Hegel on Tragedy

What is Greek Tragedy about?

greek tragedy is about ethical substance—unlike Nietzsche who isn’t interested in the ethical

what is the ethical substance?

the shared ethos of the community—cannot be a community without it

Consituted of both human and divine law: but divine law is undercurrent of human law (e.g Creon’s alliance to Zeus) so that divine law therefore “embrace[s] the whole of ethical substance”

The conflict between aspects of ethical substance

divine law cannot be challenged by humans and therefore no one can criticise or extricate themselves from the communal ethos wholesale because ethical substance makes his actual reality

Instead, on aspect of ES dominates in an individual and brings him into conflict with another individual dominated by a different power—not an absence of the other aspect but a skewing towards it

the conflict in ES and the self

The conflict between two opposing powers represents a slit in the self, between the conscious and unconscious parts

Therefore the ethical foundations of one’s community are the ultimate foundation of one’s character

Greek tragedy therefore fundamentally threatens the “unity of the self”

the tragic double consciousness

The tragic consciousness yearns for wholeness and peace but is never able to achieve it

Instead there is an inner division bc of the skewing to one aspect —this inner division separates the tragic actor from us

The inner desire is thrown into question against the other, revealing the disparity between personal character and socio-political polity

Hamartia as one-sidedness

The hero embodies one side of the tragic dialectic—one aspect of the ethical substance, speaking through their character

Each combatant’s difference turns into opposition—> this is their hamartia

Hamartia is defined by one-sidedness which leaves each actor tainted by guilt

^^ in tragedy innocence is not brought down by fate but is self-inflicted

Hamartia not an isolated error but a fundamental trait—a fundamental blindness and onesidedness against the other—> this must be mutual

The two sides as day and night

E.g Creon destroyed because of his unwillingness to acknowledge the justice of the opposite netherworld

We are confronted y the collision of laws of upper world of rationality and nether world of passion in tragedy innocence is

These characters are tragic because of the intimate struggle with their opposite

Clash of principles

Aristotle presents this clash as right vs. Wrong

Hegel positions this as right against right

E.g the complete exterior (Creon, Ajax) against hte complete interior (Antigone)

These are universal moral positions

Ajax and Madness

Sanity vs Madness positioned as outside vs inside —sane Ajax lacks an inside he is all outer—> the sane Ajax is out of his mind

Athena’s revenge is to give him an interior, to force him into himself

Hegel on madness

To the mad, the world is doubled between:

1) the desires of the internal reality

2) the alienating force of external reality

^^^ tragic action happens in this world divided against itself

Madness’s relationship to the outer world

the interior mad self is always haunted by this outer rational reality—> there is always a doubleness because always it is always related to the external encroaching other

The tragic actor negates all justification of the opposite—> this is a decentring of reality, manifested as a form of madness as they:

“attempt to remake the world, to project the tragic actor’s own vision of reality onto existence”

The tragic actor projecting their reality

they sink into despair because the world cannot bend to their vision

They therefore become increasingly desperate

They still recognise and see the other position, just convinced of their own one-sided rightness

Hegel’s gendered reading

madness is paradigmatically female, irrational and in the dark

Human law is male, rational and light

These are expressions of essential gender characteristics

Criticisms of Hegel’s gendered reading

A patriarchal reduction of the status of the other

Woman represents only the enticements of nature

Inscribes derangement as paradigmatically feminine

Peripeteia and catharsis

argues that tragedy needs a reconciliation to restore the unity of the ethical community with the downfall of the individual disturbance

This harmony is achieved in stages, created through the conflict between the opposing forces (hegelian dialectic)

Where does catharsis occur/for whom?

The tragic actor cannot acknowledge their wrongs or recognise/reconcile the other position

Because there cannot be a reconciliation on stage, it occurs in the minds and hearts of the audience

E.g in Antigone, the state needs recognition of family and divine law, and family law needs to transition to the state

What type of catharsis is this?

Tragedy is an essentially intellectual account

Ignores emotional catharsis by intellectualising the play (clarifying and cognitive)

We as the audience have the dialectic conflict between ethical powers within ourselves and relieve in it reconciliation between them

Why can’t the tragic actors reconcile?

Because of the decentring of reality in madness and tragedy, there cannot be any resolution as the tragic figures reisst any logic of reconciliation

They are therefore left to live with the consequences of their convoluted world

Guilt is therefore not a moral but an ontological feature of our existence—> part of our eternal incompleteness

Criticism of Hegel’s categorisation of tragic plays

Reduces modern tragedy e.g Euripides and Shakespeare to high entertainment rather than tragedy

Applying Hegel to Shakespeare

though Hegel didn’t categorise Shakespeare in his definition of tragedy we can see how Shakespeare’s tragic heroes face a clash not between right and wrong but right vs. Right:

Macbeth: conscience vs. Ambition

Hamlet: duty vs desire

Criticisms of Hegel’s disavowal of fate

Hegel completely denounces fate

This is is complete opposition to Martha Nussbaum: argues that tragic actors are ruined by things outside of their control by acting without awareness of ruinous consequences

Instead for Hegel: the hero is always at blame for their downfall

The outcome cannot be at the hands of fate because it would therefore be irresolvable—> instead for him, reconciliation is essential to tragedy