Tragedy and Politics

8/9/2019 Tragedy and Politics

1/10

The Encyclopedia of Political Thought , First Edition. Edited by Michael T. Gibbons.© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/9781118474396.wbept1009

Tragedy and PoliticsDerek W. M. Barker and David W. McIvor

Of all the artistic genres, tragedy has attracted

the most interest – and contestation – in thehistory of political thought. Tragedy flourishedin fifth-century Athens, which is com-monly regarded as a golden age of enlighten-ment in the history of western civilization.With its enduring appeal in western culture,many political thinkers have subsequentlyengaged with tragedy to work through their views on ethics, epistemology, theology, andpsychology. As a complex genre that is inher-

ently open to interpretation, however, tragedyhas yielded multiple and sometimes contradic-tory insights. This entry provides a review oftragedy in historical and contemporarypolitical theory. We begin with a brief histor-ical overview. We then focus on selectedapproaches to tragedy with the most enduringinfluence in the history of political thought:Plato’s critical view of tragedy as an inferiorform of political education to philosophy;

Aristotle’s rehabilitation of tragedy as a fineart; Hegel’s ethical theory of tragedy; andNietzsche’s call for a culture of creativityinspired by the Dionysian roots of tragedy. Weconclude with a discussion of tragedy and thepolitics of gender.

Historical Overview: Tragedy as Ritual,Civic Institution, and Artistic Genre

Tragedy evolved within the civic context of theGreek polis . However, as an art form thatchanged over time and served multiple pur-poses, the meaning of tragedy has remainedsubject to debate. Tragedy can be understoodas a religious ritual, civic institution, or anartistic genre that transcends any historicalcontext. Each view has important implicationsfor political thought.

For insight into the essence of tragedy, manyhave sought to identify properties traceable toits origins. The etymological roots of “tragedy”are the Greek words tragos , or “goat,” and oidia ,or “songs.” Most interpreters agree that tragedyoriginated as a religious ritual in honor ofthe god Dionysus, who was associated withanimality, music, dance, intoxication, andmasking. Since Nietzsche’s Birth of Tragedy ,classicists have envisioned tragedy as evolvingfrom cult rituals with various combinations ofgoat costumes, animal sacrifice, music, anddancing (Goldhill 1997). The association withDionysus continued in fifth-century Athens, astragedies were performed in the context of alarge public festival that honored the god andincorporated ritualistic practices. In this sense,the mature forms of tragedy can be seen asextensions of their Dionysian roots, lendingsupport to those who associate tragedy withthe irrational and chaotic dimensions ofhuman nature.

Although tragedy retained ritualistic ele-ments throughout its history in the polis , impor-tant changes also occurred as Athens developed

democratic institutions. This “classical period”is arguably more central to political theory thanthe origins of tragedy. The connection betweentragedy and Greek democracy has been ofinterest to contemporary theorists of participa-tory democracy, notably Peter Euben (1986,1990). At this time, tragedy developed anorganized public space for performances – thetheater – within the leading festival in the civiclife of the polis . This process began in the sixth

century under the rule of Peisistratus, a populardictator who acted as a patron of the arts andintegrated tragedy into the City Dionysia (Else1967). By the fifth century, participation in thetragic festival came to be regarded as a civicduty, similar to attending the assembly orserving on a jury (Meier 1993). The audiencelikely included the majority of Athenian citi-zens, and possibly noncitizens such as women


2/10

2

and slaves, and the city actively subsidizedpoorer citizens’ attendance. Each tragedy waspart of a competitive festival to be judged by apanel of citizens following democratic proce-dures. Classical tragedy at times (though notalways) addressed explicitly political topics,such as the rule of law in the Oresteia trilogy,and the conflict between religious obligationsand the authority of the polis in the Antigone .Although the tragedies rarely focused on con-temporary events, they typically used languagedrawn from Athenian civic discourse, perhapsto indirectly celebrate and provoke reflection onthe ideals of the polis (Goldhill 1990). Whilemost agree that tragedy was part of a patrioticcivic event, some scholars question whethertragedy was understood to honor democracyspecifically or Athenian cultural and militarysuperiority in general (Carter 2004).

In the context of Greek democracy, tragedyalso evolved as an artistic genre with distinctformal qualities and substantive themes.Tragedy built upon the oral tradition ofHomeric epic and was considered a formof poetry. However, the stage performance of

tragedy enabled increasingly complex and vivid adaptations of mythical stories throughthe use of actors in dialogue with the chorus.Perhaps most important, tragedy developed itsdistinctive thematic focus on suffering due tolimitations of the human will (Nussbaum1986). These limitations take several recurringforms in Greek tragedy: ethically complex situ-ations that are beyond the control of the hero,such as the choice between city and family

faced by Antigone; the power of fate overhuman life, as in Oedipus’ failed attempts toescape his future, as prophesized by the Delphicoracle, and his past, the inherited curse on theHouse of Laius that forms the backgroundof the Theban trilogy; the difficulty of govern-ing the passionate and irrational componentsof the soul, such as Orestes’ revenge impulseand Antigone’s intense love for her brother;and the human tendency toward hubris , or

excessive pride or overconfidence. Dependingon which of these particular narratives isemphasized, subsequent thinkers distill

varying political and philosophical implica-tions. Nevertheless, these narratives reflect acommon preoccupation with the inability ofhuman beings to be in full control over theiractions, suggesting that tragedy is definedmore by an underlying ethical worldview thanany specific formal qualities.

Since the decline of Athenian democracy,tragedy has continued to develop new formsin other contexts, including Roman, Shakes-pearean, and modern tragedy. Indeed, Greektragedy continues to be adapted and performedin the contemporary theater, and influencefilm and television. For example, the creatorsof The Wire (2002–8), an American serialdrama that depicted urban youth strugglingagainst forces out of their control, cited Greektragedy as an important influence. In thesenew contexts, the genre has retained many ofthe formal and thematic components of Greektragedy. However, as the polis declined inimportance and tragedy was separated fromthe City Dionysia, these new forms have hadweaker and less explicit ties to the civic realm.The separation of tragedy from the polis has

suggested a “death of tragedy,” in that contem-porary audiences are unable to fully appreciatetragic ambiguity (Steiner 1961). Nevertheless,tragedy continues to evolve beyond the specificcontext of Greek democracy.

Truth and Imitation: Plato’s Critiquesof Tragedy and Democracy

The modern understanding of tragedy is

unthinkable without the critique leveledagainst it by Plato, who reached maturity as thegolden age of Greek drama was coming to anend. In the history of political thought, Plato isnotable for seeing a fundamental and irrecon-cilable “quarrel between philosophy andpoetry” (Plato 1968: 607b). Plato singled outtragic poetry as a source of moral confusion,political instability, and cultural decay. In factthe key categories of Platonic philosophy, such

as virtue, moderation, and wisdom, weredefined in direct opposition to tragedy, whichhe considered an inferior form of education for


3/10

3

the citizens of the polis . Furthermore, Plato sawtragedy as intertwined with democracy, whichhe saw in equally critical terms. For instance,in the Laws , Plato compares democracy toa “vicious theatrocracy” (1970: 700a-d).According to Plato, democracy, by empha-sizing equality among citizens, breeds intem-perance, immodesty, and injustice within the

polis . For Plato, philosophy is the only antidoteto the diseases that tragedy and democracycultivate within the soul and the polis.

The modern reader may have difficultyappreciating the urgency of Plato’s critique oftragic poetry. The classical tragedies do notseem to present any immediate harm toindividual citizens, much less to the public as awhole. Plato’s hostility to tragedy, however,makes sense in the context of the central themeof his philosophy: an ongoing struggle between virtue and vice within each individual soul,mirrored by the larger struggle between justiceand injustice in the polis . While later audiencesand critics have come to identify tragedy with asense of humility, Plato associates its arousal ofthe passions with excess. As Plato puts it, “a

dangerous, wild and lawless form of desire”haunts human life (1968: 372b). The only solu-tion to this problem is certain knowledge of thegood, provided by philosophy, so that humanbeings might lead virtuous and just lives. Plato’scritique of tragedy is thus both epistemologicaland moral-political in nature. That is, tragedyinterferes with knowledge of the good, first, bysubstituting a representation of the good forthe thing itself; and second, by arousing the

irrational parts of the soul. Tragedy doesnot educate or train the emotions, as Plato’sstudent Aristotle later argued, but enflames thepassions, leading to a “civil war” within thesoul (603d).

Plato’s epistemological critique of tragedycenters on its “imitative” form. Tragedy is imi-tative not only in the mundane sense that thepoets and actors imitate different characters,but in a deeper sense insofar as tragedy is

concerned only with appearances and a “sem-blance” of the truth. Philosophy, for Plato, isfundamentally defined as inquiry into the

truth, but tragedy is a medium that teaches itslessons through fictional narratives. Platoargues that the poets cannot speak to the truthor rightness of their claims, because they aremerely vessels for the muses. For example, inthe Apology , an account of Socrates’ trial anddeath, the philosopher challenges the supposedwisdom of the poets by insisting that theycreate their stories not through knowledgebut through divine intervention (Plato 1969:22a–c).

In The Republic , Plato extends this epistemo-logical critique of tragedy in the process ofdeveloping a more elaborate theory ofknowledge. Plato’s system relies on distinctionsbetween true “forms,” which are timeless anduniversal qualities (for example, the form ofthe Good); representations of those forms(such as built objects); and representations ofthose representations, such as paintings (1968,509c–511e). Plato’s most famous illustration ofhis theory of knowledge is provided by theimage of a cave (514a–518d), where prisonerswatch the shadows of puppets dance along thecave wall, unaware that what they are watching

is “twice removed” from the truth. Later, Platoasserts that the tragic poets, like painters, canproduce only copies of copies, and as such they“have no grasp of the truth” (600e). They createdisorder in the soul by undermining the searchfor truth: “the imitative poet produces a badregime in the soul of each private man by mak-ing the phantoms that are very far removedfrom the truth and by gratifying the soul’s fool-ish part” (605b). For Plato, the audience mem-

bers at the tragic festival were akin to theprisoners of the cave, entranced by the spec-tacle of fabricated images and unaware of theirignorance.

If the stories of the tragic poets had an enno-bling effect on their audience, then they mightovercome their epistemological shortcomings.After all, Plato embraces “noble lies” to rein-force political and religious unity (414c), andhe accepts poets into his ideal polis if they

would restrict themselves to “hymns to thegods and eulogies to good people” (607a).However, tragedy as a whole dramatizes


4/10

4

suffering, ambiguous ethical situations, andgood characters suffering bad luck. Such narra-tives have adverse consequences for individualmorality and social order. They are “impious”and “harmful to people who hear them” (391e).This leads Plato to endorse the censorship ofpoetry in the city in speech: “such tales mustcease, for fear that they sow a strong proclivityfor badness in the young” (392a).

Plato’s hostility toward tragedy is deeplyconnected with his attitude toward democracy.The Republic presents a “city in speech,” anattempt by Plato to illustrate the virtues of theindividual soul to an audience of young menwho are questioning the concept of justice(368b). In this context, Plato seems to viewdemocracy as a larger metaphor for the dis-order unleashed by tragedy, just as the idealcity in speech is a metaphor for the virtuoussoul. The emphasis within Athenian democ-racy on equality among citizens – exemplifiedby the selection of officers by lottery and by thereliance on majority rule within the assembly –levels the distinctions between the educatedand the ignorant, the virtuous and the vicious.

The democratic polis “is full of freedom andfreedom of speech”; it is where each citizen can“arrange his own life in whatever mannerpleases him” (557b). By definition, then, demo-cratic regimes are unjust, since they encouragecitizens to play a variety of roles and they “dis-tribute a sort of equality to both equals andunequals alike” (558c). Democracy empowersthe lowly and the ignorant, just as tragedy cul-tivates the spirited and erotic parts of the soul.

The result is injustice, chaos, civil war, and ulti-mately tyranny (562a). Just as individual virtuedepends on eliminating the educative force ofthe tragic poets, justice in the city dependsupon an ordered regime controlled by philoso-pher kings.

While Plato’s criticisms of tragedy anddemocracy seem unrelenting in their severity,contemporary political theorists includingPeter Euben have contextualized these criti-

cisms within Plato’s debts to the intellectualtraditions and political practices that definedthe Athenian polis (Euben 1990). Moreover,

these theorists have emphasized the dramatic,and even tragic, elements within Plato’s dia-logues, which complicate the apparent dis-missal of poetry in the Republic . The very formof Plato’s philosophy shows a debt – consciousor unconscious – to the tragic genre.

Aristotle and the Rehabilitationof Tragedy

Aristotle’s Poetics is a foundational text in thestudy of tragedy in any discipline, includingpolitical thought. Any discussion of tragedy asa literary genre must at some point grapplewith Aristotle’s famous definition: “the imita-tion of an action that is serious … with inci-dents arousing pity and fear, wherewith toaccomplish its katharsis of such emotions”(1984: 1449b). The meanings of particularterms have been contested, but Aristotle’s defi-nition of tragedy has remained remarkablyauthoritative and has been applied over time toforms of drama far beyond those of classicalGreece. The very nature of Aristotle’s inquiryimplicitly challenges Plato’s critique and stands

at the beginning of efforts to rehabilitatetragedy in the history of political thought.However, the Poetics never explicitly ascribes apolitical purpose or teaching to tragedy, a sur-prising omission for a thinker who was cen-trally concerned with politics and familiar withthe civic context of Greek theater.

Aristotle’s definition of tragedy acceptsPlato’s view of the genre as an imitative andemotional art. However, in contrast to Plato,

Aristotle explicitly affirms the imitative aspectsof tragedy. Aristotle begins his inquiry intopoetry with the assertions that human beingsare imitative and learn through imitation(1448b). Aristotle praises classical tragedy as afine art that attained its final and “naturalform” in the tragedies of Aeschylus andSophocles (1449a). He further argues thattragedy is “more philosophical” than historybecause its deals with “universals,” or represen-

tative characters and stories, rather thanparticular individuals and events (1451b). Incontrast to Plato, Aristotle seems to see the


5/10

5

imitative medium of tragedy as potentiallyaligned with the pursuit of truth.

The Poetics also reflects a more favorableassessment of the emotions associated withtragedy. Aristotle praises tragedy for aiming atthe arousal of pity and fear, and recommendsparadigmatic plot devices to maximize theseeffects, including the ironic peripeteia , orreversal of expectations; and anagnorisis , ormoment of recognition (1452a). Aristotlepraises Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannos as theparadigmatic narrative for eliciting pity andfear through these devices (1452a; 1453a–b;1455a). In Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics ,Aristotle applies the doctrine of the mean tothe passions. There Aristotle acknowledgesthat pity and fear can take extreme forms, buthe also claims that they can be experienced in acorrect way: “to feel them at the right times …and in the right way, is what is both intermedi-ate and best, and this is characteristic ofexcellence” (1106b). Although the concept ofkatharsis arguably implies that Aristotle valuesthe moderation or eventual purgation of thetragic emotions, the Poetics illustrates a

complex view that genuinely values the tragicemotions, at least in limited circumstances,rather than seeing them as opposite to or inher-ently incompatible with rational thought. Atthe same time, Aristotle neglects to directlychallenge the ultimate superiority of reason toemotion and philosophy to poetry.

There is little question that Aristotle’streatment of tragedy is more favorable thanPlato’s, but considerable debate remains over

the extent and larger implications of thesedepartures. One view is that Aristotle recoversimportant but limited benefits of tragedy, whilereaffirming the ultimate superiority of philos-ophy. (For example, Hegel’s attempt to recon-cile art and philosophy draws heavily upon thePoetics .) Critics, however, see Aristotle’s reha-bilitative project as a domestication, ratherthan vindication, of tragedy. According to this view, tragedy is a source of insight into the

fundamental chaos of human life, fundamen-tally at odds with any philosophical attempt tosee the world as a rational order. Aristotle, in

this view, follows Plato in taking for grantedthe inherent value of morality and supremacyof philosophy, while obscuring the implica-tions of tragic insight. (As we argue below,Nietzsche is a particularly noteworthy critic inthis tradition.)

Others have argued that rather than domesti-cating tragedy, Aristotle conceptualizes tragedyand philosophy as overlapping and mutuallyenriching, complicating the binary oppositionsbetween tragedy and philosophy, chaos andorder, and emotion and reason. In this view,Aristotle infuses philosophy with a genuinesense of tragedy, shifting philosophy in a morehumanistic direction that honors the richnessand complexity of moral life, including theemotions (Nussbaum 1986). Accordingly,Aristotle sees the tragic emotions as legitimateand valuable ethical resources, especially forpractical situations in which theoretical reasonfails to resolve ethical problems. Aristotledefends tragedy against philosophy, and in sodoing he supplements philosophy with newforms of inquiry that exceed Plato’s narrow formof rational inquiry into the Idea of the Good.

Aristotle’s thought falls short of any direct orexplicit challenge to Plato’s interwoven critiquesof tragedy and democracy. Aristotle never givestragedy serious consideration for a claim to bethe highest human activity, nor does the Poetics contain any explicit vindication of democraticregimes. Nevertheless, since the time of Aristotle,a remarkable consensus in philosophy hastreated tragedy with a sense of legitimacy and anundeniable role to play in human flourishing.

Hegel: Ethical Conflict andReconciliation

As the performance of tragedy spread beyondthe Greek polis through the Renaissance andinto the Enlightenment, Aristotle’s view oftragedy as a fine art continued to dominatewestern culture. In the eighteenth andnineteenth centuries, the larger philosophical

and political implications of tragedy becametopics of particular urgency among Germanromantic and idealist thinkers (Steiner 1961).


6/10

6

G. W. F. Hegel was a central figure in thesedevelopments. Building upon Aristotle’s reha-bilitation of tragedy, Hegel’s thought aims atcomprehensive logical syntheses of art and phi-losophy, reason and emotion, and conflict andorder. The distinctive feature of Hegel’s under-standing of tragedy is his central focus onthemes of ethical conflict and reconciliation.Even if they disagree with Hegel’s conclusions,contemporary scholars such as MarthaNussbaum are indebted to Hegel for theirstudies of ethical conflict in tragedy (Steiner1961; Nussbaum 1986; Vernant and Vidal-Naquet 1990). Although Hegel maintains Plato’s view of philosophy as the ultimate human task,like Aristotle, he regards tragedy as a comple-mentary expression of the human spirit, fullycompatible with and developmentally neces-sary to the insights of philosophy.

According to Hegel’s system, “absolutespirit” is the unity of “subjective spirit”(individual self-consciousness) and “objectivespirit” (the collective social world, includingthe structures of the family, civil society, andthe state). This harmony is expressed in the

trinity of art, religion, and philosophy. Despiteobvious differences, Hegel sees this trinity asexpressing the same underlying content: theunity of ideal and real, freedom and necessity,individuals and their social world. Art achievesthis unity through intuition, while philosophyemploys rational thought, but both express theunity of subjective and objective spirit. Withinthis framework, tragedy, according to Hegel’sLectures on Fine Art , “points through and

beyond itself” (1998: 9) and is therefore“the highest stage of poetry and of art gener-ally” (1158). Rather than a source of conflictand disorder, in Hegel’s system tragedybecomes an expression of the unity andrationality of the world.

Hegel’s analysis centers on the distinct abilityof tragedy to portray complex ethical conflicts.According to Hegel, each character in tragedyembodies a “pathos,” a legitimate ethical prin-

ciple that establishes the sympathy of the audi-ence. For example, in his influential reading ofthe Antigone , Hegel views Antigone and Creon

as equal protagonists representing the uncon-scious bonds of the family and the human lawof the state, respectively (Hegel 1977). Hegelargues that tragic heroes are driven to actionsfor which they are culpable in a specific ethicalsense, due to the “one-sided” nature of thepathos. Although their ethical principles areindependently sound, circumstances drivethem into conflict, pushing them to extremes.The inevitable conflict provides the centralaction of the drama: “For although the charac-ters have a purpose which is valid in itself, theycan carry it out in tragedy only by pursuing itone-sidedly and so contradicting and infringingsomeone else’s purpose” (1977: 1197).

According to Hegel, tragedy not only prob-lematizes ethical dilemmas, but also provides asense of Versöhnung , or reconciliation. Apply-ing his dialectical logic, Hegel argues thattragedy reveals the excesses of the protagonistswhile restoring the unity of their essential prin-ciples: “In tragedy the eternal substance ofthings emerges victorious in a reconciling way,because it strips away … their false one-sidedness, while the positive elements … it dis-

plays as what is to be retained, without discordbut affirmatively harmonized” (1199). Thismeans that the ethical conflicts are not, in fact,conflicts in any fundamental sense. Tragic rec-onciliation results in the “cancellation of con-flicts as conflicts ,” thereby restoring the unity ofthe ethical system (1215). While a primitiveconsciousness (like that of an innocent child)may have an undeveloped sense of unity,tragedy provides a more absolute reconcilia-

tion by confronting and working throughcompelling ethical conflicts.

In Hegel’s dialectical logic, tragedy arousesemotions in order to purge them; problema-tizes ethical conflict to restore order; andquestions the state to deepen its authority.Tragedy brings the audience to despair only tosupply a more powerful sense of reconcilia-tion. Far from a disruptive force, tragedyprovides an intuitive reconciliation that is

necessary for and leads logically toward phi-losophy’s rational ordering of individuals andthe social world.


7/10

7

Nietzsche: The Origins of Tragedyand the Revaluation of Philosophy

Friedrich Nietzsche’s interpretation of tragedyand Greek culture has become a touchstone for

contemporary understandings of the genre(Silk and Stern 1981). This has happened inspite of the fact that Nietzsche’s primary text ontragedy, The Birth of Tragedy , was controversialwhen it was published and was dismissed bymost classicists at the time (Nietzsche 2000;Nietzsche 1954: 8). Nevertheless, Nietzsche’sreading of tragedy is valuable today not onlyfor its novel theses about the origins anddecline of tragic drama in ancient Greece, but

also for how it challenges earlier approaches totragedy including those of Plato, Aristotle, andHegel. In contrast to all of these thinkers,Nietzsche radically embraces the chaotic andirrational aspects of human experience, and he views philosophy as a creative rather thantruth-seeking activity. The Birth of Tragedy ,moreover, stands as an important foundationfor some of Nietzsche’s most important ideas,such as the will to power. Although Nietzsche

is often understood as a deeply antipoliticalthinker, his philosophy, formed throughrepeated encounters with tragedy, has becomea central point of departure for postmoderntheorists skeptical of claims to universal moralprinciples and in search of alternative founda-tions for political life.

Tragedy for Nietzsche represented the con- joining of two different sources of artisticcreativity, which he called the “Apollonian” and

the “Dionysian.” The first emphasizes harmonyand structure, while the second refers to theecstatic energies of nature, the collapse ofstructure, and “complete self-forgetfulness”(Nietzsche 2000, I, 36). Apollonian art wascharacterized by measure and order, whileDionysian art invoked wild and irruptive forcesassociated with the god’s cultic worship. ForNietzsche, Greek tragedy was a “reconciliation”or “treaty of peace” between these aesthetic

values (II, 39). Through his genealogy oftragedy, Nietzsche seeks to return to its originsand recover its Dionysian elements.

A key difficulty in evaluating Nietzsche’sconcept of tragedy is that it centers on forms oftragedy that are barely recognizable to mostmodern audiences, reflecting what some char-acterize as an excessive preoccupation with itsorigins rather than the genre as a whole (Else1967). Nevertheless, Nietzsche locates theessence of tragedy in its ritualistic history, whenit lacked actors, dialogue, and the characteristicplots of reversal and downfall that later came totypify the genre. Nietzsche instead focusesalmost exclusively on the role of the tragicchorus. As he puts it, “tragedy … was originallyonly chorus and nothing but chorus” (VII, 56).This leads Nietzsche to the unorthodox viewthat tragedy had already begun to decline dur-ing what most regard as its classical period.

Nietzsche’s claims about Greek art and societyas represented by its tragic dramas challengedthe dominant image of classical Greek culture atthe time. The great architectural, cultural, andaesthetic achievements of the ancient Greekswere held for millennia as the summit of west-ern civilization. This sentiment was summed upby classicist Johann Winckelmann, for whom

the ancient Greeks were characterized by “noblesimplicity and calm grandeur” (2006: 82). ForNietzsche, however, the dominant characteristicof the Greeks was not the Apollonian emphasison order and moderation, but was instead theDionysian spirit of excess and formlessness.Greek tragedy was not so much a demonstrationof the Greeks’ civilized qualities, but the meansby which they “knew and felt the terror and hor-ror of existence” (Nietzsche 2000: III, 42). Rather

than representing the culmination of Greekenlightenment, Nietzsche saw the philosophiesof Plato and Aristotle as displacing the tensebalance between order and disorder, harmonyand chaos that tragedy represented.

Nietzsche’s valorization of the Dionysianspirit of tragedy is in sharp contrast to Plato’s cri-tique of tragic drama. For both Plato andNietzsche, tragedy puts its audience into contactwith the passionate and chaotic forces of life. Yet

for Nietzsche these experiences represent theheights of Greek artistic achievement, whereasfor Plato they are the sign of cultural decay and a


8/10

8

bellwether for political turmoil. For Nietzsche,the deep suffering portrayed in tragedy is anennobling experience, whereas for Plato it is adegradation of the human soul. According toPlato, the just and virtuous man suffers the least,even if he is being actively persecuted, harassed,or – in the case of Socrates – executed by thestate. For Nietzsche, on the other hand, thesuffering portrayed in tragedy and conveyedthrough the choral music is the basis for an over-coming of the narrow life of moral rectitude inthe name of creative individual achievements.

For Nietzsche, it was the moralistic rejectionof Dionysian excess that infiltrated Greektragedy and led to its demise through the teach-ings of Socrates. This spirit appeared on thetragic stage through the plays of Euripides,under whose influence tragedy “alienated itselfas much as possible from the Dionysianelements” (XII, 72). Euripides’ “aestheticSocratism” de-emphasized the role of thechorus and made the dialectical argumentsbetween the actors the central dramatic element.For Nietzsche, Euripides further embodied aSocratic “optimism” that demanded “poetic jus-

tice,” whereby the suffering hero onstage is ulti-mately redeemed, often through the last-minuteappearance of the deity (XVIII, 111). ForNietzsche, Euripidean drama supplants theDionysian “joy of existence” – in all its horrible,terrible ugliness – with a philosophical demandfor justice and “earthly happiness” (XVIII, 111).This process was completed by Aristotle, whoNietzsche saw as domesticating tragedy by sub- jecting works of art to ethical rather than

aesthetic standards (XXII, 132). Aristotle takesfor granted Plato’s view of philosophy as inquiryinto certain knowledge of the good, therebyobscuring the true implications of tragic insight.Through dialectic and the redemptive force ofthe deus ex machina , Greek drama lost its con-nection with its Dionysian roots.

Although Nietzsche grew disenchanted withThe Birth of Tragedy, several themes from thistext reappear in his later work. Following the

decline of tragedy, Nietzsche saw western cultureas internalizing Plato’s view of philosophy asthe pursuit of true moral principles. Nietzsche

recast the contrast between Dionysian tragedyand Socratic philosophy in his later work as astruggle between a creative and life-affirmingphilosophy and a Judeo-Christian tradition thatcalled upon individuals to discipline their desiresand impulses to fit a socially constructed moralsystem. By contrast, in works such as Thus SpokeZarathustra , Nietzsche located within the Greekfascination with Dionysus a primal “will topower,” an ability to transcend moral systems(1954: I: XV). Although often misunderstoodas a demand for power – political or otherwise –over others, the concept of the will to powercaptures, above all else, Nietzsche’s spirit ofcreativity. If moral values are created rather thandiscovered, the supposed quarrel between phi-losophy and poetry is nullified. Instead ofdivining moral truths, both are concerned withthe testing, evaluation, and creation of values.Nietzsche’s main concern – from the early textson tragedy until the end of his active career – wascreating philosophical texts that could, likepoetry, empower individuals who have growndissatisfied with accepted patterns of life to willtheir own greatness.

Tragedy and Gender: Psychoanalyticand Anthropological Traditions

Despite its democratic ideals, the Greek polis excluded women from citizenship and created arigidly gendered division of labor in both publicand private life. As a genre that began as a con-stitutive ritual of citizenship, a critical questionin the history of political thought is the extent to

which tragedy reflects, contributes to, and per-haps problematizes gender norms (Goldhill1997). This in turn raises the question ofwhether larger political and philosophical dis-tinctions implicated in tragedy – such as publicand private, citizen and noncitizen, reason andemotion – turn on the exclusion of women.

According to the dominant view reflected inclassical texts of political thought, tragedyexpresses conflicts between “deviant” erotic

desires and normative family and politicalstructures. Whether their unit of analysis is thehealthy individual or society as a whole, classic


9/10

9

works in phenomenological, psychoanalytic,and anthropological traditions see tragedy asreinforcing gender norms and kinship systemsby dramatizing the negative consequences oftheir transgression, even in complex andunderstandable circumstances.

For example, Hegel conceives of Antigone asrepresenting the feminine, irrational, andunconscious aspects of human nature, in con-trast to the rational law of the state. The playdescribes women as the “eternal irony ofcommunity” because the family is necessaryfor the reproduction of the citizenry, yet createsobligations that appear to be in conflict withthe state (Hegel 1977: 288).

In psychoanalytic theory, Freud’s classicworks appropriate the Oedipus story as anillustration of erotic and aggressive desires thatare repressed in the course of individual andsocial development. According to this account,internal erotic compulsions force humans intoa traditional family structure; yet these samekinship relations breed an intense form ofconflict – conscious and unconscious – thatplagues human relations. This irresolvable

conflict mirrors the struggle between orderand chaos in Greek tragedy (Freud 1961: 95–6).Yet in offering this narrative, Freud arguablyreifies kinship and gender norms and neglectstheir socially constructed character.

Just as classical psychoanalysis has heldtragedy to reflect normal patterns of individualdevelopment, anthropology has historicallyheld tragedy to reflect fundamental social pat-terns. Claude Lévi-Strauss, a leading influence

on structuralist anthropology, sees the Oedipusmyth as a reflection of the incest taboo, aprohibition that is at the foundation of all sociallife (1969). Whether tragedy is seen as affirm-ing or complicating the fundamental binary value systems of Greek culture (such as male–female, state–family, civilized–barbaric) con-temporary classical scholarship is deeplyindebted to structuralist theory (Vernant &Vidal-Naquet 1990; Goldhill 1997: 331–6).

In the late twentieth century, however, moreprogressive views of tragedy and its implicationsfor gender identity have emerged. To many

feminist political theorists, Antigone has repre-sented possible models for feminist resistanceto patriarchy and the state. A key issue withinthis literature is whether the Antigone cele-brates femininity or subverts gender distinc-tions altogether. For example, Jean Elshtain(1991) appeals to Antigone as a model for fem-inist politics rooted in the distinct experiencesof women in social and familial settingsindependent of the state. Luce Irigaray (1985)sees in the play a melancholic drama of theessential differences between masculine andfeminine consciousness. In contrast, JudithButler (2000) sees Antigone not as a vindicationof feminine identity but rather as a challenge toall gender and kinship systems. Relatedly, post-colonial scholars have deployed tragic themesto avoid excessively romantic narratives ofemancipation (Scott 2004). Despite importantdifferences, these works have a strong affinitywith recent classicist scholarship that has cometo see tragedy as complicating or problematiz-ing the exclusions of the polis while simulta-neously celebrating its democratic ideals(Vernant and Vidal-Naquet 1990; Goldhill

1990). As reflected in this debate, political theo-rists have nearly inexhaustible resources at theirdisposal within the genre of tragedy, yetinherent in the genre is a degree of ambiguitythat prevents any lasting consensus. This senseof the complexity and ambiguity of the humancondition may be the most important contribu-tion that tragedy has made to political theory.

SEE ALSO: Aristotle (384–322 ); Athenian

Democracy; Epistemology; Ethics; Euben, J. Peter(1939–); Freud, Sigmund (1856–1939); Gender and

Sex; Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1770–1831);

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm (1844–1900);

Nussbaum, Martha Craven (1947–); Passions;

Plato (429–347 ); Reason

References

Aristotle. (1984) The Complete Works of Aristotle ,ed. J. Barnes, vol. 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Butler, J. (2000) Antigone’s Claim: Kinship betweenLife and Death . New York: Columbia UniversityPress.


10/10

10

Carter, D. M. (2004) “Was Attic Tragedy

Democratic?” Polis: The Journal of the Society forGreek Political Thought , 21 (1–2), 1–25.

Else, G. (1967) The Origin and Early Form of GreekTragedy . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.Elshtain, J. B. (1991) “Antigone’s Daughters.” In

W. McElroy (Ed.), Freedom, Feminism, and theState: An Overview of Individualist Feminism .New York: Holmes & Meier, pp. 61–75.

Euben, J. (Ed.) (1986) Greek Tragedy and PoliticalTheory . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Euben, J. (1990) The Tragedy of Political Theory:The Road Not Taken . Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Freud, S. (1961) Civilization and Its Discontents ,

trans. J. Strachey. New York: W. W. Norton.Goldhill, S. (1990) “The Great Dionysia and Civic

Ideology.” In J. J. Winkler and F. I. Zeitlin (Eds.),

Nothing to Do with Dionysus? Athenian Drama inIts Social Context . Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press, pp. 97–129.

Goldhill, S. (1997) “Modern Critical Approaches to

Greek Tragedy.” In P. E. Easterling (Ed.), CambridgeCompanion to Greek Tragedy . Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, pp. 324–47.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1977) Hegel’s Phenomenology of

Spirit , trans. A. V. Miller. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1998) Hegel’s Aesthetics: Lectures onFine Art , trans. T. M. Knox, 2 vols. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Irigaray, L. (1985) Speculum of the Other Woman .Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1969) The Elementary Structures ofKinship . Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Meier, C. (1993) The Politics of Greek Tragedy .Cambridge: Polity.

Nietzsche, F. (1954) The Portable Nietzsche , ed.

W. Kaufmann. New York: Penguin Books.Nietzsche, F. (2000) Basic Writings of Nietzsche ,

trans. W. Kaufmann. New York: Modern

Library.

Nussbaum, M. (1986) The Fragility of Goodness:Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy .Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Plato. (1968) The Republic of Plato , trans. A. Bloom.New York: Basic Books.

Plato. (1969) The Last Days of Socrates . New York:Penguin Books.

Plato. (1970) The Laws , trans. T. J. Saunders.New York: Penguin Books.

Scott, D. (2004) Conscripts of Modernity: TheTragedy of Colonial Enlightenment . Durham, NC:Duke University Press.

Silk, M. S. and Stern, J. P. (1981) Nietzsche onTragedy . Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Steiner, G. (1961) The Death of Tragedy . NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.

Vernant, J. P. and Vidal-Naquet, P. (1990) Myth and

Tragedy in Ancient Greece , trans. J. Lloyd.New York: Zone Books.

Winckelmann, J. (2006) Essays on the Philosophyand History of Art , ed. C. Bowman. London:Continuum.

The Wire. (2002–8) Created by D. Simon[TV drama]. USA: HBO.

Documents

Tragedy and Politics