Oedipus is the epitome of a character who tries to counter the fate that society/the gods have set upon him. When he learns that he is to kill his own father and marry his mother, Oedipus attempts to do all that he can to escape such a dreadful future. Yet despite all his efforts, he ultimately unknowingly falls into that exact fate. Does this mean that there is no way to resist societal influences?
Even throughout this journey, Oedipus's character changes, according to his role in society. He starts off as a sort of prince, but he beings to hear rumors of him not actually being his "parents'" son. Pressured by these rumors, he seeks out an answer for the Oracle. When he learns of the fate that has been bestowed upon him, he immediately runs away out of fear for the disgrace of such acts. Oedipus then transitions to the role of a king, developing into a prouder and more confident character, as, according to society, a king "should be." Then when he finally realizes that he has indeed fulfilled his prophecy, Oedipus once again withdraws in disgrace, knowing that society "should" and will condemn him.
With this, it seems that it is very difficult and even often un-thought of for one to counter society's influence on his character.
Societal mores as engrained in us is a difficult dodge yet it is interesting how the "father" of the Thebans reduces himself to a blind "child", one that must be led around, ignorant of his surroundings. Was it societal influence (in terms of what is taboo) that forced Oedipus's hand in his blinding?
ReplyDelete