Book review: Antigone Rising, by Helen Morales

Sorry in advance for this tedious essay, which you have my permission not to bother reading. I blame the book for stimulating thought and debate. Occasionally I feel the need to yell into these abysses.

Antigone and her story of moral intransigence in the face of injustice continue to be appropriated by not only the primary feminist cause but also different (sometimes opposing, bone tugging) campaigns as they jostle for their own moral high-ground. Antigone and her story of moral intransigence continue to be iconic to feminism. Academics appropriate culture too, so you can hypothesize someone championing and putting Antigone on a plinth even when siding with a source of oppression, if it awards research grants. Luckily, in the UK, The Guardian editorial tells university staff what to think and saves them a lot of time pondering ethical quandaries. I could be over-analysing (ok, often do) but I think I detected here a glint of contempt for what Antigone represents. As Helen so rightly points out, you can’t own a myth — it takes flight — so can equally be claimed by no one or everyone, including people who disagree with you. I will explain the suspected blemish later but I suppose that “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function” (F. Scott Fitzgerald), but pulling off this rare trick earns a long groan from me if an authority’s allegiances (sometimes pro-Creon, authoritarian rule) contrast their principles stated in the public domain (pro-Antigone). Is that fair to question?

If you read Antigone, as opposed to reading someone who has read Antigone, you might find it quite hard to get overly enthusiastic about. That’s the reality, that people are too snobbish to admit, but time has passed, social context has changed and the conveyance of meaning is generally the worse for translation. I found the first two Theban plays easier to read than this one (the same ruler of Thebes appears in Oedipus Rex as well, which is a riot). What we can hopefully still draw from this play is the example Antigone has set for us, of course not by hanging herself unnecessarily but in having a meaning and firm attitude which has not changed. Think first, be metacognitive, stand up, say no, make your own informed choices according to what is right and not what makes life easier for someone powerful than you. Submission requires consent or it is unjust to enforce. Submission with no consent is rape or slavery, depending whether or not there is a sexual element.

The author lists several equality campaigns and modern tragedies as examples of injustice, then lionises many of their personal heroes, the morally courageous people who have stepped up to confront unjustifiable inequalities and victimisation. Should this legacy stuff be overturned? Well, yes, obviously, so we’re preaching to the converted here. Why are you, personally, reading this book? As this is marketed to the public, there’s a disproportionately high probability you are a woman with a classical education who has experienced trauma.

Some of these recollections include declarations from the manifestos of mentally ill men who have deliberately murdered women, in cases where this malign sub-set have been convinced that women not submitting to male control should be a fatal offense (fault passes to the victim); and that they alone should carry out the sentence. However, I think you would be very hard pressed to find a man in the Western world who agrees with that insanity so it’s not a realistic complaint to pin on ‘mankind’ across large sections of the globe. In the Middle East, together with parts of Asia, Africa and the sub-continent, it is reasonable to generalise that a great number of men control aspects of women’s lives (I’ve just seen a video of a 9 year old girl being sold by her father to a 55 year old man, in the 21st century!) and use their society’s and their religion’s draconian expectations as justification. Why does gender dominance exist? Did it once improve survival changes, like maybe back in the Palaeolithic? Who thinks it is fit for purpose now?

Application of gender rules can be inconsistent for the same culture in different time periods. The Prophet Muhammad’s wife was a businesswoman who supported her husband, which became a bad thing later in Islamic history after a bunch of men went on to alter their interpretation of scripture to consolidate control over society for men. A council of the early Christian church held on a Greek island decided which books would be included in the Bible and, just as importantly, which would not. The books of scripture written by women did not make the cut, but the book by a tripping magic-mushroom addict (Revelations, by John of Patmos) got in. Ok, so a great number of women unthinkingly reinforce rules that constrain them, designed to benefit what’s assumed to be history’s rule-making gender (men) and then adding another layer of bias toward men in the best-placed races. Reference points like Amazons managing their own society, the girl boss, enter mythology alongside the bestiary of monsters as freak-show aberrations to natural rule. However, in the Stone Age, it may surprise you to hear that all of our gods were female (see The Myth of the Goddess, by Anne Baring and Jules Cashford) with no exceptions to the rule so far found, so what changed? Dozens of independent, empowered, mother and nature goddesses were taken by Zeus (or his regional equivalent) as wives, then (the convenient explanation goes) he took their powers and roles into himself. As settlements became communities, then became nations, then friction happened between them at the borders, male war gods arose everywhere, a theological cleansing across continents. The ancient female gods were retired, stigmatised as witches or sent to the kitchen. Your god reflects what your society needs right now, so the change from female to male authority was in response to the need to survive conflict. This selects in favour of the aggressive male, which raises the risk for everyone who can’t exempt themselves from being robbed, enslaved, killed or sexually assaulted. As we arguably don’t need male aggression any longer, thanks for the memories, it would be good to change back now — but it doesn’t appear that long-term traits have a convenient off switch tucked just under the low brow hair line. However, that restoration could already be slowly happening… but more about the gradual pacification of male lives, and whether a more effeminate kind of man is a positive or negative thing, later.

There are punishments and shaming for not conforming to male-originated rules in many backward dumps of the world (like Portsmouth) and also in otherwise highly advanced and well-resourced Arabic and African capital cities. That’s depressing for the 52%, on an ongoing basis. However, there’s no probable risk of gender inequality to that extreme coming back into general society across the nations which don’t do it currently. It could be a problem when men from an orthodox country/ideology relocate into a more open country/society and try to keep going with their shitty old ways. I was a guest at an Indian professor’s home a few years ago where the women confined themselves to the kitchen while the men talked in the front room. I went to the kitchen to get them into the mix but they wouldn’t come. I wasn’t invited back, but should have foreseen that. It was their (transplanted) home, the rules they’d grown up with in unquestioning obedience and I hadn’t politely conformed to established patriarchy. Transgressor! I did like their tea though.

When I read page 77, I did wonder whether the author was expecting us to automatically nod and swallow all of the information provided without question, i.e. when some ‘facts’ didn’t appear to come with a clear foundation in evidence. Examples are (a) “We talk about the destruction of the earth in terms of rape: “the rape of the environment” etc. These metaphors serve to reinforce humanity’s dominance over the earth [yes] and diminish the importance of environmental concerns.” [no]. How is that statement true? Surely the emotive language is there to enrage and amplify the level of concern for the environment as a serious issue? Then there’s (b) “In turn, when women are viewed as closer to nature, we are seen as less civilised, less fully human even, than men.” Sorry, that sounds like utter pants to me, what polite critics classify as a particularly isolated opinion. “We are seen as” is the author assuming a female readership (probably true) and commenting on unvoiced thoughts inside unmet male strangers’ heads. Extracting hypothetical people’s thoughts and citing them as evidence? What superpowers they must wield at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Patriarchal and gender domination are beyond doubt the central crimes to which Antigone alerts us, an undeniable core of lingering wrong which provokes our right-thinking reaction and reinforces our certainty that the angels walk on our side, unblinking in the light. Caution. The mistake comes if we are too self-assured and stop listening to the logic of those opposing us because… why would you? ‘Intellectuals don’t care what a grunt thinks! The highest educated people should be the only ones who have the vote (see Plato’s Republic).’ Noooo! The acid test is in examples when the majority of the population strongly disagree with your ‘enlightened’ position. It is important to consider the possibility that the majority may just have a point. The common folk might even be more grounded because mad leaders perhaps don’t know they are mad, if they have been in a bubble of sycophants so long they’ve lost their anchor points in reality and their common frames of reference with the people. Could reformers ever cross this line, if they are too focussed? Could it cause potential supporters of, for example, academic feminism to distance themselves? Back to broader activism, perhaps the generic ‘you’ of entitlement have not listened because no one in your topic’s echo chamber has bothered seeking out opponents and learning both sides of the issue, so doesn’t know any valid contrary logic exists. This happens a lot. People go to march with a crowd of people who agree with them, whilst opponents leave the city for the day. What has been learned by either side? They’ve experienced the illusion that everyone agrees with them, which is false reinforcement. Change requires dropping your assumptions and asking the other side to explain it to you. Set an example. Speaking to anyone who assumes a superior position in morality or power, if you don’t hear them and just impose your views on others without listening, that can show your ignorance, top-down injustice and aggression — everything you previously accused them of!

Antigone refused to submit to another unelected human’s right to control her, where she believed the ruler was in the wrong under a different set of eternal proprieties that the ruler had no authority to re-write. What happens today when this same clash happens? A strict libertarian believes that just about anything done to them is an act of aggression (like confiscating their dope), but that level of non-compliance with norms and conventions can turn anti-social too (noise, weapons). Persuasion and achieving consensus work better when you apply rules (less chance of policy reversal when your opponents take their turn; or protest etc. before they do) but it does require a lot of patience. Luckily, society has processes to stop entrenched opposing positions being resolved by violence — reconciliation, the law, democracy — but there is a modern trend for the ‘enlightened liberals’ of our time in power, an example being the European Commission, to remove any legal or democratic means for a popular majority to stop them. You think you’ve voted for something but that’s a red herring because no one elected to the European Parliament is in the law-making government of the EU. They impose their will and that’s final. Removing the safeguards citizens have to protect themselves from abusive power is very worrying because it enables dystopia (the ancient deity Dis gets a lot of mentions in this review!). The logic behind institutions like the EU having got rid of democracy at the law-making government level and moving to the group dictatorship model is surprisingly fair and comes with good intentions: to end the so-called ‘tyranny of the majority’ problem, in which majority interest continually side-lines minorities and gradually makes them second class citizens, unprovided for and then potentially unwelcome because they don’t fit. This political strategy stops minorities and those facing injustice being ignored (good, for equitable integration) but also defaults back, very dangerously, to the situation where the only possible way for a majority of the general public to stop the leadership group doing harm to them is (oh dear) unlawful violence. It should be a popularly accepted balance somewhere in between (governance happens with consent, absolute rule usually doesn’t). Therefore, speaking to Creon’s level, the essential things to be considered when controlling people are: (i) obtaining majority consent from the people to govern them (Creon was a tyrant — and, in the modern parallel, consent was never sought for EU rule of the UK, causing the 26 years of loathing); and (ii) reducing the risk that comes with too much power of it being abused, so permitting democratic and independent legal safeguards that a population can invoke against the leadership. Speaking to Creon’s level again, and also (although you don’t want to hear it) to all fervent social justice campaigns, even if your intention is just, you cannot be impatient and enforce your ideas aggressively, silence the opposition and expect it to all be fine in the morning. People automatically react badly to ultimatum format as that is what enemies use, even saying “you must eat chocolate eclairs” — “Why must I? I’m never going to eat one again!”. Change has to be consented to by more than just your peer group or general opposition will strengthen until any precious social advances you have achieved have been reversed. Snakes, ladders, back to square one for Antigone’s bid for the governor’s job. Creon and Antigone did have things in common: neither of them were amenable to compromise or listening to a consensus, therefore both were fated to fail. A modern lesson because in every serious social campaign for change we repeat this.

People go on to assume Antigone in her radiance would have joined their campaign against every earthly injustice, but surely non-compliance with being told what to think and how to act is her element, so this free-thinking character’s blessing for all causes should not automatically be accepted as true? Heaven’s unwritten law (morality), which unforgiving Antigone serves as an inflexible priority, can still contradict the politicians’ written law at times, just as it did with Creon when the tyrant took his action to not allow the burial of traitors, which was only calculated to deter future rebellion (he eventually relented, when it was too late). This philosophical clash of two masters (the earthly and the heavenly moral) repeats Antigone’s dilemma in each of us down through the ages.

There’s an interesting case made in this to abolish school dress codes as being sexist, the regulations only being there because males fear they can’t control themselves. I think there should be some differentiation made between: (i) dissing school dress code — i.e. unashamedly showing your bare ankle is inappropriate as it’s an open invitation for men to do whatever lush stuff they do to ankles. Okay, but what if your ankles need to breathe? Can you get a medical exemption for eczema? This leads way down silly street. … and (ii) dissing school uniform altogether, when it is a good thing in several ways: a uniform suggests you’re a learning team, reminds children they are there to work (you change clothes to not be at ‘work’, so there’s a psychological switch) and, mainly, stops the fashion competition between rich and poor families, which is a distraction from learning and fuels bullying. My observation has been that boarding school kids only have school uniform to wear in term time and graduate with no sense of taste in clothes, so there is a setback effect.

I read the surprising information herein that Athenian men were normally bisexual. Were women too? It sounds like an orgiastic society. Were there no STIs in those days or was it just plague going around? I can imagine bisexuality was tolerated but didn’t know it was normalised. I suppose Byron did call that Greek love, then went over there in the name of protecting the cradle of civilisation from the Turks, but maybe he was secretly seeing if the bisexuality thing was still on. The text then explores classical references to trans and androgyny, some lesser known.

In the Tiresias mythology, I thought (misread, or are there versions?) that the sage was asked by the gods whether it was preferable to live as a man or a woman (which the gods would know the answer to already because they can swap around), but here it says Tiresias was asked which gender gets more out of sex. That version is new to me and could completely change the answer. What is androgynous anyway? If a woman wishes to appear as a man, what does she do? When I read the literature of the 50s, 60s and 70s, the image of a man is cigarettes, heavy boots, a manual job, meat and potatoes ready for him at home, shotgun in the cupboard somewhere, doesn’t care who he offends, mildly homophobic and would never use a cosmetic product. Have you observed that by 2021 all of those features have been lost to history? Most men have screen jobs identical to women’s jobs, they don’t smoke, they eat granola/kale/smoothies, panic at the thought of saying the wrong thing, use scents or creams and are nervous when they find themselves alone in a room with an attractive woman. Are males in this decade becoming more female in their behaviour and appearance? Expectations of them and the generous allowances that used to be made for their rough edges seem to have tightened. They were protectors, which is now a redundant task. The expectation, until AI takes this on, is that both parents protect the children now, usually (statistical probability) against misadventure rather than external threat. Is the remnant psychological difference between men and women now that men are interested in ‘things’ and women are interested in ‘people’? Is that all that’s left?

I’ve previously alluded to the twin evils of forced compliance without consent and electoral disempowerment, which are themes from the ancient world and Antigone. What’s disappointing for me is that, early on (Preface xvii), the author poisons their own championing of poor Antigone (the disempowered public) by letting the reader know by suggestion that her own family and friends would have supported our modern equivalent of the oppressive dictator Creon in crushing Antigone. Unless I’m reading this fleeting comment wrong, there is implied support for forced conquest against the victim’s will (worse than simply without consent) and also for removing women’s (and everyone else’s) right to vote for anyone in their highest law-making government. Condoning tyranny? If so, that’s a complete abdication of the moral pinnacle the writer is assuming occupation of. The text reads: “This book grew from my attempts to explain to Athena [the author’s daughter] that the things which were preoccupying her and her peer group — girls’ safety, school dress codes, dieting, as well as dealing with a changing political climate in which their freedoms were being curtailed…” This commentary is obviously a reference to ‘Brexit’ as it was written at a time when the author’s country had only just achieved its freedom from a tyranny imposed without any consent. Yes, that’s correct, as the UK was put into the EU via the Maastricht Treaty which was imposed against the will of the majority of its population (opinion poll range at the time was 62–68 percent against). That was a conquering event. Forced conquest and submission is something this book speaks out against, but not in this sentence, which appears to approve of it. As she has introduced them to us, does this author’s family and peer group condone this traumatic and rape-equivalent act, forced on a peaceful population? The second issue is that the previous political landscape was not a democracy, so that right has been gained through the change. No one in the law-making government of the EU (the European Commission) is elected, and the law it makes is superior to the national law of elected governments in 27 of Europe’s 44 countries. A directive went straight into UK national law without any debate in Parliament. There is no legal or democratic way for a majority of the population to appoint or remove a European Commissioner if they abuse power or to stop that individual making up any law they like. What Athena seems to have missed here is the democratic disenfranchisement of 500,000,000 people. The ‘rights’ lost (borderless travel) could and should be replicated by treaty, with no need to give up democracy and self-determination as well. The population of the UK was conquered, disempowered and compelled to obey (like Antigone) but stood up to them in defiance (like Antigone) and became free. The author’s family appear saddened by this reversal. Remember, that painful resolution was never about who’s better between the right and left ideologies; this was always about the eternal struggle that reoccurs throughout history when any kind of state oppression is applied against a vulnerable population. You shouldn’t want that! It’s Stockholm Syndrome to want it, the opposite of Antigone’s message. The following statement is not true of all reformers so don’t quote me out of context but, sadly it has become a kind of neo-liberal delusion to not be aware that they have become indistinguishable from the thing they hate the most; dictators imposing their will on others. No, you never have more rights in the long-term under tyranny (fascist, communist or incorrectly defined as liberal), just sweeteners. I know that democracy is not a human right, just as war is amazingly not a crime, but think — a population is always more vulnerable when it has no lawful or democratic means of stopping its rulers’ abuses. Yes, the political situation has changed because a tyrant fell, albeit locally. I feel sorry that the author’s daughter and her friends think that this change to become a free country and a democracy is for the worse. I assume people like this don’t understand what they are supporting, what condoning forced conquest and allowing the removal of checks and balances on power allows in next. Not knowing what you are supporting is entirely human and understandable. Knowing and still supporting tyranny means you have no moral compass and endanger us all.

Like many university staff, I see this family moved from the UK to the US, as research can be done anywhere and geography isn’t something you’d want to cling to if that gets in the way of career prospects. For a laugh, I suggest they take this opportunity to ask new American friends if they would approve of the same thing that happened to the UK happening to the US, i.e.: “Would you agree to the US being forcibly conquered against the will of your population and ruled by an unelected foreign government?” “Do you think you would have more rights and freedoms if that happened?” They’d just stare at you.

The author’s private allegiances are none of my business but I think that the public suggestion contained in this book does invite criticism to see if it is a massive contradiction. Siding with a conqueror who forces themselves upon you against your will is suspect logic if you go on to write this book lauding classical and modern examples of resistance and just resolution. In the EU/UK case, how do you think these ‘friends’ are going to punish insolent little Antigone next?

Then again, as Helen Morales speculates about Euripides’ lost adaptation of the story in the wrapping up of this book, “Perhaps the hero Hercules intervened, and they all lived happily ever after, an ending that would have allowed Antigone to rebel against Creon’s authoritarianism and to have a future.”

Personally, I think the trend on this planet is toward slow improvement in social justice and equality. It is up and down as there are blatant pockets and exceptions, those places where it all goes to pot and hardship persists. Although, how much is it outweighed by this positive momentum: fewer wars, less famine, more respect for law, better health and education, more communication between peoples, better understanding and integration of communal technology, more opportunities for work and a watering down of orthodoxy? Women had less freedom than men in previous generations, so I am grateful that someone else’s struggle for women’s rights has built the world I was born into, not many years ago to be fair, and made it easier for me to go to university and compete with men and women on merit. That opening of our culture toward meritocracy eased my passage, for which I should not be grateful but should expect meritocracy as an entitlement. I am aware of blatant global differences (Chesterton’s quote about which chimney you happened to be born down). Gender inequality is strikingly geographical, but rapists still escape justice here.

Antigone’s intransigence over one issue (burying the dead) has since morphed into our duty to no longer be a passive bystander when we witness any kind of inequality or cruelty. They turned on her for that resistance but we can resist in the comparative safety of a rule-based society. We are waifs though, as individuals against some of these imposing practices and authorities, but it is now much harder for them to shut their critics up or stop them typing. We also organise and learn from each other much better now. There are millions who do not want to be part of the trend for progress toward equality and are content ‘being left in their kitchens’, passive, allowing decisions to be made for them. You can’t win many hearts and minds by intervening where you are not welcome. Be thankful for the tea and cross your fingers that they will think about how you live and be tempted to prod their boundaries to see what gives.

Okay, so what else is noteworthy about this book? In Greek history (ranging from geopolitical accuracy to the travel hearsay of Hesiod, the patron saint of Wikipedia), we are told it took Alexander the Great thirteen days and nights to sexually satisfy Thalestris, Queen of the Amazons. Gosh, this is the stuff of red-top headlines and I thought history was stuffy. Setting aside the idea of living in a tribe with no men at all and way too many weightlifters, the modern commentary goes on to conclude that these exemplar Amazon women were not just independent but also progressive, strong and equal. Good information and even better early feminist example-setting. Go Amazons! Then again… reading this classical male scholar’s account with modern, revisionist eyes, Alexander the Great was about 4 ft tall and gay as two spoons, therefore I think the 13 day point was not when she became satisfied but was more likely the moment she finally gave up on flicking the silly thing. Her anecdote about the great man afterwards must have been highly amusing. Detrimental to his reputation, of course, so I expect she had to die. The book reminds us that violence has been used since time immemorial to maintain control, but that should have been neutralised now by the rule of law — which can only work if you report it — which risks further punishment as the perpetrator clutches at the last straws to control you from speaking. The difficulty is, so many women have to go back and live there. In the decision about whether to report it, the courage is tested when you have to pin everything on a long conviction. Acquitted = hell gets hotter.

Male violence toward women and the attempt to justify that is a theme addressed repeatedly in this book, harking back to earliest times. Good women (chastity, obedience, at home, unlettered, no headaches) were not rewarded as such but could be reminded ‘how lucky they are’ by their society’s aggressive posture toward those perceived to be bad women (non-conformists) and above all foreign women because the author explains that masculine victories over them impose the multiple whammy: masculine, national, cultural, religious and racial triumph over the surprised victims. There’s the genetic victory too, where the next generation of the foreign women’s children have come from the aggressive men’s gene pool.

The template is in our fairy tales — if a single woman lives in the woods, she’s a witch, right? Stands to reason. Is it ok for the woodman to end her life now? At least we have learned to separate the Olympic Games into genders and give women a fair chance in what is otherwise a badly fixed game we’ve been playing (or is that changing too?). In life chances, who’d attach so much importance to the different muscle, load-bearing and beer drinking capacity of skeletons? I anticipate that future generations we will see the declining importance of strength in the arm, with brain speed mattering more. Let’s hope anyway. Mustn’t blame a category for individual crimes though. Inequalities are influenced by the accepted boundaries of the local culture, so we need to persuade those boundaries to come to us. It’s slow, not a revolution, despite the hype. Institutional inequality is hard to pin down or quantify as it sounds good but when you question which institution, imprecision tends to flounder. Changing the culture sounds great but there are side-effects like male emasculation and loss of purpose. This reasoning suggests we need jobs for the boys as well as jobs for the girls, non-binaries and super-intelligent shade of the colour blue temporarily refracted into a free-standing prism. Equality, inclusivity, should consider everyone because the clue is in the word ‘equal’ — even the futures of the previously entitled.

Summary: Well researched, insightful and informative but the reader should sort between information and opinion.

You’ll be relieved to hear I’ve now finished. Yea! Although no one’s read an essay on feminist critique this far down, realistically. 5,000 words? It’s like channelling Timon of Athens.