Lysistrata Linking Times

The question I wanted to ask when I picked up Lysastrata for the second time is: how can anyone ban this hilariously pervy play? While reading it, however, I found myself actually asking, how can anyone not ban this hilariously pervy play? 

Indeed, how is it that this play, though crude and provocative on every level, is still read and performed over two and a half millennia later? (See timeline on xi.) Perhaps, as I heard some argue, it is the first classical play, that we know of thus far, to advocate for female power in a “man’s world”… but it doesn’t feel that feminist to me. Perhaps, as Ewans argues in his introductory section on Lysistrata, it is the underlying call to peace between peoples that make it relatable… but this peace seems limited only to the ancient Greek peoples. It is neither relevant to modern society or deeply philosophical. What, then, makes this play tick for audiences throughout time? My conclusion: it makes audiences laugh, precisely because its content and characters are so crude, provocative, and, overall, ridiculous that it remains relevant through its very absurdity.

Let’s consider Aristophanes’ original audience. Aristophanes’ would have been writing for a male audience in a heavily patriarchal society, where men ran the state and political affairs while women were “regarded [by men] as less intelligent and less logical” (12). That his play centers on woman taking over state and economic affairs — that in itself would have been seen as ridiculous to his male audience. Furthermore, though Lysistrata has some empowering speeches about the power and dignity of women, these speeches are down-played by the more frequent degrading speeches of woman as merely sexual creatures. Lysistrata’s first lines demonstrate this more clearly, complaining that the women would have definitely come to the meeting if its purpose was sex-oriented (55). Aristophanes would not write about female equality because his audience would not have taken it seriously. This, in addition to the exaggerated sexual tendencies of both the sexes, would seem all the more ridiculous to his original audience.

Within the context of the play, however, there would also be a kind of shock factor, a kind of novelty, in its concept of empowering women for the ancient Greeks. On the one hand, Aristophanes does degrade women to overtly sexual creatures; on the other, the center of the play is on the women asserting their own power, which succeeds in the end. The language between the two sexes are equally matched, if not more clever on the female side, and there are moments that call into question the gender stereotypes during that time (i.e. the intelligent man and the unintelligent women). For example, in the “Choros 2—A1,” the Bureaucrat laughs at Lysistrata’s plan for the women to run their economy, but cannot argue why this is so ridiculous a notion, whereas Lysistrata makes a logical point when asking, “Is this so strange? Don’t we run your household finances for you?” (73). Though not fully advocating for female equality, this perspective of woman taking over state affairs would have been shocking and new to the ancient Greek audience. 

In the modern context, this concept of female empowerment is not shocking or new: we often see and hear about woman in office or taking more leadership roles. Now the attitudes have flipped. Whereas the ancient Greeks would have found the sexist language when talking about woman perhaps mundane, people of the modern day would find it very wrong, either hilariously inaccurate or offensive. The most shocking thing about the play now is its crude and provocative language, characterization, and action. Instead of paying attention to the social implications of its concept, we are more drawn to the hilarity of actors marching around on stage with giant phalluses, to the sexual innuendos at every turn of speech, and the raunchiness of the actions on stage, such as the naked girl, Reconciliation, during the peace negotiation scene. Whereas the Greeks were used to seeing giant phallic images being paraded, perhaps rendering these elements not as ridiculous to them, for a modern audience that is not used to such sexual idolatry, those are the most shocking and absurd elements to the play.

The overall conclusion: Lysistrata is just a ridiculous play that intrigues audiences throughout time through its own absurdity. There are many other things that make this play absurd (not literarily) not discussed here, but I think people will always find a way to be completely shocked by its content. What does this suggest about humanity? Perhaps we are just fascinated by things that don’t really make sense, or perhaps we have always liked phallic-like images, but I hardly agree with Fraud, or the ancient Greeks for that matter. One thing is certain: humanity has not changed all that much in the last two and a half millennia, and that we love to laugh at the ridiculous.

Peace and Good Wool

            Lysistrata’s extended metaphor comparing war and politics to a spool of wool sheds light on interesting parallels between the shared issues facing ancient Athens and the modern day United States of America.  Lysistrata helps concretize the grandiose issues of political instability and warring factions by comparing them to the domestic issue of tangled yarn. Lysistrata proclaims, “If, when yarn we are winding, It chances to tangle, then, / as perchance you may know, through the skein / This way and that still the spool we keep passing till it is finally clear all again” (56). Lysistrata explains that when conflict arises while trying to work with other nations, such as war and in this case the Peloponnesian war, changes must be made in order to have a “clear” useful piece of wool.

Lysistrata suggests that increased communications and diplomacy are the changes necessary to have a situation you can work with and not a “skein” which is both “a length of thread of yarn, loosely coiled and knotted” or “a tangled or complicated arrangement, state, or situation” (“skein”, Oxford Dictionary). America faces a current period of diplomatic and civil unrest. Lysistrata suggests that “ambassadors out on all sides we will send / … / -- soon you will find that the War has end” (57). However, America has a tried and true policy not to negotiate with terrorists. Our main war at hand is that against terrorism and the ISIS movement and attempts to negotiate with this group has lead to brutal, publicized beheadings. Though Lysistrata is correct in the power of negotiation and diplomacy, our nation faces an issue at hand that can not be negotiated away. This raises the question as to whether war and violence truly is necessary at times to deal with diplomatic and international affairs. Though brutal and costly, war and violence seems to be the only current solution to our issue with ISIS.

Lysistrata also proceeds to mention how the wool must be purified and cleaned. She states, “Well, first as we wash dirty wool so’s to cleanse it, so / with a pitiless zeal we will scrub / Through the whole city for all greasy fellows” (56-57). With the main intention of weaving a “strong Cloak of State” (57), it is vital that the wool itself, the very fabric of society, be pure and strong, every fiber. Lysistrata suggests that the “burrs” and “parasites” must be removed, those leeching off society for their own personal gain without providing anything in return.  A major political issue at the moment is whether the welfare program is necessary and whether it being taken advantage of. Many individual are proponents of mandatory drug testing to participate in the program while others oppose the issue. Lysistrata, apparently, would be opposed to such a welfare program in general and would most likely support mandatory drug testing. Many individuals fail to recognize that a large majority of welfare recipients do use the system for its intended purposes. Most recipients use it in conjunction with their regularly earned income which is not enough to support their family. Lysistrata also emphasizes the making of a “great common basket” in which both “disenfranchised or citizens, allies or aliens” can be united; “pell-mell the lot of them in we’ll squeeze” (57). This rings especially true at a time when Syrian refugees stand at our doorstep and certain political candidates suggest walling them off and barring them out of the country all together. Just as America was established as a melting pot, and Lysistrata wants to form a “great common basket”, America today needs to stand by its principles and help  those abroad in need. Though set over a millennia ago, may issues still ring true in ancient Athens and modern day America.

Is Lysistrata ***Flawless?

Feminist: the person who believes in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.

This is the definition of feminist that Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie provides in her TED Talk (which was sampled in Beyoncè’s “***Flawless”), asserting that feminism is not a dirty word; rather it is an identifier of people who strive for gender equality in all aspects of their lives. I strongly identify as a feminist, so I was understandably very interested in this text. The world that Aristophanes paints in Lysistrata is one where it seems it would be very difficult to be a feminist. It opens with Lysistrata waiting impatiently for the women she has invited to arrive so she can deliver an important message. Her friend Kalonike tells her to be patient, reminding Lysistrata, “We’re always busy servicing our men,/ waking up servants,/ putting the baby off to sleep,/ or washing or feeding it” (55). This brief statement gives us a picture of a normal day for a Greek woman, one that, as expected, solely involves tending to the house, the children, and the sexual needs of her husband. While this seems very unjust and oppressive to the modern reader, it is not the issue that Lysistrata is concerned with. Her goal is to bring a long war to an end so all the men can come back home. She tells the assembled women the way to achieve this: “we must give up the prick” (59). The women respond with horror. Kalonike says to her friend, “If I have to,/ I’ll walk through fire. But not the prick./ There’s nothing like it, dearest Lysistrata,” to which Lysistrata responds in exasperation “We’re all nymphomaniacs!” (59, 60). Lampito, however, has a different view, saying, “it’s pretty hard/ for us to sleep without an erect prick,/ but still, I’ll do it. We really need peace” (60). Lysistrata calls Lampito “marvelous – the only real woman here,” showing that in this context, womanhood means being willing to give up one’s sexuality in order to accomplish a goal.

Control over one’s body is exactly what Lysistrata believes is necessary to put an end to the war. She says to the women, “we wont go to them; we will hold off/ and they’ll make peace pretty damned fast, I’m sure” (60). Here it is clear that Lysistrata knows the power of sex and her body and the control she has over both. It is clear also that the women take pride in their bodies, as they talk extensively about their attractive features and personal grooming. The women exercise their power when they take hold of the city. They easily defeat the men with their words and a few strategically thrown buckets of water, and Lysistrata berates one of the men saying, “don’t you realize women can be courageous?” (71). It is clear that this type of female power is unprecedented, as one old man compares the women to “animals” because of their betrayal (72). When a bureaucrat asks Lysistrata why she and the women took over the citadel, she responds, “for a long time we suffered in silence; because we knew our place, we let you do just anything you wanted” (73). This is a typical complaint of early (and some modern) feminists, women who are so oppressed by the patriarchal system that they have no recourse but to suffer through the mistreatment, until an opportunity presents itself to escape that oppression. For Lysistrata and the other women, the lack of men due to the war is what allows them to take power in hopes of ending that war.

As the rebellion presses on, the men get more and more inpatient and bewildered. Lysistrata and her followers use the power of their bodies to tantalize the men and make it very difficult for them to think of anything else but sex. The power of the feminine becomes more and more apparent, shown when Lysistrata attacks the bureaucrat saying, “you bastard, we do more than double what you do,” acknowledging the importance of the female role and the power they have despite being second class citizens (77). One of my favorite lines of the whole play comes from an old woman who warns an aggressive man, “I’m so enraged […] I will crush your nuts,” terrifying him by threatening to destroy his manhood (80).

There are, however, some places where Lysistrata falls short of being a feminist work. During a negotiation with the men, Lysistrata declares, “I am a woman, but I have a brain” (97). Lysistrata recognizes that being a woman is an impediment and says she has a brain despite her gender. This is very different from the modern idea of a feminist woman. Another problem is the way in which the issue is resolved. Although the women technically succeed by fulfilling their goal to end the war, they quickly return to their former gender roles. Lysistrata tells every man to take his wife home, reestablishing the ownership men have over women. This is very similar to the Rosie the Riveter movement, which, while it empowered women socially and economically, ended with many women returning to their lives at home as men came back from World War II. Overall, Lysistrata does not advocate gender equality, rather, it advocates the use of the female body with the goal of ending war.

I say none of this to criticize Lysistrata. It is a play that embraces the power of sex and the female body, something that was most probably not typical of the time. Lysistrata was able to unite a large group of women for the singular cause of ending a war that was detrimental for them and their society as a whole. This play also normalizes sexual desire, speaking without shame of the necessity of sex for enjoyment in both male and female lives. Just as Beyoncè does in ***Flawless, the women in Lysistrata revel in the power of their own bodies. While it doesn’t meet the feminist standards of the 21^st century, Lysistrata makes many statements that reveal the power of the feminine. It is important to remember that in 411 B.C. women didn’t have power over anything. They didn’t have social or economic independence, they didn’t have an education, they didn’t have a concept of human rights. So no, these women can't meet our modern definition of feminists, but for their time they are revolutionary (and pretty flawless).

I highly recommend reading/listening to Adichie’s full TED Talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg3umXU_qWc

Also, here is the ***Flawless music video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyuUWOnS9BY

Thoughts After a Second Reading

I remember talking about Lysistrata in another class and coming away from that class with the feeling that the play was a very feminist production. I suppose the plot by itself might be—women taking it upon themselves to end a war fought by men in a time where women did not have much power outside of the home. Getting ready to read this play got me thinking about other times I have heard of sex strikes being used to stop a war. There was an example of this idea being proposed in South Sudan last fall. Since the women and children were the ones most affected by the civil war in their country, there was talk of their taking matters into their own hands. I don’t remember exactly how that worked out—I lost touch of the issue over time. Other strikes like this have worked in the past, and have proven to be very empowering for the women involved. I suppose that is why my hopes were so high when I started reading Lysistrata.

That being said, while actually reading the work I didn’t get a strong feminist feel from it. It seemed patronizing toward women and unnecessarily explicit. I know this play is a comedy, I couldn’t find myself to enjoy yet another man making fun of women who are trying to make life better for themselves given their limited social influence and mobility in that time in history. After my first reading I did not think there would be any way to connect this back to the successful sex strikes, led by empowered women, that are at work in our world today. However, I was able to uncover a deeper meaning after my second time through the play and with the help of some outside research.

While the women in this play take it upon themselves to withhold sex from their husbands in an effort to get them to make peace and end the war, Aristophanes portrays them as profane and sex crazed. All these women wanted was to have sex with their husbands. Having sex at the end of a long day was the only thing that made their day worth living and they spoke as if it would be torture to go without it. I found this to be incredibly patronizing toward women. There was an opportunity for this sex strike to be an opportunity for empowerment, but the play never seemed to progress beyond the string of dirty jokes.

Lysistrata seemed to be trying to work beyond the dirty jokes which held off the main issue of the play. She tried to get the women in line and keep them on task, but even she played into the stereotype by writing off the other women as being sex crazed. When the men agreed to peace talks I thought the play was finally getting somewhere, but then she brought out “Reconciliation” in the form of a naked girl. The only way to get the men to sit down and work out the logistics of making peace was to distract them with a beautiful naked girl. Not only does this scene (and play in general) objectify women, but it holds men to no standard of behavior whatsoever.

It wasn’t until I did some research into Greek comedy that I understood that sex jokes and using enormous phalluses as props was the norm. In re-reading the play without focusing so much on its sexually explicit aspects I was able to find another commentary on Greek life, and maybe life in general. Maybe having the women end the war the way they did was a way to give the men a way out. From what I know of the wars that took place in ancient Greece, there was no good way to end them and make peace in a way that would have been seen as honorable by any of the warring groups. Letting the women handle things in the way they did gave the men an excuse to stop fighting.

If one reads the play in this way, it becomes much more than just a dirty joke. It speaks to the broader social issues of the time. Through making fun of both genders Aristophanes is able to comment carefully on the behavior of each. While I don’t necessarily share his sense of humor, I can appreciate that he is making a more profound comment on society through it. Maybe there is no good way to end a war once it gets started.

Nothing to Smile Over

Jane Smiley makes a grating denouncement of what is considered "the novel all American literature grows out of" (Smiley, 355). However, she does so on account of the things it is not as opposed to looking at the text for what it is. She accosts the text for not being Uncle Tom's Cabin  which she considers to be a "brilliant analysis married to a great wisdom of feeling" (Smiley, 359). The adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Jim, however, are not the same as the trials of Tom. Smiley find Uncle Tom's Cabin to be a better depiction and critique of the slavery era. Some of the biggest differences between the texts strengthen The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn as universally applicable text.

In Uncle Tom's Cabin, the narrative was directed by ownership. Though Tom developed through his journeys, he was moved like a product from owner to owner. Jim on the other hand ceases to be "owned" after the first chapter and their journey is directed by chance. Though Smiley claims that "Twain's moral failure" is that he does not "account for their choice to go down the river than across it" (Smiley, 357). However, Smiley fails to assess that it was not their choice. Huck and Jim's original goal is to make it to Cairo which leads towards the free states. It is only because of the storm, separation, and stumbling upon the robbers that they miss their intended destination and then when attempting to return they realize that their canoe is gone.

Smiley accurately notes that the "raft had floated [...] into the truly dark heart of the American soul and of American history: slave country" (Smiley, 356). It was not steered, canoed, or motored towards its destination, except by Twain's writing itself. Huck had no end goal or destination except escaping Pap. Jim was driven by his yearning for freedom and so Huck joined him towards that goal. Though Uncle Tom's Cabin emphasizes the consequences and outcomes of enslavement and ownership, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn emphasizes the natural freedom of  all people which is strengthened by the chance and lack of direction of their journey. They are free to go to the free states or go right back to Miss Watson, however are pulled by the currents of life itself. Tom on the other hand is dragged from plantation to plantation. Though both depict vital issues during the slavery era, what makes Twain's work so strong is that Jim is free throughout, no matter what society tells him.

Subtlety

There is a great amount of discussion regarding what societal effect The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn possesses, which is of course, the reason for the debate over whether it should be banned. People rarely argue in favor of banning books which are simply poorly written, but rather books discussing or arguing a controversial topic that they believe may be unsuitable for some readers. Mark Twain's novel seems to subtly accomplish what Martin Luther King suggested should be sought out in his Letter From Birmingham Jail: Demonstrating the existence and extent of racism.
 Critics such as Jane Smiley argue that Twain's novel should not have served as the basis for most American Literature, because its approach to depicting characters of color, particularly Jim, was ultimately superficial and self serving; that it did not demonstrate any level of depth beyond being simply human. Toni Morrison described how his reading of the book often incited fear within him, and future readings still maintained a certain level of unease. But it would seem that these reactions mean that Twain has accomplished exactly what he intended: Provoking the reader. Books rarely possess any kind of effect if they do not engage the reader, and those that can elicit such strong responses are often the most effective.
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, to the modern reader, seems to juxtapose the seemingly innocent and escapist adventures of a boy fleeing down the Mississippi against the realities of a racist and dangerous 19th century environment. To some reading during this time period, these realities may have been lost in the mix, as they may have seen these as atmospheric aspects, and likely did not view them as having any significance. But it would seem that Twain sought to expose racism in a realistic form, in that he did not always attribute any aspect of good or bad to it, but treated it like another part of the world. These would seem to force the reader to decide whether this society was truly racist, and leaves it to them to decide how they should feel about it. Twain clearly demonstrates racist characters, even if no one but the reader is around to condemn them, and this would seem to accomplish what Martin Luther King suggested, in that it forces the reader to come face to face situations which are, at least to this reader, clearly racist, without judging the scenario for them. How the reader responds may say more about them than it does about the book itself. Jane Smiley responds with revulsion, Morrison responds with fear, but in either case, they were forced to come to those feelings upon their own power.
Kolvenbach's article argues that Jesuit Higher Learning should promote justice. But that justice must come from people. One cannot simply allow a work to define them, to support only works which demonstrate something we may consider positive, such as with Smiley's admiration for Uncle Tom's Cabin. Readers must come face to face with the starkest display of racism and decide for themselves how to respond.

An Analysis of Smiley, Morrison, Kolvenbach, MLK

            While I did not disagree with the entirety of Smiley’s essay, I did not find it to be particularly fair. As Kaila mentioned in her post, Smiley is unreasonably comparing The Adventures of Huck Finn to those of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Besides the fact that these two works were written more than 30 years apart, Smiley points out that Harriet Beecher Stowe identified as an abolitionist herself. So while Twain had an amiable attitude toward African Americans, Stowe was writing from the perspective of a social justice activist, which might explain why readers, such as Smiley, prefer Uncle Tom’s Cabin to Huck Finn. Further more, Smiley contends that Uncle Tom’s Cabin exposes the reality of human evil and suffering, but I believe the same could be said for Twain’s novel, particularly in regards to the selfish Pap or in the capture of Jim.

Morrison’s take on the novel seemed much more thoughtful, especially because of its lasting effects on her that inspired her to reread the novel several times. Morrison regards The Adventures of Huck Finn as a “pleasure for young readers,” but “complicated territory for scholars” (387). This is due in part to the excitement of Huck as a rebellious outcast, but also the difficulty of Jim’s place in the novel, particularly as a father figure to Huck. Interestingly enough, Jim is the only male character in the novel (besides Judge Thatcher) that can adequately provide “fathership” (I made that up) to Huck. In fact, Morrison contends that “only a black male slave can deliver all Huck’s desires” (390).

The Kolvenbach and King essays, in relation to intent (service of faith) and action (promotion of justice), enlighten us to consider HOW we might achieve social justice. The combination of intent and action is an important one because it solidifies the potential for change. Mind and body unify to create the strength necessary to confront and challenge the issue of racism. Put more eloquently in the words of Saint Ignatius: “love [must] be expressed not only in words but also in deeds” (Kolvenbach, 7).