Learning from Guilty Perpetrators

    I love investigating pop culture, contemporary politics, and anything that has to do with people and society. So naturally, I'm always looking at these aspects while reading: what were the people like? what are the views of each character? In fiction, I can really just imagine, which is the fun part, but the author is always in their own socio-political cultural environment when they decide to write something. Clearly- especially as a greek play meant for public viewing- Sophocles was not writing just for the simple satisfaction of entertainment, there are lessons at play. What I've noticed about greek plays and old myths and legends in general though, is that, in accordance with the values of the people at the time, many of these lessons are exemplified through royalty, religious figures, and public authorities. I'm sure there was high reverence for these greek gods and all, but do we really know what the masses thought? Or as the playwrites call them: the 'chorus'? I mean, Sophocles was not an amateur aspiring drama author with a blog to start his career in the dog-eat-dog world, he was literally also a general, statesmen, treasurer, and priest- that's like all the authority you could have at once combined.

    So what I'm thinking- and what we don't really know- is whether the masses were mistreated by Oedipus, their King. In Sophocles' elite mind im sure they existed as generally obedient subjects, and in these kinds of plays in general we know the chorus is used to fill in plot gaps. But they were certainly reliant on Oedepus and other high figures due to their disastrous plague, and Oedipdus knew it too. It is established that a single person's death, Laius to be specific, has caused this plague and his murderer needs to be avenged to make it stop. Oedipus is the high and mighty king- of course, he will then direct all of his focus to his leadership responsibilities, and kill the murderer himself, for the people. At the end of the play, however, the people of Thebes are just a stepping stone on Oedipus's unfortunate self-discovery. He doesn't even kill the murderer (himself) like he said! So what about Thebes and its plague? I know that most stories are meant to revolve around the protagonist but, aside from the obvious pain, what kind of self-serving move is stabbing your own eyes because you feel bad instead of fixing the actual problem. The chorus seems to be unified in sypathy then pity then acceptance of doom all revolving around Oedepus. It seems that the lessons to be learned are always ending in guilt by the king- but when the king makes such astounding mistakes, is he not inflicting harm on his subjects along with the established handful of royalty?

   With a scholarly and philosophical viewpoint on Oedepus, Aristotle in On Tragic Character says, "Such is the man who on one hand is not preeminent in virtue or depravity, but falls because of some mistake; one among the number of highly renowned and prosperous, such as Oedipus... and other famous men from families like [his]." 

     It seems that men of this sort seem to make severe mistakes and want them undone- want to stop seeing the aftermath.  "I felt like sticking a knife in my eye"- Amir from The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini. Amir was only a boy when he said this but he was a rich boy nonetheless, who strived to make his affluent father proud but it ended up being at the expense of his friend and servant's son, Hassan. At this time, Hazaras were an ethnic minority in Afghanistan to which Hassan belonged and after the King was overthrown, tensions between the ruling class and everyone else were high. High enough that Amir had witnessed Hassan's sexual assault by a gang and done nothing to stop it, he constantly questioned the frontier of friendship and servitude in his lifelong relationship to Hassan and decided to pick servitute. This was obviously the evil choice which emphasized the idea that Hazaras were lesser. In this case, maybe more than Oedepus, the reader faces frustration at the disturbing events and decisions made by Amir, who feels guilty himself. The fact that Hassans thoughts, like any individual citizen of Thebes, are never explicitly heard symbolizes his position in society and I would also say in the novel itself- a stepping stone to building Amir's character. 

    There is a common saying that "history is written by the victors" which I believe to be true. Both Oedepus and Amir were not necessarily victors in their battles by the end of their stories, but none-the-less, were somewhat skewed with ruling class perspectives and issues. 

    Older generations would like to say that social media and the internet is corrupting us and filled with dumbed-down clickbaity information, which is true at surface level. But I don't just think, I know, that there are more important words and texts from a plethora of voices floating around the internet waiting to be seen and sometimes really being seen. Anyone with internet access can say what they want or need to say without taking their time out to write a best-selling novel or being a general-statesmen-treasurer-priest-playwrite combo. When you take some effort to look, the masses are talking, the people are talking. I also think a lot of these stories, especially the more famous ones, have to be taken with a huge grain of salt because, as a teen living in suburban America there are plenty of fake heroes and guilty protagonists among us- the houseless and working classes often silent. And its hard because this is real life, how do you apply the alleged lessons from the old stories without being on the wrong side, when we were only told of one out of many possible sides? 

    This is talked about a lot on social media and my turning it into an example will be a bit controversial and it has to do with the military, a force I believe to be through-and-through evil. I think that, like Oedepus and Amir, our conversation has somewhat shifted to understanding that the military may be bad, but as a society we are obviously projecting the side of American soldiers far more than the victims of international crimes themselves- they are written out of the story in many senses. When we resort to social media, our perspectives are present but they clash. The first time I saw this I was shocked: former army members coming out with stories of evil things they witnessed and did were gaining sympathy and forgiveness. Lower-class Americans who were coerced into the army were being given more thought than the brown lower-class families killed by them- and this was from progressives.

 I still get confused thinking about the big force that it is and the nuance in it, but on social media I get to hear from voices from so many parties- especially the victims- to develop my opinions. 

My hope is that this free sharing of information will pose a threat to the institutions that want us to learn lessons from the ruling class and the prosperous side, through their guilt.