New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Re: Hera
in reply to a message by HailCthulhu
I think that was the point of the stories, though. She can't effectively refuse Zeus anything. Her function is "protector" of married women, not women in general, in a patriarchal society that had effed up views of women. The whole reason she was married to Zeus was because he raped her, and she was ashamed and wanted the "protection" of marriage. Her stories involving spite tend to emphasize Zeus as a protector, while simultaneously shaming women who have sex outside of marriage and depicting angry wives as irrational.
This message was edited 4/27/2021, 1:07 PM
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
I suspect that might be a more recent cultural spin on these stories. Do the stories really characterize her as angry at Zeus but taking it out on his mistresses/victims, and too cowed to confront him? Or *ashamed* (a goddess, ashamed)? Hard for me to believe. If he just raped her (and what did rape mean to the ancient Greeks?), how'd she become queen of the gods, and not get thrown away like his other victims? Doesn't sound like shame to me - marrying him could have been seen as a way of holding him accountable. Imagine if Hera were the incontinent one, and Zeus attacked the guys she went after -- then it'd be possessive rage, right? Why can't Hera's anger be taken like that? I mean, she was queen of the freaking gods, not some captive helpless victim. Who characterized her that way? Is it really in the original texts? Maybe she liked being queen of the gods, and was more pissed off that any gal had gotten a piece of what was rightfully hers, than she was angry at Zeus being the way she always knew he was, weaksauce that she and the whole world he ruled, were just stuck with. Anger made all the gods irrational, there need not be anything specially humble-feminine about Hera's rage.
This message was edited 4/27/2021, 2:11 PM
1
and what did rape mean to the ancient Greeks? *eyeroll* exactly. She didn't want to marry him, so he deceived her by turning himself into a bird (because she was kind to small animals) to get close to her, then transformed into himself and "raped" her. Then she married him. Sounds like a great love story. I'm being skeptical of Ancient Greek notions of consent here - the story works for the Greeks, of course; that's what my response was meaning to point out (Greeks certainly would have complained if she took her anger out on Zeus directly/effectively and was portrayed as justified or reasonable, as HailCthulhu suggested! It's modern people who wouldn't, but that's irrelevant to context). In Ancient Greece, legally, for a while at least, rape was considered kind of like property damage (and unmarried Hera wasn't anyone's to protect).
Zeus wanted to marry her because she always was powerful, even before she was goddess of marriage. Within the context of Greek culture, they needed each other.
Maybe she liked being queen of the gods
I think she did (but, context: in a world where her husband is the most powerful being and can't truly be refused).
then it'd be possessive rage, right? Why can't Hera's anger be taken like that?
I didn't contradict that it is? I think you're assuming my interpretation is more reductive than it is.
Do the stories really characterize her as angry at Zeus but taking it out on his mistresses/victims, and too cowed to confront him?
Not cowed, no, although she's associated with cows, just always subordinate (he did imprison her the time she tried to depose him and released her when she promised to be obedient - it's told as if the disaster of Zeus not being in charge is averted) and often ineffective in comparison, which isn't a coincidence.
Anger made all the gods irrational, there need not be anything specially humble-feminine about Hera's rage.
Zeus wanted to marry her because she always was powerful, even before she was goddess of marriage. Within the context of Greek culture, they needed each other.
Maybe she liked being queen of the gods
I think she did (but, context: in a world where her husband is the most powerful being and can't truly be refused).
then it'd be possessive rage, right? Why can't Hera's anger be taken like that?
I didn't contradict that it is? I think you're assuming my interpretation is more reductive than it is.
Do the stories really characterize her as angry at Zeus but taking it out on his mistresses/victims, and too cowed to confront him?
Not cowed, no, although she's associated with cows, just always subordinate (he did imprison her the time she tried to depose him and released her when she promised to be obedient - it's told as if the disaster of Zeus not being in charge is averted) and often ineffective in comparison, which isn't a coincidence.
Anger made all the gods irrational, there need not be anything specially humble-feminine about Hera's rage.
This message was edited 4/27/2021, 5:06 PM
1
I do not think the shapes of the Greek myths are parallel to stories told about real people. The Greek gods and goddesses are in very seemingly human situations, but in my opinion, they are not telling stories with the same emotional tenor as living people. Who can say what they actually "represent" or "are," but the Greeks were not attached to them as people. I think they were holders of cultural shapes. When you interpret the story as truly human, I think you get a muddy, nonsensical, Game of Thrones kind of lurid narrative. This was NOT at all the Greek style.
1
Yes, that's a great point. I think that when we do read them as lurid narratives, or as "propaganda," or ANY way we read them that is easily communicated for us ... we are always imposing some cultural distortions on them, even if only by virtue of how we define the words that were used for translation.
That's kinda my point here ... as we read character-Hera, we really can't understand "her" as she was written. So judging whether she would be an appealing namesake today - seems to me to have nothing to do with anything, except our own perceptions of our own perceptions.
If one believes that the Greek myths are part of a patriarchal and sexist culture (which we judge to be negative) and can't/shouldn't be separated from that, and that Hera can only be understood with that framework ... then there is no way to also believe that Hera can be any kind of positive symbol at all today. So what happens to the rest of the Greek myth names? Daphne? Persephone? Anthea? How can they still be cool? I think we're responsible for how we interpret any/all of them, and can't really blame the Greeks.
That's kinda my point here ... as we read character-Hera, we really can't understand "her" as she was written. So judging whether she would be an appealing namesake today - seems to me to have nothing to do with anything, except our own perceptions of our own perceptions.
If one believes that the Greek myths are part of a patriarchal and sexist culture (which we judge to be negative) and can't/shouldn't be separated from that, and that Hera can only be understood with that framework ... then there is no way to also believe that Hera can be any kind of positive symbol at all today. So what happens to the rest of the Greek myth names? Daphne? Persephone? Anthea? How can they still be cool? I think we're responsible for how we interpret any/all of them, and can't really blame the Greeks.
1
... then there is no way to also believe that Hera can be any kind of positive symbol at all today.
There is, though (I actually really like Hera). Hera as Power of Marriage (and more) exists in cultural memory. It was a complex representation, even if the wider historical context is undesirable to preserve. The positives can be positive (basically, Powers That Made Marriage Powerful at that moment in time) even if our culture wouldn't depict Power of Marriage the way Hera was depicted; recognizing positives in history doesn't automatically reinforce associated negatives.
Hera's actions aren't negative (even if my judgment of the reasons they'd make sense in an antiquated story are), just demonstrations of what her power was.
What I think is not possible is acting as if Hera (specifically, that name) can be meaningfully symbolic without understanding one's relationship with the cultural context her power is depicted in. Although it doesn't need to be meaningfully symbolic in order to be used in modern times as a name.
So judging whether she would be an appealing namesake today - seems to me to have nothing to do with anything, except our own perceptions of our own perceptions.
I don't really get this. As a statement, it reads similarly to how, 'the unknowable is unknowable is unknowable' would to me. Okay...
Religion's based on perception and typically involves distortion, because it's intrinsically collective.
Propaganda's biased info used to promote a particular POV (as many myths are and do, specifically in the time/place they are conceived or treated as authoritative).
And this is a board where people judge their perceptions of names. If names don't convey meaningful in complex ways (as Hera can), sure, there's no point.
There is, though (I actually really like Hera). Hera as Power of Marriage (and more) exists in cultural memory. It was a complex representation, even if the wider historical context is undesirable to preserve. The positives can be positive (basically, Powers That Made Marriage Powerful at that moment in time) even if our culture wouldn't depict Power of Marriage the way Hera was depicted; recognizing positives in history doesn't automatically reinforce associated negatives.
Hera's actions aren't negative (even if my judgment of the reasons they'd make sense in an antiquated story are), just demonstrations of what her power was.
What I think is not possible is acting as if Hera (specifically, that name) can be meaningfully symbolic without understanding one's relationship with the cultural context her power is depicted in. Although it doesn't need to be meaningfully symbolic in order to be used in modern times as a name.
So judging whether she would be an appealing namesake today - seems to me to have nothing to do with anything, except our own perceptions of our own perceptions.
I don't really get this. As a statement, it reads similarly to how, 'the unknowable is unknowable is unknowable' would to me. Okay...
Religion's based on perception and typically involves distortion, because it's intrinsically collective.
Propaganda's biased info used to promote a particular POV (as many myths are and do, specifically in the time/place they are conceived or treated as authoritative).
And this is a board where people judge their perceptions of names. If names don't convey meaningful in complex ways (as Hera can), sure, there's no point.
This message was edited 4/28/2021, 7:07 AM
1
it doesn't need to be meaningfully symbolic in order to be used in modern times as a name.
Yeah, that's pretty much my whole idea here.
What I think is not possible is acting as if Hera (specifically, that name) can be meaningfully symbolic without understanding one's relationship with the cultural context her power is depicted in. Although it doesn't need to be meaningfully symbolic in order to be used in modern times as a name.
Right, okay - I would say "not possible to claim it's meaningfully symbolic, without having related it to one's own perception of the cultural context her power is depicted in" - since we don't *have* the cultural context her power is depicted in. It's separated from us by millennia. We have only our own culture's transmission of some stories, along with a framework for our understanding of them - as if they were our own cultural heritage. Despite us not really being able to "get" how anyone believed in gods like this, and having to characterize myths as "religion" or "propaganda" (terms with meanings specific to our culture).
Propaganda's biased info used to promote a particular POV which is *conceived/treated as authoritative* ... you say.
Okay ... I'd say it's information from agency (biased and promoting a POV), which superficially functions as a cultural artifact (art or literature or religion or news or advertising etc), and essentially functions for social-cultural control of the many by a few. As it is disseminated from a small group to the general society, whether deliberately for the purpose of social control, or not (often it's not deliberately for "control" but it does functionally control). Myths fit the bill, yeah - but so does our own modern popular entertainment, and so does any authoritative cultural analysis we might give of ancient Greek mythology. You speak as if with authority, when you judge what cultural values and contexts are positive or negative, and I just can't be sure I agree or not ... I don't know what concept you're referring to, when you cite power of marriage and imply it's something our culture might ever depict.
Yeah, that's pretty much my whole idea here.
What I think is not possible is acting as if Hera (specifically, that name) can be meaningfully symbolic without understanding one's relationship with the cultural context her power is depicted in. Although it doesn't need to be meaningfully symbolic in order to be used in modern times as a name.
Right, okay - I would say "not possible to claim it's meaningfully symbolic, without having related it to one's own perception of the cultural context her power is depicted in" - since we don't *have* the cultural context her power is depicted in. It's separated from us by millennia. We have only our own culture's transmission of some stories, along with a framework for our understanding of them - as if they were our own cultural heritage. Despite us not really being able to "get" how anyone believed in gods like this, and having to characterize myths as "religion" or "propaganda" (terms with meanings specific to our culture).
Propaganda's biased info used to promote a particular POV which is *conceived/treated as authoritative* ... you say.
Okay ... I'd say it's information from agency (biased and promoting a POV), which superficially functions as a cultural artifact (art or literature or religion or news or advertising etc), and essentially functions for social-cultural control of the many by a few. As it is disseminated from a small group to the general society, whether deliberately for the purpose of social control, or not (often it's not deliberately for "control" but it does functionally control). Myths fit the bill, yeah - but so does our own modern popular entertainment, and so does any authoritative cultural analysis we might give of ancient Greek mythology. You speak as if with authority, when you judge what cultural values and contexts are positive or negative, and I just can't be sure I agree or not ... I don't know what concept you're referring to, when you cite power of marriage and imply it's something our culture might ever depict.
1
I was never in conflict with your point if it's exclusively (it doesn't need to be meaningfully symbolic in order to be used in modern times as a name).
I've been thinking, mainly, that people probably aren't thinking of Hera, if they're thinking of her outside the context of ancient religion.
And that's fine. I like the name independent of symbolism myself. But if we are talking about the Greek goddess, we're talking about ancient religion, right?
Despite us not really being able to "get" how anyone believed in gods like this
I get it. People can get it. (I think that's mostly what we're disagreeing about? My claim that I understand why people wanted to venerate Hera.)
I could call religion "our own perceptions of our own perceptions" I guess, though those aren't words I'd use for it, and I assume that's not what you meant, but really I have no I idea, because to me if we're talking about a goddess intentionally used as a namesake, then...it's reasonable to assume appeal, as I do.
You speak as if with authority, when you judge what cultural values and contexts are positive or negative
Not really. I speak for myself, but my view of myths isn't one-dimensional, and my view of the context isn't only based on myth. I am being lazy by lumping "Ancient Greeks" and stuff like that, sorry. I know for certain there were places and times in Greece that I wouldn't have wanted to live in, and I assume but don't know that a lot of modern people wouldn't either. I can also imagine circumstances in which I would have preferred living in Ancient Greece over how I live now. I do have a particular view of Hera's limits, but it's mostly based on my understanding that Hera is meant to be worshipped and implications that has for who she is. I didn't mean to seem reductive (or like I was casting blame on Greeks as a whole somehow by being judgmental of a myth from one angle - struggle/deceit/ambiguity/sex/creation/unity), but this is a complex subject, and I also didn't intend to overexplain.
I've been thinking, mainly, that people probably aren't thinking of Hera, if they're thinking of her outside the context of ancient religion.
And that's fine. I like the name independent of symbolism myself. But if we are talking about the Greek goddess, we're talking about ancient religion, right?
Despite us not really being able to "get" how anyone believed in gods like this
I get it. People can get it. (I think that's mostly what we're disagreeing about? My claim that I understand why people wanted to venerate Hera.)
I could call religion "our own perceptions of our own perceptions" I guess, though those aren't words I'd use for it, and I assume that's not what you meant, but really I have no I idea, because to me if we're talking about a goddess intentionally used as a namesake, then...it's reasonable to assume appeal, as I do.
You speak as if with authority, when you judge what cultural values and contexts are positive or negative
Not really. I speak for myself, but my view of myths isn't one-dimensional, and my view of the context isn't only based on myth. I am being lazy by lumping "Ancient Greeks" and stuff like that, sorry. I know for certain there were places and times in Greece that I wouldn't have wanted to live in, and I assume but don't know that a lot of modern people wouldn't either. I can also imagine circumstances in which I would have preferred living in Ancient Greece over how I live now. I do have a particular view of Hera's limits, but it's mostly based on my understanding that Hera is meant to be worshipped and implications that has for who she is. I didn't mean to seem reductive (or like I was casting blame on Greeks as a whole somehow by being judgmental of a myth from one angle - struggle/deceit/ambiguity/sex/creation/unity), but this is a complex subject, and I also didn't intend to overexplain.
This message was edited 4/29/2021, 12:50 PM
1
I've been thinking, mainly, that people probably aren't thinking of Hera, if they're thinking of her outside the context of ancient religion.
And that's fine. I like the name independent of symbolism myself. But if we are talking about the Greek goddess, we're talking about ancient religion, right?
Basically yeah ... I thought we're talking about how the name Hera has a meaning, for us, that is related to the ancient religion. And how we suppose our meanings are related to that.
"Despite us not really being able to "get" how anyone believed in gods like this"
I get it. People can get it. (I think that's mostly what we're disagreeing about? My claim that I understand why people wanted to venerate Hera.)
Yeah people can get it ... but, do they? Do you?
The way I get it, is probably a little like the way you get it. It seems that way from what you say, I guess.
I think what Pelops says is pretty important. I think the myths aren't allegories or metaphors, and they certainly weren't supposed to be literal... myths are analogical, they not prescribing behavior or depicting ideals - on the contrary. One reason I think they're considered religious is just because what they express isn't objective/literal, and their complete meaning only arises in the mind of a person who reads them. It's not IN the text. Another reason is, they represent values as divine (suggesting they are universal, natural, or absolute values).
I don't think the AG myths were like religious propaganda that conditioned people to accept or conform with cultural norms. I think the cultural norms are in the myths because part of the point of the myths is not only to show how norms (and all their problems and tragedies) come to be, but also to give insight into why they are not so easily "fixed" or made better. They're not ideological / propagandistic, they don't preach or indoctrinate or moralize. They described things in a way that could *lead* to insight and judgment.
Anyway I don't really think we disagree ...
And that's fine. I like the name independent of symbolism myself. But if we are talking about the Greek goddess, we're talking about ancient religion, right?
Basically yeah ... I thought we're talking about how the name Hera has a meaning, for us, that is related to the ancient religion. And how we suppose our meanings are related to that.
"Despite us not really being able to "get" how anyone believed in gods like this"
I get it. People can get it. (I think that's mostly what we're disagreeing about? My claim that I understand why people wanted to venerate Hera.)
Yeah people can get it ... but, do they? Do you?
The way I get it, is probably a little like the way you get it. It seems that way from what you say, I guess.
I think what Pelops says is pretty important. I think the myths aren't allegories or metaphors, and they certainly weren't supposed to be literal... myths are analogical, they not prescribing behavior or depicting ideals - on the contrary. One reason I think they're considered religious is just because what they express isn't objective/literal, and their complete meaning only arises in the mind of a person who reads them. It's not IN the text. Another reason is, they represent values as divine (suggesting they are universal, natural, or absolute values).
I don't think the AG myths were like religious propaganda that conditioned people to accept or conform with cultural norms. I think the cultural norms are in the myths because part of the point of the myths is not only to show how norms (and all their problems and tragedies) come to be, but also to give insight into why they are not so easily "fixed" or made better. They're not ideological / propagandistic, they don't preach or indoctrinate or moralize. They described things in a way that could *lead* to insight and judgment.
Anyway I don't really think we disagree ...
This message was edited 4/29/2021, 9:11 PM
1
I think you must agree that it's shallow to presume that the character-Hera in myths, who is sometimes weak and petty, is supposed to represent an ideal worthy of the queen of the gods.
Not quite...Hera is queen of the gods (of course she is worthy - this wouldn't need to be spelled out for religious Greeks; they'd already know). Gods and goddess conflict in myths because they individually are not omnipotent in all arenas. Their power/nature is revealed in contrast. Zeus's weakness can be Hera's strength, and vice versa.
This is why I don't like when they're taken out of context...or reduced to universals/archetypes, even if they are those, too...the ways those archetypes relate as depicted for Greeks isn't necessarily universal; if we obscure their weakness, we obscure their nature. And if we claim they're not ideals, we obscure their nature. IMV.
I also think it's shallow to presume the AGs were uncritical about rape or adultery just because the myths have gods doing those things.
Zeus can't truly be refused, is what I said. It's not necessarily negative in context, from a religious perspective (he's like weather, fate, is ultimate protector, father, etc), which is relationship based. These things give people insight about nature and ability to self-reflect, but also involve belief in power (which is going to influence thinking and cultural norms). I wouldn't say AGs were uncritical of rape, but they had vastly different understanding of it. Pretending as if they didn't would be shallow imv.
The myths IMO are supposed to let us wonder how much meanness and humiliation and destruction would be avoided IF ONLY Zeus wasn't the way he is ... if only WE weren't like Zeus
I don't really disagree, but I think it's more aimed at revealing nature/character/desire in general.
Mortals aren't meant to think they can act like gods, yeah, but they are meant to honor gods and sacrifice for them? Myths revolve around divine desires partly for that purpose...IMV their desires were respected if their natures were respected. But a mortal can't be expected to get what they want if even a god can't. And the gods' desires are limited, too, because they're not human. Zeus might not desire to be faithful/restrained (it's not his nature - what does it matter if a storm isn't restrained?), but maybe a mortal man does, and maybe that's Hera at work or a result of sacrifice dedicated to Hera.
Not quite...Hera is queen of the gods (of course she is worthy - this wouldn't need to be spelled out for religious Greeks; they'd already know). Gods and goddess conflict in myths because they individually are not omnipotent in all arenas. Their power/nature is revealed in contrast. Zeus's weakness can be Hera's strength, and vice versa.
This is why I don't like when they're taken out of context...or reduced to universals/archetypes, even if they are those, too...the ways those archetypes relate as depicted for Greeks isn't necessarily universal; if we obscure their weakness, we obscure their nature. And if we claim they're not ideals, we obscure their nature. IMV.
I also think it's shallow to presume the AGs were uncritical about rape or adultery just because the myths have gods doing those things.
Zeus can't truly be refused, is what I said. It's not necessarily negative in context, from a religious perspective (he's like weather, fate, is ultimate protector, father, etc), which is relationship based. These things give people insight about nature and ability to self-reflect, but also involve belief in power (which is going to influence thinking and cultural norms). I wouldn't say AGs were uncritical of rape, but they had vastly different understanding of it. Pretending as if they didn't would be shallow imv.
The myths IMO are supposed to let us wonder how much meanness and humiliation and destruction would be avoided IF ONLY Zeus wasn't the way he is ... if only WE weren't like Zeus
I don't really disagree, but I think it's more aimed at revealing nature/character/desire in general.
Mortals aren't meant to think they can act like gods, yeah, but they are meant to honor gods and sacrifice for them? Myths revolve around divine desires partly for that purpose...IMV their desires were respected if their natures were respected. But a mortal can't be expected to get what they want if even a god can't. And the gods' desires are limited, too, because they're not human. Zeus might not desire to be faithful/restrained (it's not his nature - what does it matter if a storm isn't restrained?), but maybe a mortal man does, and maybe that's Hera at work or a result of sacrifice dedicated to Hera.
This message was edited 4/30/2021, 2:56 PM
1
Right? They're cultural psyche or zeitgeist, so can't be independent of context. Powers in conflict (or not), observed in a specific time and place.
I don't think Hera needs a redemption story - she's only cultural memory; it's not like people are actually devoted to her as the face of Power of Marriage anymore.
But stories of her still tell us about what the Greeks thought the Power of Marriage was and also its limitations. It's not as powerful as (Zeus being) Virility or Father/Creation or Weather, according to any Greek myth I've seen.
I don't think Hera needs a redemption story - she's only cultural memory; it's not like people are actually devoted to her as the face of Power of Marriage anymore.
But stories of her still tell us about what the Greeks thought the Power of Marriage was and also its limitations. It's not as powerful as (Zeus being) Virility or Father/Creation or Weather, according to any Greek myth I've seen.
This message was edited 4/27/2021, 7:18 PM
1