Betraying Banter -- Mimetic Theory and Literary Study

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:55:33 03/10/08 Mon
Author: CS Holden
Subject: Betraying Banter

I'm looking at Scene I of "Oedipus Rex," page 21 (about four pages before the Ode, if you have a different translation). It's the argument between Oedipus and Tiresius, where according to a Girardian reading the king and the prophet are trying to lay blame on the other as the cause of the plague.

I'm struck by the language of betrayal they use. Tiresius has just told Oedipus, "There is no one here / Who will not curse you soon, as you curse me," and soon enough the question of Creon arises. Oedipus says, "Tell me: / Are you speaking for Creon, or for yourself?" And later, he follows it up with this revealing monologue:

"Wealth, power, craft of statesmanship!
Kingly position, everywhere admired!
What savage envy is stored up against these,
If Creon, whom I trusted, Creon my friend,
For this great office which the city once
Put in my hands unsought--if for this power
Creon desires in secret to destroy me!"

Oedipus is conscious of the mimetic nature of betrayal, or alternatively, the betrayal inherent in mimesis. But rhetorically, it's a beautiful tool. If we think of the possible scapegoats as pharmakons, it makes sense to think of the initial poisoning crime in terms of a betrayal. It can make anyone appear guilty, even if they do not have external markers of a "different kind of difference." The one who betrays us is automatically set aside from us--and isn't this wonderful, because it was HIM, not US, that set him apart! The accusation of betrayal (itself an act of betrayal) is the perfect way to single someone out as a scapegoat.

And who better to betray the people than the ruler? If we see society as a system in which people try to perpetuate the species (the Nietzchean definition, I think), then the ruler of that society ought to be doing the most he can for the most people. But an accusation of conspiracy or betrayal is perfect, because it tears his position down by its very foundations.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]