Monday, August 11, 2025

Tragedy

The modern temperment is anti-Tragic. We believe that problems have solutions, that things can be worked out. If the economy is bad, we just need to elect a new government that will fix whatever is wrong and get people back to work. If tax cuts won't fix things, it will be tariffs, or subsidies, or something. 

If we are sick, that must be because of some fixable problem: poisons in the air, chemicals in the water, bad food, bat attitudes. 

We are reluctant to admit that problems are unsolvable and that sometimes life just sucks.

We also love good guys and bad guys, and rebel when we can't find one side in a story to root for.

Tragedy, as both the ancient Greeks and the early modern Europeans understood it, was about people confronting impossible situations. Like all of us, the characters in Tragedy are doomed. Sometimes they make things worse by their foolish actions, but if one is left thinking that if only the hero had done this or that obvious thing, everything would have worked out, then the tragedy is not successful. Tragedy only works if the audience believes that sometimes people are destroyed by events completely beyond their control.

Here is the chorus from Agamemnon:

Where is right and wrong
In this nightmare?
Each becomes the ghost of the other.
Each is driven mad
By the ghost of the other.
Who can reason it out?

Elektra:

By dread things I am compelled. I know that. I see the trap closing. I know what I am. But while life is in me I will not stop this violence. No. Oh my friends who is there to comfort me? Who understands? Leave me be, let me go, do not soothe me. This is a knot no one can untie. There will be no rest, there is no retrieval. No number exists for griefs like these. . . .

But when a god sends harm, no man can sidestep it, no matter how strong he may be.

Here is King Lear, accepting his defeat and failure:

Come, let’s away to prison:
We two alone will sing like birds i’ the cage:
When thou dost ask me blessing, I’ll kneel down,
And ask of thee forgiveness: so we’ll live,
And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh
At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues
Talk of court news; and we’ll talk with them too,
Who loses and who wins; who’s in, who’s out;
And take upon’s the mystery of things,
As if we were God’s spies: and we’ll wear out,
In a wall’d prison, packs and sects of great ones,
That ebb and flow by the moon.
As Teju Cole once put it, "Tragedy finds us where reasons end."

So here's the question: is this good or bad?

Does our belief in solutions motivate us to make the world better? and was the traditional belief in hopeless cases an excuse to leave bad practices as they were?

Or does our aversion to tragedy weaken us in the face of unsolvable problems, leading to grievance mongering and blame games? I feel like after every natural disaster in the US somebody is blaming the other political party. Do the horrible politics of the moment flow from our need to blame somebody for every bad thing in our lives? From our refusal to accept that sometimes the only choice is bad or worse, and that sometimes there are no choices at all?

I wonder.

2 comments:

Neale Monks said...

Well, yeah, people do politicise problems but I don't think your comparison with ancient Greek dramatists is really saying anything profound. They lived in a world where minor infections were untreable and frequently fatal; wartime was more common than peace; there was essentially no social care beyond what your family could provide; and unless you were a man at the absolute pinnacle of society, you have virtually no control of what happened around you.

Unsurprisingly, people felt powerless and at the mercy of (seemingly amoral) gods and goddesses. A sad, premature, and painful end wasn't a unusual, it was the norm.

We don't live in that world. Many of the problems we face are because politicians choose to do one thing while choosing not to another. If we have a lack of affordable housing, it's because politicians veto their construction. If we have weak labour laws, it's because politicians have undone that legislation. If we have polluted rivers, it's because politicians have failed to make penalities that dissuade the polluters. Climate change -- which is behind a lot of so-called natural disasters right now -- is a whopping great box full of things that politicians ignored because rich people asked them to.

Sure, they often make those choices because they believe that's what the public want. When they block a housing project on a green field site because the locals don't want to lose their pretty views, that's completely understandable (if shortsighted economically). But the anger a lot of people feel is because politicians aren't listening to grassroots concerns, but responding to lobbyists working for rich special interest groups.

People aren't angry because life is unfair. They're angry because fixable things are being deliberately ignored. This crosses the left/right divide. The difference is that the populist right has found a message -- "The system is broken; it needs fixing!" -- even if they aren't actually offering any solutions. The pragmatic, institutional left, by contrast, opines that the system is basically sound, it just needs to be tweaked. That's the Booker, Clinton, Jefferies, etc., song right now. Problem is, the public aren't buying it.

If there's something Trump gets right, is that he sells a narrative. You can't fault him on the fact he expresses the frustration the public feel towards the political system. He wouldn't know a workable solution if it hit in the face, but he is at least reading the room. The Democrats completely suck at that, bar a few outliers going their own way (like AOC, who again, might not be able to deliver workable solutions, but she's plenty smart enough to recognise the problem and articulate public concerns effectively).

David said...

@John

It's true that classical and early modern dramatists produced tragedies in a way that contemporary ones do not so much. But I don't see that this fact should be taken to indicate that the ancients, for example, did not judge things in terms of good or evil, or had more unified societies than ours. You indeed quote the chorus in Agamemnon lamenting, "Where is right and wrong in this nightmare?"--which suggests that a certain expectation that other, arguably "normal" situations might be understood through the good/evil lens and that what the audience is watching is special in some way. Consider Greek society as a whole between 450-350 BC, which showed quite a strong tendency to judge opponents on an uncompromising good-evil spectrum and to jump to murderous solutions. Compared to that place and time, the US right now is positively placid. (Indeed, I would suggest that US political life right now is most remarkable not for the extremity of its divisions, but for the virtually total surrender of the liberal and left side. Any rear-guard verbal bitterness they express is paltry compared to the vast passivity and quietude, in which I fully share, for better or worse.)