Is medea a feminist? Discuss

Is MEDEA a feminist?

Discuss

JENNIFER RICHARDS

In this essay I will be reviewing the text Medea, a play written by Greek play-write Euripedes. I will be analysing feminist perspectives and ideals presented within the book, and posing arguments for and against Medea's character being seen as feminist. I shall also be Discussing the history of feminism up to present day and drawing comparisons between other feminist figures as well as Medea's actions, Lastly I will be talking about the implications or connotations her actions may have had, as well as her reasoning for such actions and what they may or may not represent.

Some have argued that Greek tragedy or even more specifically Euripedes is where feminism originated, with Greek tragedy comes the birth of the heroine, a female protagonist with all the qualities of the hero only charged with feminine empowerment. The genre sparked the beginnings of various movements and many saw a new path in the evolution of the social development, Terry Collits mentions the influential book on Greek tragedy published by Pierre Vidal-Naquet and Jean-Pierre Vernant, saying that “They exposed classical studies to the winds of change which were already transforming other disciplines in the humanities”. He goes on to explain how “startlingly modern” Medea is, explaining how the outrage of Medea and solidarity of the chorus share the same perspective of their desires being thwarted prejudice. There have been a large variation of accounts and other tales with heroines or strong female protagonists yet when we trace back the lineage of feminism Euripedes is what comes to mind, Euripedes, along with Aristotle, were some of the first to pose the questions and core values that most modern feminists identify with, and Medea is one of the first pieces of text that embodies said values.

First off, to truly understand the feminist position posed within the play, we must analyse the term feminist, which is different to the word feminism and has different connotations. To say that Medea has feminist traits, or her actions within this play followed the dynamic of feminism would be wholly accurate, however inadvertent, but being a feminist is an active choice. If you want to look at it literally then no Medea is not technically a feminist within this play, on account of having never classified herself as such or even stated her fight is for equality or the eradication of the patriarchy. However the fact still remains that on some subconscious level it would seem she's choosing to fight not just to exact her own personal vengeance but to set an example, to stand up for womankind that experienced heavy oppression within their culture.

Considering the vast spectrum that is feminism, as well as the various different types of feminists out there from radical to liberal, it is tricky to define Medea's subconscious feminist stance. There is no one type of feminism, it would seem due to her desire to completely and utterly subvert all female stereotypes and gender roles, as well as her desire to fight back against patriarchal views and oppression she may fit more into the role of a radical feminist. Medea has a more ruthless approach but more than that, she's not attempting to find ways in which to live with dignity in society's pre existing social values and rules, she's challenging the rules and values themselves. In Brittney Cooper's article on internal conflicts within feminism, especially interracial, she writes “(Liberal) feminisms still center around equality... (radical) feminisms demand justice. There is a difference. One kind of feminism focuses on the policies that will help women integrate fully into the existing system. The other recognises the fundamental flaws in the system and seeks its complete and total transformation.” Radical and liberal feminisms are terms more relative to this discussion, as opposed to racial conflict. The same ideals can be applied to Medea; instead of trying to bargain or reason with Jason, or simply trying to make the best out of a bad situation she demands justice, casting Medea in the light of a radical feminist.

From a first glance Medea comes across as a feminist that would seem lightyears ahead of her time, considering the slow progress the feminist movement has made in the last century, to have, not just Medea, but multiple women within this play take a stance on female empowerment and a protest against the oppressive patriarchy can be considered as a fairly modern approach for the time in which it was written.

In today's society, with the advancements we have made and the rights women have won, though the battle is still going on, in first world countries primarily the fight has shifted from a complete upheaval of society's standards and beliefs toward gender roles as well as an abolishment of the patriarchy, to now simply striving for equality and mutual respect. In parts of the world where women still do not attain the same legal rights of men the fight is much fiercer, drastic and extreme. This latter is the same kind of fight we see playing out in Medea, but on a smaller more personal scale.

We can see a large number of empowering qualities within her character. Always being proclaimed as an intelligent woman, with implications toward her bravery, upon reading the play many may see her as admirable for having the courage to stand her ground and to do what she felt was right, as well as disproving all preconceptions toward the female role. Some could go as far as to say that her character subconsciously promotes feminism, without proclaiming herself to be a feminist or to even be fighting specifically for women's rights, there are subtle connotations and implications in her dialogue that put forth the idea that she isn't just fighting for her own liberty, justice and vengeance against an oppressive male, but all the women in her society and culture that have to endure the patriarchy much as she does.

Many will argue that there was nothing empowering about her actions, that they had little to do with feminism and were just part of a quest for irrational vengeance. If anything some may go as far as to say that her hysteria was damaging to the feminist cause, that it may give other women a bad name. However if you go deeper you can see that her refusal to comply, compromise or moderate her vengeance for the sake of the happiness, mercy or comfort of others, especially Jason, puts her on a pedestal of feminist ideals; she unashamedly parades her feelings about the given situation, no matter how hysterical they may seem, this freedom of personal expression being something that women for centuries have been encouraged, nay, pressured into censoring for the sake of male comfort. She behaves just as any man would do, and has done, without feeling the need to be apologetic for how much pain she experienced.

Considering the author, a renown “champion of women's equality”, we are immediately presented with the perspective of proto-feminism. It is hard to view this play or Medea as anything but with these preconceptions, that being said there are two very equal arguments for and against Medea being seen as a feminist; while she completely alienates herself from the patriarchal view of a traditional woman, an ideal wife or mother and unashamedly follows her own will as a person, not just a woman, because of her irrational reaction, no matter how justified or non-conformist it may be, in the bigger picture it does little to aid the cause, or pave a way for women to stand their ground. Her protest and fight for vengeance ends up sinking in to the sea of dominant male views on women and is merely written off as the stereotypical hysterical woman. Her selfishness portrayed can be criticised by men and women later on in our world for ultimately discarding rationality and a feminist stand for her own personal goals and thus reinforcing the idea that a passive woman is a better woman.

In the end however it is never truly stated by Medea or anyone else within the play that she wishes to consider the bigger picture and the fact that her character may be written off as hysterical or hindering could be simply down to others failing to follow her example, within reason. It wasn't simply the betrayal by Jason, after all, that triggered such an extreme response, one must realise that his abandonment was the straw that broke the camel's back. Looking at either the bigger picture or Medea's personal goals the same conclusion can be drawn: she took a stand unapologetically, made herself out to be somebody who won't be pushed around or succumb to society's standards or the patriarchal ideal, she was wronged and she exacted vengeance, she disregarded her standing as a woman despite the disapproval of those around her and that in itself is a feminist act.

Due to how relatable Medea's character is to modern women, in the sense that we all have a festering dark side drawn to revenge and anger, only Medea is unashamed about letting this side out, one can consider this a timeless quality. It can be persistently called upon by women throughout history and in modern day and be seen as a reason to be unapologetic for your emotions. Medea's betrayal and rage may be looked at as a representation of the turmoil of women through years of tyranny from mankind. However instead of bending to the will of the patriarchy and or crumbling under the influence, becoming a martyr or a victim, Medea conquers oppression and domineers masculinity, as many women have done since, “Medea's story has hooks upon which the modern viewer or reader can hang elements of the lives of modern women”, this relatable quality not only in Medea but in the events of the play can subsequently be construed as a representation of modern women, and perhaps even the feminist movement. Tales of marital betrayal and revenge that follow suit can be seen in War of the Roses or The First Wives Club.

Cheryl Fuller, in her feminist essay of Medea explains that “the character Medea is the same woman transported across time”, as previously stated this timeless quality allows a reflection of the female struggle between love and hatred, loyalty and betrayal, sacrifice and justice that we have seen played continuously throughout time. One could even argue that perhaps this was one of many sparks that triggered the beginnings of the feminist movements. Regardless of whether or not this was the intention of Euripedes, we cannot deny the impact the story had and the clear feminist qualities embodied within Medea's rich character. One might go as far as to say perhaps she's the woman many wish they had the courage to be?

It could be argued that the intention of Euripedes was less in the support of female empowerment, but more of a jab at male dominion: “Euripede's Medea indeed questioned prevailing norms and beliefs, primarily those of the heroic masculine ethic, but it did so at the expense of women,” whether or not women see Medea's vengeful, maniacal behaviour as a positive trait is one thing, and not something that can be argued as it is subjective, however how those traits can actually help the cause is another, considering her ill temper is not directed at women but at men, women have more freedom to look at it from either side. However when one realises that any man who reads Medea is more likely to only see the side of her victims and subsequently draw biased and misguided conclusions about who women really are, we see that the play and her character only serve to further segregate the two genders. If we are to argue in favour of Medea's feminism we have to see that she fights for equality, not female superiority, she has to have qualities that positively impact both genders, one shouldn't have to attack an opposing party to defend one's own point.

The question still stands “Can Medea be considered a feminist?” In the last paragraph I discussed Euripede's portrayal of this character, in that context as I explained it is hard to see her as a feminist because of how damaging her role is to the feminist movement, however that is only if she is viewed as a fictitious character instead of an ideal or a real person. Let's pretend for a moment that Medea really existed, would we condemn her actions against misogyny and oppression because it makes feminism look bad? The fact still stands that because the inequality was so drastic then, so too must the fight against it be. An obedient and tame woman is a decent woman in the eyes of ancient Greece, had she not attacked the patriarchy to defend herself and womankind then perhaps her stand would have been in vain and her tale lost. “Silence is a woman's glory”; many men believed, and still do, by making as much noise as possible Medea creates her own female glory, one not designed and designated by mankind. It is a feminist's duty to create her own glory and help create a world where that is a universal possibility, to question natural order and man's role of ruler over society. We can see the influence of Aristotle (or possibly vice versa) in this play, when it comes to who should rule a household and who should be ruled it is clear that Medea is challenging this, as Aristotle says “Ought a woman to be temperate and brave and just,” these are three qualities that stand out the most within Medea's character. “For if a noble nature is equally required in both, why should one of them always rule, and the other always be ruled?” This notion is very apparent within the play, it was at the point which Medea learns of her exile that one can imagine this occurring to her. It is a question any feminist must ask themselves and others and constantly remember in order to progress. One could even consider it the ultimate feminist question, the reason to fight oppression.

In conclusion, the arguments for and against Medea's role as a feminist depend entirely on perspective of the play, how it was written; how it can be seen as spiteful toward men and hurtful to the feminist cause. How little thought Euripedes gave to the bigger picture and how through a potentially selfish desire to put forth his opinion he wound up doing more harm than good. Are there not however correlations there? Medea's behaviour and Euripedes' cause for writing the novel come across fairly similarly. It can be cast aside as a petty jab at men for their fiendish behaviour or it can be seen as an attempt to represent any oppressed and down trodden women who needed something to fuel their fire. When it comes down to it Medea's actions, what she represents and the questions implied by her character paint the picture of radical feminism at its finest. Though her story is personal the message is universal, question your role as a woman, challenge the reign of men and fight back against enforced silence no matter what the immediate cost, because of this I conclude that yes Medea should be considered a feminist.

References

Aristotle., and Rackham, H. (1959). Aristotle: politics. 1st ed. London: Heinemann, pp.Book 1 section 1254a, section 1254b.

Collits, T. (n.d.). Intimations of Feminism in Ancient Athens: Euripedes' Medea. 1st ed. [ebook] Sydney: University of Sydney, pp.1,2,3,7,8. Available at: http://openjournals.library.usyd.edu.au/index.php/SSE/article/viewFile/547/516 [Accessed 15 Oct. 2014].

Cooper, B. (2014). Feminism’s ugly internal clash: Why its future is not up to white women. [online] Salon.com. Available at: http://www.salon.com/2014/09/24/feminisms_ugly_internal_clash_why_its_future_is_not_up_to_white_women/ [Accessed 15 Oct. 2014].

Fuller, C. (2010). Medea, Feminism and the Shadow. Undergraduate. University of Minnesota.

Messing, A. (n.d.). Protofeminist or Misogynist? Medea as a case study of gendered discourse. 1st ed. [ebook] Boston: University of Massachusetts Boston, pp.2, 3, 4, 5. Available at: http://www.umb.edu/editor_uploads/images/kingston-mann/Messing.pdf [Accessed 15 Oct. 2014].