Handlug
Vs. Tat
While
most are familiar with Freud’s take on the story, Freud is not the only game in
town. Hegel uses the story of Oedipus to illustrate the difference between what
he terms handlug and tat (if you thought I would pass up a chance to talk about Hegel, prepare to be disappointed).
Handlug
is the intended action while tat is the actual result. For example,
let’s say that I pick up what I think is a delicious peanut butter and jelly
sandwich and take a bite, only to find a tarantula inside. My intended
action is eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich (handlug). However,
my actual action is eating a peanut butter and jelly and tarantula
sandwich (tat) because, unknown to me, a big hairy spider has crawled
between the slices of bread. I intended to do one thing, but another
thing actually happened.
Oedipus’
handlugs are meant to escape his
prophesied destiny: killing a belligerent old man as he flees his Corinthian
“father,” saving a kingdom, and marrying a queen instead of his Corinthian
“mother.” His tats fulfill the
prophecy: killing his true father, marrying his true mother, and thus bringing
down the curse of the gods on the kingdom of Thebes.
Handlug
|
Tat
|
Escape the
prophecy
|
Fulfilled
the prophecy
|
Kill a
belligerent old man
|
Killed his
father
|
Save a
kingdom
|
Cursed a
kingdom
|
Marry a
queen
|
Married his
mother
|
It
bears pointing out that Oedipal morality is still binary – Oedipus is horrified
at what he has done, as are the gods. Patricide and incest are evil, abominable
things, things which cannot be forgiven by the excuse that Oedipus did not know
what he was doing. The important point is not what Oedipus intended to do, but what he actually
did.
Hegel
refers to this as “heroic morality,” wherein the moral actor takes
responsibility for the results of action regardless of the intention behind
them. It does not matter to my taste buds whether I intended to eat a peanut
butter and jelly and tarantula sandwich or not. Whatever my intentions, the
results are the same.
This
sort of thinking was popular among the Greeks, but we can also see traces of it
in the Old Testament kosher laws. It does not matter whether or not I intended
to touch a dead body (or to be born crippled, or to menstruate); I am rendered
impure by actuality, not intent (In defense of old Yahweh, there is evidence this only applies to ritual impurity and not moral impurity - Jeremiah, for one, posits that it is possible to obey all of the ritual obligations and still be morally impure.)
But
there are also key differences between heroic morality and the Garden of Eden.
Eve’s choices are explicitly labeled and lead to predictable results while
Oedipus’ choices have their “labels” switched. Leaving Corinth seemed like the
good choice that would lead him away from evil but ended up leading to his
downfall. Yahweh's fruit quiz seems positively sporting in comparison.
This
same difference exists when we compare Pandora and Oedipus. Pandora acts
consciously and in line with her desires – the gods may be setting her up, but
she wants to open the jar. Oedipus,
on the other hand, acts completely out of line with his desires. He is
consciously striving to avoid evil, to the point of leaving behind the only
home he has ever known.
There
are, of course, overlaps between Pandora and Oedipus. Oedipus exists in a world
of fate, where he is destined to commit certain actions no matter how far he
runs. We can still argue that Oedipus is being pushed, but Sophocles also uses
the story to explore deeper moral dimensions. What is the difference between
intended action and actual action? Are we responsible for who we are on the
inside or what we do on the outside?
And this is the
essential difference between Pandora and Oedipus. The story of Pandora is the
story of an action. The story of Oedipus is a story about action.
Next: [OE010] The Game Mechanic: Your Precious Eyes
