The Role of Citizen Political Participation in Hong Kong and Singapore
Both Hong Kong and Singapore are city states that traditionally have lacked broad political participation, instead political decisions were left up to a small group of leaders. Historical factors were critical in determining the role of political participation in both city states. Hong Kong's history of colonial rule and the strength of the People's Action Party (PAP) in Singapore acted to keep broad citizen participation in government to a minimum.
Hong Kong after World War Two remained a colony of England and it's government remained under colonial rule. Unlike in other Asian nations such as Singapore their existed no major anti-colonial movement and the Colonial government was insulated from political pressure because many residents and immigrants from China appreciated the commercial opportunities that Hong Kong had to offer and were afraid that if England gave up control of Hong Kong the small state would be over run by the newly established and expansionist communist China to the north. During the years immediately after 1949 China was expanding, taking over Tibet and Mongolia; Hong Kong's feeling of insecurity was very real. The Colonial government did in subsequent years establish Hong Kong's Legislative Council and Executive council, and the Colonial government appointed prominent and respected local Chinese citizens to serve on these bodies. These councils although far from democratic did ensure that the Chinese citizenry would at least have representatives to express their pleasure or displeasure with the colonial administration. But these representatives lacked any real power and served only at the pleasure of the Colonial administration. The government of Hong Kong was administered and run by the English Foreign service officers that flocked to Hong Kong, the last vestige of English Empire. In Hong Kong it really was the English that ruled not the Chinese public.
In Singapore following the end of World War Two a single political party came into power in Singapore, the People's Action Party which was a strongly anti-colonial left wing party was a made up of communists and more moderate socialists. After independence Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and his allies were able to steer the party away from communism and toward a more moderate stance. The People's Action Party tolerated dissent and other political parties because Lee Kuan Yew felt he had a solid political base. The PAP so dominated politics that no other political party emerged in Singapore as a strong force. In the democratically held elections in Singapore the PAP always won by large majorities. The greatest blow came to the PAP in 1984 when the opposition won two seats in the 79 seat legislature in Singapore. This was largely due to a recession during the period and dissatisfaction with the governments economic policies. The public although given the right to vote had little say in the government of Lee Kuan Yew because it was nearly guaranteed that he would win. Because of this in Singapore, politics disappeared and was replaced by an administrative state run by meritocratic system of bureaucrats. Only recently has the public been granted more say in government affairs. Following the election of 1984 the PAP implemented new policies to broaden its base of support. First, the party steeped up its recruitment of young members. Second, the administration agreed to discuss the National Agenda and formulation of the PAP party manifesto with the people of Singapore starting in 1987. Third, the government of Singapore started televising deliberations of the national legislative council. These three initiatives stimulated a new interest in government that had been absent from Singapore for years. The public finally felt that it could have a say in the governments decisions. What is ironic is it was the ruling elite's that brought about wider public participation government not mass demonstrations or citizen outrage. The elite's did this because they felt that if the public expressed its concerns to the PAP it would be able to govern more effectively.
Both Hong Kong and Singapore do not have histories of wide spread citizen participation government. Although Singapore was a democracy for many years the supremacy and dominance of the PAP party in national affairs had the effect of eliminating political culture and creating an administrative state. But recent trends in Singapore have signaled a shift away from its pliant public of the past. In contrast Hong Kong has showed no such trends toward a democratization of the political system and the turnover of Hong Kong to China in 1997 makes the emergence of strong citizen participation in government even less likely. In both Hong Kong and Singapore democracy and rights have not been a major issue to the populace who have been far more concerned with stability and industrial progress; but these trends could change with the changing dynamics of Asia in the coming years as Singapore's populace becomes more educated and affluent and Hong Kong comes under the control of China.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Medeas Revenge
Medea, a play by the Greek playwright Euripides, explores the
Greek-barbarian dichotomy through the character of Medea, a princess
from the "barbarian", or non-Greek, land of Colchis. Throughout the
play, it becomes evident to the reader that Medea is no ordinary woman
by Greek standards. Central to the whole plot is Medea's barbarian
origins and how they are related to her actions. In this paper, I am
attempting to answer questions such as how Medea behaves like a female,
how she acts heroically from a male point of view, why she killed her
children, if she could have achieved her goal without killing them, if
the murder was motivated by her barbarian origins, and how she deals
with the pain of killing her children.
As an introduction to the play, the status of women in Greek society
should be briefly discussed. In general, women had very few rights. In
the eyes of men, the main purposes of women in Greek society were to do
housework such as cooking and cleaning, and bear children. They could
not vote, own property, or choose a husband, and had to be represented
by men in all legal proceedings. In some ways, these Greek women were
almost like slaves. There is a definite relationship between this
subordination of women and what transpires in the play. Jason decides
that he wants to divorce Medea and marry the princess of Corinth,
casting Medea aside as if they had never been married. This sort of
activity was acceptable by Greek standards, and shows the subordinate
status of the woman, who had no say in any matter like this.
Even though some of Medea's actions were not typical of the average
Greek woman, she still had attitudes and emotions common among women.
For instance, Medea speaks out against women's status in society,
proclaiming that they have no choice of whom to marry, and that a man
can rid themselves of a woman to get another whenever he wants, but a
woman always has to "keep [her] eyes on one alone." (231-247) Though it
is improbable that women went around openly saying things of this
nature, it is likely that this attitude was shared by most or all Greek
women. Later in the play, Medea debates with herself over whether or
not to kill her children: "Poor heart, let them go, have pity upon the
children." (1057). This shows Medea's motherly instincts in that she
cares about her children. She struggles to decide if she can accomplish
her goal of revenge against Jason without killing her children because
she cares for them and knows they had no part in what their father did.
Unfortunately, Medea's desire to exact revenge on Jason is greater than
her love for her children, and at the end of the play she kills them.
Medea was also a faithful wife to Jason. She talks about how she helped
Jason in his quest for the Golden Fleece, then helped him escape, even
killing her own brother. (476-483). The fact that she was willing to
betray her own family to be with Jason shows her loyalty to him.
Therefore, her anger at Jason over him divorcing her is understandable.
On the other hand, Medea shows some heroic qualities that were not
common among Greek women. For example, Medea is willing to kill her own
brother to be with Jason. In classical Greece, women and killing were
probably not commonly linked. When she kills her brother, she shows
that she is willing to do what is necessary to "get the job done", in
this case, to be with Jason. Secondly, she shows the courage to stand
up to Jason. She believes that she has been cheated and betrayed by
him. By planning ways to get back at him for cheating on her, she is
standing up for what she believes, which in this case is that she was
wronged by Jason, but in a larger sense, she is speaking out against the
inferior status of women, which effectively allows Jason to discard
Medea at will. Third, she shows that she is clever and resourceful.
Rather than use physical force to accomplish her plans, she uses her
mind instead: "it is best to...make away with them by poison."
(384-385) While physical strength can be considered a heroic quality,
cleverness can be as well. She does in fact poison the princess and the
king of Corinth; interestingly, however, she does not poison them
directly. "I will send the children with gifts...to the bride...and if
she wears them upon her skin...she will die." (784-788) This shows her
cleverness because she is trying to keep from being linked to the crime,
though everyone is able to figure out that she was responsible anyway.
In a way, though, she is almost anti-heroic because she is not doing the
"dirty work" herself, which makes her appear somewhat cowardly.
Finally, there is the revenge factor. Many times heroes were out for
revenge against someone who did them or a friend wrong, and in this case
Medea is no exception, since she wants to have revenge against Jason for
divorcing her without just cause.
There are two main reasons why Medea decides to kill her children. The
first, and more obvious one, is that she feels that it is a perfect way
to complement the death of the princess in getting revenge on Jason.
When she tells the chorus of the plans to kill the children, they wonder
if she has the heart to kill her children, to which she replies, "[y]es,
for this is the best way to wound my husband." (817). This shows that
she believes that by killing her children, she will basically ruin
Jason's life, effectively getting her revenge. The second reason for
Medea killing her children has nothing to do with revenge. If she left
her children with Jason, they would be living in a society that would
look down upon them since they have partly barbarian origins. She did
not want her children to have to suffer through that. Also, if her
children are mocked for being outsiders, then this reflects badly on
Medea, and she said that she does not want to give her enemies any
reason to laugh at her. (781-782) Since she does not want to leave her
children with Jason, they really have no place else to where they could
go, being barbarians in a Greek city: "[m]y children, there is none who
can give them safety." (793) For these two reasons, Medea decides that
killing her children is the best way to accomplish her plan: getting
revenge and keeping her children away from Jason.
Whether or not Medea could have accomplished her goal without killing
her children is debatable. On one hand, if we look at Medea's objective
only as seeking revenge against Jason, then she could have accomplished
that without killing her children. Killing the princess, Jason's new
wife, would cause enough grief for Jason so that her goal would be
accomplished. We can infer that the death of Jason's wife would be more
damaging to him than the deaths of his children because Jason was going
to let Medea take the children with her into exile and did not try to
keep them for himself. Therefore, once the princess was dead, killing
the children, while it causes additional grief for Jason, really is not
necessary. Even though Medea does not seem to believe it, killing her
children probably causes more pain for her than Jason. She just does
not see it because she is so bent on revenge against Jason. On the
other hand, if we define Medea's objective in two parts, one being
revenge, and the other to keep the children away, then it is possible
that she had to kill her children. As for the revenge part, it was not
necessary that she kill her children for the reasons just discussed.
However, she may have needed to kill them to keep Jason from getting
them. If Jason decided he wanted his children, there is not much Medea
could do about it, other than kill them. Also, it is possible that she
did not want to take them with her into exile because they could make it
more difficult for her to reach Athens. For whatever the reason,
however, it is probable that she needed to kill her children to carry
out her plan, since she accomplished two different goals through their
deaths.
The murder of Medea's children is certainly caused in part by her
barbarian origins. The main reason that Jason decides to divorce Medea
to marry the princess is that he will have a higher status and more
material wealth being married to the king's daughter. (553-554) In
other words, Jason believes that Medea's barbarian origins are a burden
to him, because there is a stigma attached to that. In his mind, having
the chance to be rich outweighs the love of a barbarian wife. Medea's
barbarian status is a burden to herself as well. Once separated from
Jason, she becomes an outsider with no place to go, because the
barbarians were not thought too highly of in Greek society. Had Medea
not been a barbarian, it is likely that Jason would not have divorced
her, and therefore, she would not have had to kill her children. But
since she is a barbarian, this sets in motion the events of the play,
and in her mind the best course of action is to kill her children. Just
because she is non-Greek does not necessarily mean that her way of
thinking would be different from the Greeks; in other words, her way of
thinking did not necessarily cause her to kill her children.
Medea deals with the pain that the deaths of her children cause her
quite well. She does this by convincing herself that her revenge
against her husband was worth the price of her children's death. When
asked about killing her children, she replies, "So it must be. No
compromise is possible." (819) This shows that she is bent on revenge,
and that she is justifying their deaths to get her revenge. However,
she does struggle with her decision to kill them. She is sad that she
must take their lives, but also tells herself that it is in their best
interests, as evidenced by what she says to her children: "I wish you
happiness, but not in this world." (1073) She does not seem to have a
problem with killing her children once it comes time to actually carry
out the act. But her motherly instincts will not allow her to totally
abandon her children after they are dead, as she decides to hold a
yearly feast and sacrifice at their burial site. (1383-1384) But in
the end, we can see that she dealt with the pain surprisingly well.
Two main themes are present in Medea: Medea's barbarian origins, and
her desire for revenge against Jason. Her barbarian status is really
what starts the actions of the play. It is what makes her a less
desirable wife to Jason than the princess, and causes him to leave her.
This then leads to her thoughts of revenge against Jason, and her
decision to kill her children as a way to exact that revenge. As far as
revenge goes, Medea is heroic in that she is standing up against an evil
done to her. Throughout most of the play, she spends her time plotting
her revenge against Jason, waiting until the right moment to unleash her
plan. She uses her cleverness to trick Jason and the others into
believing that she was not upset with him. In the end, we can see that
Medea's barbarian origins were a major factor in the play, and that
Medea was no ordinary woman in Greek terms.
Greek-barbarian dichotomy through the character of Medea, a princess
from the "barbarian", or non-Greek, land of Colchis. Throughout the
play, it becomes evident to the reader that Medea is no ordinary woman
by Greek standards. Central to the whole plot is Medea's barbarian
origins and how they are related to her actions. In this paper, I am
attempting to answer questions such as how Medea behaves like a female,
how she acts heroically from a male point of view, why she killed her
children, if she could have achieved her goal without killing them, if
the murder was motivated by her barbarian origins, and how she deals
with the pain of killing her children.
As an introduction to the play, the status of women in Greek society
should be briefly discussed. In general, women had very few rights. In
the eyes of men, the main purposes of women in Greek society were to do
housework such as cooking and cleaning, and bear children. They could
not vote, own property, or choose a husband, and had to be represented
by men in all legal proceedings. In some ways, these Greek women were
almost like slaves. There is a definite relationship between this
subordination of women and what transpires in the play. Jason decides
that he wants to divorce Medea and marry the princess of Corinth,
casting Medea aside as if they had never been married. This sort of
activity was acceptable by Greek standards, and shows the subordinate
status of the woman, who had no say in any matter like this.
Even though some of Medea's actions were not typical of the average
Greek woman, she still had attitudes and emotions common among women.
For instance, Medea speaks out against women's status in society,
proclaiming that they have no choice of whom to marry, and that a man
can rid themselves of a woman to get another whenever he wants, but a
woman always has to "keep [her] eyes on one alone." (231-247) Though it
is improbable that women went around openly saying things of this
nature, it is likely that this attitude was shared by most or all Greek
women. Later in the play, Medea debates with herself over whether or
not to kill her children: "Poor heart, let them go, have pity upon the
children." (1057). This shows Medea's motherly instincts in that she
cares about her children. She struggles to decide if she can accomplish
her goal of revenge against Jason without killing her children because
she cares for them and knows they had no part in what their father did.
Unfortunately, Medea's desire to exact revenge on Jason is greater than
her love for her children, and at the end of the play she kills them.
Medea was also a faithful wife to Jason. She talks about how she helped
Jason in his quest for the Golden Fleece, then helped him escape, even
killing her own brother. (476-483). The fact that she was willing to
betray her own family to be with Jason shows her loyalty to him.
Therefore, her anger at Jason over him divorcing her is understandable.
On the other hand, Medea shows some heroic qualities that were not
common among Greek women. For example, Medea is willing to kill her own
brother to be with Jason. In classical Greece, women and killing were
probably not commonly linked. When she kills her brother, she shows
that she is willing to do what is necessary to "get the job done", in
this case, to be with Jason. Secondly, she shows the courage to stand
up to Jason. She believes that she has been cheated and betrayed by
him. By planning ways to get back at him for cheating on her, she is
standing up for what she believes, which in this case is that she was
wronged by Jason, but in a larger sense, she is speaking out against the
inferior status of women, which effectively allows Jason to discard
Medea at will. Third, she shows that she is clever and resourceful.
Rather than use physical force to accomplish her plans, she uses her
mind instead: "it is best to...make away with them by poison."
(384-385) While physical strength can be considered a heroic quality,
cleverness can be as well. She does in fact poison the princess and the
king of Corinth; interestingly, however, she does not poison them
directly. "I will send the children with gifts...to the bride...and if
she wears them upon her skin...she will die." (784-788) This shows her
cleverness because she is trying to keep from being linked to the crime,
though everyone is able to figure out that she was responsible anyway.
In a way, though, she is almost anti-heroic because she is not doing the
"dirty work" herself, which makes her appear somewhat cowardly.
Finally, there is the revenge factor. Many times heroes were out for
revenge against someone who did them or a friend wrong, and in this case
Medea is no exception, since she wants to have revenge against Jason for
divorcing her without just cause.
There are two main reasons why Medea decides to kill her children. The
first, and more obvious one, is that she feels that it is a perfect way
to complement the death of the princess in getting revenge on Jason.
When she tells the chorus of the plans to kill the children, they wonder
if she has the heart to kill her children, to which she replies, "[y]es,
for this is the best way to wound my husband." (817). This shows that
she believes that by killing her children, she will basically ruin
Jason's life, effectively getting her revenge. The second reason for
Medea killing her children has nothing to do with revenge. If she left
her children with Jason, they would be living in a society that would
look down upon them since they have partly barbarian origins. She did
not want her children to have to suffer through that. Also, if her
children are mocked for being outsiders, then this reflects badly on
Medea, and she said that she does not want to give her enemies any
reason to laugh at her. (781-782) Since she does not want to leave her
children with Jason, they really have no place else to where they could
go, being barbarians in a Greek city: "[m]y children, there is none who
can give them safety." (793) For these two reasons, Medea decides that
killing her children is the best way to accomplish her plan: getting
revenge and keeping her children away from Jason.
Whether or not Medea could have accomplished her goal without killing
her children is debatable. On one hand, if we look at Medea's objective
only as seeking revenge against Jason, then she could have accomplished
that without killing her children. Killing the princess, Jason's new
wife, would cause enough grief for Jason so that her goal would be
accomplished. We can infer that the death of Jason's wife would be more
damaging to him than the deaths of his children because Jason was going
to let Medea take the children with her into exile and did not try to
keep them for himself. Therefore, once the princess was dead, killing
the children, while it causes additional grief for Jason, really is not
necessary. Even though Medea does not seem to believe it, killing her
children probably causes more pain for her than Jason. She just does
not see it because she is so bent on revenge against Jason. On the
other hand, if we define Medea's objective in two parts, one being
revenge, and the other to keep the children away, then it is possible
that she had to kill her children. As for the revenge part, it was not
necessary that she kill her children for the reasons just discussed.
However, she may have needed to kill them to keep Jason from getting
them. If Jason decided he wanted his children, there is not much Medea
could do about it, other than kill them. Also, it is possible that she
did not want to take them with her into exile because they could make it
more difficult for her to reach Athens. For whatever the reason,
however, it is probable that she needed to kill her children to carry
out her plan, since she accomplished two different goals through their
deaths.
The murder of Medea's children is certainly caused in part by her
barbarian origins. The main reason that Jason decides to divorce Medea
to marry the princess is that he will have a higher status and more
material wealth being married to the king's daughter. (553-554) In
other words, Jason believes that Medea's barbarian origins are a burden
to him, because there is a stigma attached to that. In his mind, having
the chance to be rich outweighs the love of a barbarian wife. Medea's
barbarian status is a burden to herself as well. Once separated from
Jason, she becomes an outsider with no place to go, because the
barbarians were not thought too highly of in Greek society. Had Medea
not been a barbarian, it is likely that Jason would not have divorced
her, and therefore, she would not have had to kill her children. But
since she is a barbarian, this sets in motion the events of the play,
and in her mind the best course of action is to kill her children. Just
because she is non-Greek does not necessarily mean that her way of
thinking would be different from the Greeks; in other words, her way of
thinking did not necessarily cause her to kill her children.
Medea deals with the pain that the deaths of her children cause her
quite well. She does this by convincing herself that her revenge
against her husband was worth the price of her children's death. When
asked about killing her children, she replies, "So it must be. No
compromise is possible." (819) This shows that she is bent on revenge,
and that she is justifying their deaths to get her revenge. However,
she does struggle with her decision to kill them. She is sad that she
must take their lives, but also tells herself that it is in their best
interests, as evidenced by what she says to her children: "I wish you
happiness, but not in this world." (1073) She does not seem to have a
problem with killing her children once it comes time to actually carry
out the act. But her motherly instincts will not allow her to totally
abandon her children after they are dead, as she decides to hold a
yearly feast and sacrifice at their burial site. (1383-1384) But in
the end, we can see that she dealt with the pain surprisingly well.
Two main themes are present in Medea: Medea's barbarian origins, and
her desire for revenge against Jason. Her barbarian status is really
what starts the actions of the play. It is what makes her a less
desirable wife to Jason than the princess, and causes him to leave her.
This then leads to her thoughts of revenge against Jason, and her
decision to kill her children as a way to exact that revenge. As far as
revenge goes, Medea is heroic in that she is standing up against an evil
done to her. Throughout most of the play, she spends her time plotting
her revenge against Jason, waiting until the right moment to unleash her
plan. She uses her cleverness to trick Jason and the others into
believing that she was not upset with him. In the end, we can see that
Medea's barbarian origins were a major factor in the play, and that
Medea was no ordinary woman in Greek terms.
justice in the orestia
Aeschylus is primarily concerned with the nature of justice. In the trilogy The Oresteia, the Akhaians evolve from an older, more primitive autocratic form of justice, to a new concept of civil justice devised by Athena. He confronts the contrast between the old and new orders, the lives of the members of the House of Atreus, and the serious moral questions that Orestes' crime presents.
The case against Orestes is strong. The son admits to striking down his mother, in violation of the sacred tenant of kinship. "But I came back, my years of exile weathered-killed the one who bore me, I won't deny it, killed her in revenge." (Eumenides lines 476-478) This shows that Orestes was fully aware of the act he was committing, that he willfully committed it, and that he must suffer for it. The bond between mother and child was broken when Orestes murdered Clytaemnestra. Marriage, arguably, is a tenant of Zeus and the Olympians. In the old order of things, family is by blood only. A husband and wife have no blood relation, yet the son is of the same blood as his parents. The Furies right to vengeance cannot be dismissed.
Clytaemnestra is one who upheld the laws of the Furies. Agamemnon's murder of Iphegenia at Aulis was pure outrage. "Yes he had the heart to sacrifice his daughter , to bless the war..." (Agamemnon lines 222-223) Agamemnon killed his own blood relation in order to sail for Troy. This too, is a terrible crime, seemingly of the same weight as Orestes' act. Clytaemnestra believed she was justified in avenging her daughter, because her husband violated a sacred tenant of the old gods. "Here is Agamemnon, my husband made a corpse by this right hand-a masterpiece of justice. Done is done." (Agamemnon lines 1429-1431) This shows a clear morality behind Clytaemnestra's motives. She appears to have justification for her actions. The curse on the House of Atreus is fulfilled. In the last lines of Agamemnon the chorus foreshadows Orestes' return. Clytaemnestra responds by saying to her new husband, "We will set the house in order once for all." (Agamemnon lines 1708) The chorus's purpose for suggesting Orestes's return is to show that the house is not yet cleansed of the curse..
Like his mother, Orestes possesses what he believes to be a just motive for revenge. Unlike his mother, however, Orestes has reservations about killing. He does not wish to strike down his mother, but realises that he must. The defense of Orestes is rooted in the fact that Apollo ordered him to do so. Orestes trusts Apollo's guidance at his trial. "Apollo will never fail me, no, his tremendous power, his oracle charges me to see this trial through." (Libation Bearers lines 273-275) Orestes believes that he is justified in avenging his god-honoured father, who was so brutally murdered by his mother. This cycle of blood in the House of Atreus appears as if it will continue forever.
This cycle of violence leads the gods to search for a different solution. If the society of Greece is to progress to a higher civilisation, some other way must be found to resolve the conflict of moral questions. The ancient idea of vengeance doesn't properly apply here because both Clytaemnestra and Orestes acted in support of legitimate definitions of justice. The ancient gods support Clytaemnestra and her actions, while Zeus, by means of Apollo, supports Orestes. The clash between deities sets the stage for the emergence of a new form of justice-civil justice.
The ancient law of retaliation, which states that blood must be paid for with more blood, is enforced by the Furies. This task was given to them by Destiny at the dawn of time. "...you'll give me blood for blood, you must!... Wither you alive, drag you down and there you pay, agony for mother-killing agony!" (Eumenides lines 262, 265) Their concept of justice is one where the law of retaliation is applied absolutely. They have no notion of compassion or understanding. They uphold the belief that regardless of circumstances, Orestes must be made to pay for his crime of matricide. The Furies represent something older and more sacred which Apollo and Zeus do not respect.
Athena's establishment of the court to try manslaughter is significant, because it provides a place for the citizens to decide about what moral elements will be upheld in the Polis. The Eumenides is the battleground for the two competing moralities. The furies invoke their rights as defenders of blood, and it is up to Orestes and Apollo to convince the jury that the son was just in his actions. The jury is expected to believe that Apollo's oracle is true-that Zeus himself ordained the act. The Chorus asks the question, "Can a son spill his mother's blood on the ground, then settle into his father's halls in Argos?" (Eumenides lines 661-662) A good answer to this question might have been to hypothetically reverse the question on Clytaemnestra-How quickly she settled into life after she cut down her lord. But, Apollo opts for the weaker, more arbitrary defense. His speech about how the father is the only true parent makes little sense. Even the all-male jury would take some offense to this argument.
Athena, however, initiates the ideal that the law be concerned not only with the forms of justice, as the Furies are passionate about, but with justice itself. The jurors must ask themselves whether Orestes was justified in committing matricide. Circumstances, motives and consequences must be taken into account at trial. Do they consider marriage as sacred as the law of kin? Is there a sacred bond between mother and son? Or only between father and son? Does Zeus's will override the ancient laws of the Furies? These are complicated moral question that Athena asks the mortal jury to grapple with. Even Athena believes the issue too important for her to judge solely. "...by all rights not even I should decide a case of murder-murder whets passions." (Eumenides lines 486-487) She realises that if she were to mediate, the curse will never end. Perhaps she is suggesting that mortals must decide when the gods disagree. This is an important development because it shows the journey from the retributive justice in Agamemnon to the deliberative justice of Athena's tribunal.
The ultimate decision is ambiguous. The vote is tied for a reason-neither side puts forth a well argued analysis of Orestes' case. There is justice on both sides, and the jury realises this. Orestes is acquitted by Athena on arbitrary terms. She casts her vote for Orestes because she supports her father's Order, believing that there is a need for the establishment of a higher reasoning. One could also argue that she voted for acquittal because she is the god of war. She supported Agamemnon, the General, throughout the Trojan war and thus wished to favour his memory. She knows little of women, despite being female herself.
Having settled the trial, Athena must also settle the anger of the Furies. She tactfully invites them to join Zues's Order-something that is necessary if peace is to be made between the generations of immortals. She does not completely refute them, nor deny them their place in the world. "I will bear with your anger. You are older. The years have taught you more than I can know. But Zeus, I think, gave me some insight, too, that has its merits." (Eumenides lines 855-859) She asks the Furies to accept her offer of making their home Athens, and to endure as the upholders of the sacred bond of marriage. They accept her offer because it is wise and just. It transforms the Furies from destructive forces to beneficial ones.
This resolution ends the curse on the House of Atreus, as well as many of the differences between the old and new gods. Orestes is free to claim his city and the Furies have been given a place in Zeus' Order. The latter seems to be the emphasis of the trilogy because of the arbitrary decision on Orestes' case. The best possible justice has been realised in the decision. The new Apollonian concept of justice represents a higher level of understanding and civilisation. It may be argued that Clytaemnestra's death was left unavenged; that justice escaped her. Orestes' right to avenge the dishonorable death of his father was upheld by the court. The tribunal deemed Clytaemnestra's actions wrong and Orestes' just. With the establishment of Athena's judicial system, there is now a method to prosecute people like Clytaemnestra, such that the ancient blood-lust of vengeance doesn't take rule over issues of right and wrong.
The case against Orestes is strong. The son admits to striking down his mother, in violation of the sacred tenant of kinship. "But I came back, my years of exile weathered-killed the one who bore me, I won't deny it, killed her in revenge." (Eumenides lines 476-478) This shows that Orestes was fully aware of the act he was committing, that he willfully committed it, and that he must suffer for it. The bond between mother and child was broken when Orestes murdered Clytaemnestra. Marriage, arguably, is a tenant of Zeus and the Olympians. In the old order of things, family is by blood only. A husband and wife have no blood relation, yet the son is of the same blood as his parents. The Furies right to vengeance cannot be dismissed.
Clytaemnestra is one who upheld the laws of the Furies. Agamemnon's murder of Iphegenia at Aulis was pure outrage. "Yes he had the heart to sacrifice his daughter , to bless the war..." (Agamemnon lines 222-223) Agamemnon killed his own blood relation in order to sail for Troy. This too, is a terrible crime, seemingly of the same weight as Orestes' act. Clytaemnestra believed she was justified in avenging her daughter, because her husband violated a sacred tenant of the old gods. "Here is Agamemnon, my husband made a corpse by this right hand-a masterpiece of justice. Done is done." (Agamemnon lines 1429-1431) This shows a clear morality behind Clytaemnestra's motives. She appears to have justification for her actions. The curse on the House of Atreus is fulfilled. In the last lines of Agamemnon the chorus foreshadows Orestes' return. Clytaemnestra responds by saying to her new husband, "We will set the house in order once for all." (Agamemnon lines 1708) The chorus's purpose for suggesting Orestes's return is to show that the house is not yet cleansed of the curse..
Like his mother, Orestes possesses what he believes to be a just motive for revenge. Unlike his mother, however, Orestes has reservations about killing. He does not wish to strike down his mother, but realises that he must. The defense of Orestes is rooted in the fact that Apollo ordered him to do so. Orestes trusts Apollo's guidance at his trial. "Apollo will never fail me, no, his tremendous power, his oracle charges me to see this trial through." (Libation Bearers lines 273-275) Orestes believes that he is justified in avenging his god-honoured father, who was so brutally murdered by his mother. This cycle of blood in the House of Atreus appears as if it will continue forever.
This cycle of violence leads the gods to search for a different solution. If the society of Greece is to progress to a higher civilisation, some other way must be found to resolve the conflict of moral questions. The ancient idea of vengeance doesn't properly apply here because both Clytaemnestra and Orestes acted in support of legitimate definitions of justice. The ancient gods support Clytaemnestra and her actions, while Zeus, by means of Apollo, supports Orestes. The clash between deities sets the stage for the emergence of a new form of justice-civil justice.
The ancient law of retaliation, which states that blood must be paid for with more blood, is enforced by the Furies. This task was given to them by Destiny at the dawn of time. "...you'll give me blood for blood, you must!... Wither you alive, drag you down and there you pay, agony for mother-killing agony!" (Eumenides lines 262, 265) Their concept of justice is one where the law of retaliation is applied absolutely. They have no notion of compassion or understanding. They uphold the belief that regardless of circumstances, Orestes must be made to pay for his crime of matricide. The Furies represent something older and more sacred which Apollo and Zeus do not respect.
Athena's establishment of the court to try manslaughter is significant, because it provides a place for the citizens to decide about what moral elements will be upheld in the Polis. The Eumenides is the battleground for the two competing moralities. The furies invoke their rights as defenders of blood, and it is up to Orestes and Apollo to convince the jury that the son was just in his actions. The jury is expected to believe that Apollo's oracle is true-that Zeus himself ordained the act. The Chorus asks the question, "Can a son spill his mother's blood on the ground, then settle into his father's halls in Argos?" (Eumenides lines 661-662) A good answer to this question might have been to hypothetically reverse the question on Clytaemnestra-How quickly she settled into life after she cut down her lord. But, Apollo opts for the weaker, more arbitrary defense. His speech about how the father is the only true parent makes little sense. Even the all-male jury would take some offense to this argument.
Athena, however, initiates the ideal that the law be concerned not only with the forms of justice, as the Furies are passionate about, but with justice itself. The jurors must ask themselves whether Orestes was justified in committing matricide. Circumstances, motives and consequences must be taken into account at trial. Do they consider marriage as sacred as the law of kin? Is there a sacred bond between mother and son? Or only between father and son? Does Zeus's will override the ancient laws of the Furies? These are complicated moral question that Athena asks the mortal jury to grapple with. Even Athena believes the issue too important for her to judge solely. "...by all rights not even I should decide a case of murder-murder whets passions." (Eumenides lines 486-487) She realises that if she were to mediate, the curse will never end. Perhaps she is suggesting that mortals must decide when the gods disagree. This is an important development because it shows the journey from the retributive justice in Agamemnon to the deliberative justice of Athena's tribunal.
The ultimate decision is ambiguous. The vote is tied for a reason-neither side puts forth a well argued analysis of Orestes' case. There is justice on both sides, and the jury realises this. Orestes is acquitted by Athena on arbitrary terms. She casts her vote for Orestes because she supports her father's Order, believing that there is a need for the establishment of a higher reasoning. One could also argue that she voted for acquittal because she is the god of war. She supported Agamemnon, the General, throughout the Trojan war and thus wished to favour his memory. She knows little of women, despite being female herself.
Having settled the trial, Athena must also settle the anger of the Furies. She tactfully invites them to join Zues's Order-something that is necessary if peace is to be made between the generations of immortals. She does not completely refute them, nor deny them their place in the world. "I will bear with your anger. You are older. The years have taught you more than I can know. But Zeus, I think, gave me some insight, too, that has its merits." (Eumenides lines 855-859) She asks the Furies to accept her offer of making their home Athens, and to endure as the upholders of the sacred bond of marriage. They accept her offer because it is wise and just. It transforms the Furies from destructive forces to beneficial ones.
This resolution ends the curse on the House of Atreus, as well as many of the differences between the old and new gods. Orestes is free to claim his city and the Furies have been given a place in Zeus' Order. The latter seems to be the emphasis of the trilogy because of the arbitrary decision on Orestes' case. The best possible justice has been realised in the decision. The new Apollonian concept of justice represents a higher level of understanding and civilisation. It may be argued that Clytaemnestra's death was left unavenged; that justice escaped her. Orestes' right to avenge the dishonorable death of his father was upheld by the court. The tribunal deemed Clytaemnestra's actions wrong and Orestes' just. With the establishment of Athena's judicial system, there is now a method to prosecute people like Clytaemnestra, such that the ancient blood-lust of vengeance doesn't take rule over issues of right and wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)