the matter of fate will be discussed in depth at a later point in this study. For the time being we will accept, based on the interviewees statements, that there are indeed similarities among Oedipus and Laius.
Participant G. sated:
‘… Laius and Oedipus have the same character. (…) they are both ego-centered and arrogant.’
On the other hand interviewee P. focuses on other similarities among the two men:
‘(…) they were both (Laius and Oedipus) brought up as kings, they had the need to have and to show off their authority. (…) They are both impulsive and they act based on their passions and instincts.’
2. Why Oedipus killed Laius?
The next theme regards the participants’ answers to the question why Oedipus killed Laius. This theme is also closely connected with the nature and role of fate-destiny. It was intended to explore the participants’ perceptions regarding the murder of Laius. The myth and tragedy attributed Laius’ murder by Oedipus’ hands to destiny – fate; but in this study the main theme of research is: what exactly is destiny to the interviewees? If the participants do not attribute the murder to a god given destiny how they interpret and explain the murder of Laius? Table 2.1 presents the participant’s answers to why Oedipus killed Laius.
Table 2.1: Theme 2.1: Why Oedipus killes Laius?
The participants’ regarding the causes behind Laius’ murder by Oedipus:
- Oedipus’ vices (table 1.2)
- Laius’s character (table 1.3)
- Similarities among Oedipus’ and Laius’ character (table 1.4)
- Laius’ previous actions
raped Chrysippus (sin-hybris)
tortured Oedipus – his own son- as an infant
tried to kill his son- Oedipus
- Justice/ Laius had to pay for his actions
- Oedipus was not consciously aware Laius was his father
- Because of the Oedipus complex (Laius is a paternal symbol/ see table 3.1)
- Matter of authority (connected with Oedipus complex/ see table 3.1)
As shown in table 2.1 the participants tend to attribute the murder of Laius not to a god given destiny but to things that have to do with the persons’, involved in the incident, character and behavior. The two explanations that we can perceive as more deterministic, and consequently a sort of destiny that cannot be changed are the matter of justice and the existence of the Oedipus complex. As previously mentioned the matter of destiny will be explored and discussed in depth later on in the study; as well as the Oedipus complex and the theme of justice/punishment/responsibility. It is important, though, to mark at this point that according to the participants an event is at a large degree controlled and created by the people involved. All of the participants mentioned that if Oedipus has not so arrogant and hot tempered, he would compromise with Laius so that both could pass the crossroad without attacking each other. On the other hand if Laius was more understanding towards the arrogance rooted in youth he would confront Oedipus’ arrogance and impulsiveness with understanding. Perhaps it was accidental or even a matter of fate that the two men came across each other at the crossroad but, according to the collected data, the outcome of their meeting had to do with who they were and the way they acted.
Interviewee S. stated:
‘(…) they (Oedipus and Laius) could move a bit to the edge of the road so that they would both pass. (…) they could not compromise (…) they were too arrogant. They were too selfish and arrogant to come to a civilized solution. There aggression defeated their logic. They needed to be in charge, to have authority.’
Similarly, interviewee K. reported:
‘(…) they (Oedipus and Laius) were both stubborn and arrogant. (…) it was a matter of authority, neither wanted to look weak. (…) they had to act like Kings; they could not “surrender”.’
Before moving on to the theme of the Oedipus complex in table 3.1 it is important to mention the role of authority in the Oedipus tragedy and myth; which is closely connected with the Oedipus complex. All of the participants stated that Oedipus had the need to be in charge, have authority and proclaim it. They also stated that one of the reasons Oedipus killed Laius was to destroy an authoritarian figure and gain authority. Table 2.2 presents data that show the connections of authority with other themes in this study, as mentioned by the participants.
Table 2.2: Authority
Evidence of authority in Oedipus’ actions according to the participants:
- murder of Laius
- marriage with Jocasta
- Oedipus complex
- In order to retain his authority tries to find the truth/ the miasma of the city
Table 2.2 shows how authority is connected with Oedipus’ actions. First, as previously mentioned, he killed Laius to gain authority over an old man that represented authority. Then he marries a woman, Jocasta, old enough to be his mother in order to become the king of Thebes and have authority. The two previous interpretations are also connected with the Oedipus complex as the father is psychoanalytically connected with authority and by the ‘death’ of the father the son gains that authority and is able to ‘marry’ the mother. Paternal figures are authoritarian figures (Freud 1939). In the end Oedipus’ longing for authority is shown in his attempt to find the miasma of the city in order to maintain his position as a respected, intelligent king.
On the matter of authority participant P. reported:
‘(…) Laius was an authoritarian figure, (…) a tyrannical man and that is why Oedipus had to kill him.’
On the same matter participant G. stated:
‘(…) he (Oedipus) married a woman old enough to be his mother in order to become king, have authority. (…) if authority is a paternal characteristic then of course Laius can be seen as a paternal figure (…) Lauis’ death is connected with Oedipus’ Oedipus complex.’
3. The Oedipus complex:
The following theme involves the participants’ attributions and interpretations regarding the Oedipus complex. All of the participants mentioned incidents from their family lives and working places (participant G. was a teacher and mentioned her observations regarding the Oedipus complex in schools she worked in) in order to prove that we can observe the Oedipus complex everywhere. In the case of Oedipus himself, however, the participants had trouble deciding on the existence of the Oedipus complex as they all stated that Oedipus was not aware that Laius was his father. They also used the argument that Oedipus was overprotective towards the people he considered to be his parents, Polybus and Meropi; he left his town so that he would not kill Polybus and merry Meropi. On the other hand the participants also stated that Laius can be seen as a father figure due to his age and the authority he possessed. Similarly Jocasta could be a maternal symbol due to her age and position; she was the Queen, the head of the town; as a mother is a queen in the child’s eyes. The participants also spoke of the unconscious level in the Oedipus complex. In the end some of the participants mentioned that the Oedipus complex is a form of fate-destiny as it happens to all of us and we cannot prevent it from existing, whilst others did not make that connection. In table 3.1 the participant’s views on the Oedipus complex are presented.
Table 3.1: Theme 3.1: the Oedipus complex
The participants views regarding the Oedipus complex:
- Universal
- observed in families
- observed in schools
- (contradiction) does not exist in Oedipus’ myth and tragedy- Oedipus was not aware Laius was his father and Jocasta his mother
- exists in Oedipus’ myth and tragedy – Laius was a father figure/ Jocasta was a mother figure
- exists in Oedipus’ myth and tragedy as it is unconscious (father symbol/ mother symbol)
- a form of destiny
- Oedipus’ self blinding symbolizes self castration
The participants’ comments on the Oedipus complex could be seen as ambivalent. On the one hand they reported events in their own lives that reinforce the view that the Oedipus complex exists and it is universal and on the other hand they were cautious to report that it exists in the Oedipus myth and tragedy. They based their cautiousness on the fact that Oedipus did not consciously know that Laius was his biological father when at the same time they noted that Laius is seen as a paternal figure. And moreover all of the participants stated that if Oedipus was brought up by Laius (and was consciously aware that Laius was his father), he would still kill him in order to become king. They attributed the last statement on Oedipus’ and Laius’ similar characteristics mentioned in table 1.4. The participants did not comment a lot on the Oedipus complex dimension that is related to Oedipus’ mother, Jocasta.
Participant G. stated:
‘(…) I am not sure that Oedipus would consciously kill his father, (…) he fell in deep sorrow when Polybus died. (…) if Oedipus was brought up by Laius he would still kill him to gain the throne of Thebes. (…) in schools is obvious that boys tend to relate to female teachers and treat them in an erotic way.’
Participant K. reported:
‘(…) we all experience it (the Oedipus complex). (…) my son would not speak to me at the age of four and would try to sleep between his mother and me (…) until now he shares with his mother a special kind of relationship and I am left out of many of their conversations. (…) if Oedipus was brought up by Laius (…) he would still kill him to get the throne, not to marry his mother though (…) he was not aware that Laius was his father and Jocasta his mother (…) he could though see them as parental symbols (…).
Participant P. was the only one to report:
‘(…) Oedipus’ self blinding is a self castration (…) the eyes symbolize the genitals, he had to castrate himself because he committed incest.’
Further attempt to explore and interpret the ambivalent statements regarding the Oedipus complex will take place in the general discussion.
4. Boundaries and Limitations:
All of the participants mentioned that there are boundaries and limitations in a man’s actions that are set by life, nature and society. The participants also stated that these limitations are part of a man’s fate and should be taken into account. Attempts to overcome and ignore the boundaries lead us to disasters, the participants’ said, and they declared that Oedipus became a murderer because he and Laius tried to bend the limitations of nature. The interviewees also mentioned that the limitations of nature and society are set to protect the human race; murder and incest are forbidden so that humanity will not get weak and ill or seize to exist. Regarding Laius the participants stated that it is not normal for a parent to outlive his children, and moreover try to kill his children to protect himself. Table 4.1 presents the participant’s attributions regarding the theme of limitation/boundaries:
Table 4.1: Theme 4.1: Limitations/Boundaries
The participants attributions regarding men’s limitations/boundaries:
- set by the laws of nature/life
- set by society
- to protect the human race
- if bended a disaster occurs
Participant P. reported
‘(…) we cannot defy the laws of nature. (…) incest is forbidden because it leads to bad DNA and ill people, it prevents human race from evolving. (…) ethics are bounded with the laws of nature in order to prevent the destruction of humanity.’
Table 4.2 presents how Laius bended the boundaries and limitations and table 4.3 how Oedipus bended the boundaries and limitations:
Table 4.2: How Laius bended the limitations/boundaries
The participants views on Laius defying the limitations/boundaries:
- tried to kill his child to save himself (limitations of nature and society)
- raped Chrysippus (limitations of society)
Table 4.3: How Oedipus bended the limitations/boundaries:
The participants views on Oedipus defying the limitations/boundaries:
- committed patricide (limitations of society)
- committed incest (limitations of nature and society)
According to all the participants the limitations set by nature and society are sacred and might interpret the so called god given fate-destiny of a human, in this case Oedipus. If a man defies the laws of nature and their limitations he commits ‘hybris’ (sin) and he will be punished. A man is always responsible for his actions regardless if he knew all the facts or not.
5.1 Responsibility:
The interviewees declared that Oedipus had to be punished for killing Laius and marrying Jocasta even though he did not consciously know they were his parents. He was responsible for his actions, because his actions derived from his character (see tables 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2). Table 5.1 presents the organized data regarding the theme of responsibility in Oedipus tragedy and myth:
Table 5.1: Theme 5.1: Responsibility
Why the participants find Oedipus responsible for his actions:
- he controlled his own actions and he was responsible for what he did
- he was a free agent
- even though he did not know Laius was his father he killed an old man
- even though he did not know Jocasta was his mother he married an older woman to gain power and authority
The participants’ answers regarding the theme of responsibility reveal once more how they interpret destiny. They reported that Oedipus had to take responsibility for his actions as he was acting as a free agent; it was his decision to kill Laius and marry Jocasta. His motives were not pure, as mentioned before he killed Laius due to his arrogance and need for authority and he married Jocasta to become king. According to the interviewees’ answers Oedipus’ actions were not controlled by a divine power but by Oedipus himself.
Participant S. stated:
‘(…) he considered (Oedipus) himself to be closer to gods than to humans, (…) his sense of omnipotence made him think that we could not be wrong (…) in the end he was only human (…) he acted as a free agent and he was responsible for his actions; he created his own destiny (…)’
Similarly participant K. reported:
‘(…) he (Oedipus) was a free agent (…) his destiny was his character and his behavior that is why he was responsible for his actions (…)’
The theme of responsibility is closely attached with the theme of punishment.
5.2 Punishment:
All of the participants in this pilot study were eager to discuss the matter of Oedipus’ punishment. As mentioned in the introduction many authors studied and tried to interpret the self blinding and self exile of Oedipus. A lot of symbolizations were mentioned, by the interviewees, regarding the self blinding of Oedipus, but only one of them made the connection between self blinding and castration. Table 5.1 presents the participants’ comments regarding the matter of Oedipus’ punishment.
Table 5.2: Theme 5.2: Oedipus’ punishment
How the participants comment on Oedipus’ punishment
- self punishment
- self blinding
- self exile
- to save the city/exile the miasma
- out of guilt for killing his father and marrying his mother
- to lead himself