The COVID19 pandemic has inflicted a hitherto unseen response upon our contemporary existence: that of lockdown and ‘self-isolation’ on the scale of many millions. However, this form of response to a disease for which the treatment is unknown is as old as Greek mythology itself and in that sense pre-dates modern medicine. The difference is the sheer scale on which this measure has been applied, a scale unprecedented and the effects of which are difficult to imagine.
The idea of one human in isolation has been around for millenia giving a chance to the well renown thinkers and authors to explore. This blog entry builds on a Ford Knight independent study i carried out in the spring of 2010, under the guidance of Professor Stephen (Steve) Heiny, who was my classics professor throughout University (as well as my colleague in French class). Living through the coronavirus pandemic and trying to make sense of this new reality, I found my study of Philoctetes to have been particularly useful and I would like to share it.
The myth of Philoctetes, the wounded warrior left isolated on an island the Greek army on their way to Troy, has inspired different interpretations throughout centuries, cultures and historical experiences. These works show us that as fundamentally social beings, humans have always pondered on isolation as its alternate ego, as if it was the absolute negation of humanity and in some cases as an extreme form of punishment. What does this mean for our collective experience of isolation in 2020?
Many if not most have heard of the Trojan war, its aftermath and the Odyssey, but what few people realise is that this war could only be won with the help of Philoctetes. This ancient Greek was on his way to Troy with the rest of the Greek army when they first set off, only to be left behind by his fellow warriors, on the island of Lemnos, due to a foot infection. Left on his own for 10 years with his wound and his survival to look after (and of course nature to keep him company). Philoctetes goes through a very painful experience, where the physical pain from his infection is dwarfed by the pain he undergoes at an emotional level, due to his loneliness.
Philoctetes is eventually ‘rescued’ 10 years later when Neoptolemus (the son of Achilles) and Odysseus come to retrieve him (they come searching for the bow that will eventually win Troy). A very interesting dynamic unfolds between those who inflicted isolation upon him and what is left of the person who has had to endure it. This episode has fascinated many from Sophocles, to Andre Gide, to Heiner Muller, to finally the Nobel laureate Seamus Heaney of Northern Ireland. I will now explore this through each of their lenses in order to make an assessment of what the Covid19 global isolation experience might mean for human civilization.
Sophocles takes on the myth of Philoctetes in a tragedy, where the pain of the isolated individual is the main theme and pity for his loneliness from others is seen a civic virtue. Unlike the other writers of his time, Sophocles ensures that the traditional Chorus of a greek tragedy is socially distanced, far at sea. Voices from passing ships cry out to him in pitty, they only serve to amplify the distance between the isolated man and the sounds of society. This causes more suffering pain in Philoctetes, which unlike the acute physical pain is constant and becomes deeper and more profound with time.
Sophocles argues that isolation is the worst suffering which can be inflicted upon a human, worst than disease itself, and that such a state can not be prolonged indefinitely. The dynamic which occurs between Neoptolemus and Philoctetes once he returns to retrieve his bow is very interesting. This revolves around one about forgiveness and trust for what cannot be forgiven (isolation) and for what shattered all trust, the length of his suffering, the uncertainty that they had left him in isolation indefinitely.
Western political philosophy builds on the Greek tradition and although Sophocles contributed through his plays, bringing discussions on reason and morality into tragedy, much of the liberal thought tradition is inspired from it. In fact, the Universal Human Rights Declaration explicitly refers to the human right to liberty, the right to the public space (freedom of assembly) and the right to social life, the right to humane treatment which included not placing a person in isolation for an extended amount of time.
This logic pertaining to the liberal tradition is further built into the logic of the institutions emerging from the liberal peace worldview, as is the United Nations which does embed the human rights framework. On the topic of what constitutes cruel and inhumane treatment, the following finding caught my attention, as it seems to almost build on Sophocles’s portrayal of Philoctetes’s experience:
In 2011, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture concluded that solitary confinement beyond 15 days constituted cruel and inhumane punishment.
Moving to more contemporary discussions of isolation, the French writer and Nobel laureate Andre Gide discussed the myth of Philoctetes in a philosophical analysis of morality, in his theatre play “Treaty on three moralities”. Unlike Sophocles who sees isolation as a dehumanising experience, Gide identifies the distance from society as a humanizing experience by removing an individual from imposed standards (such as nationalism in this case, etc.). In Philoctetes’ own words, isolation has made him “less greek and more human”.
Gide, by means of his play, has placed great emphasis on the inherent virtuous value of solitary life. He finds it more sincere than the performative virtue that people often engage in when they are aware of others and of cultural norms. But is this still the case when the isolation is forced upon all on a great scale and is the norm? The philosophical dialogue in Gide’s Philoctetes has strong Nietzechian terms, and towards the end it reaches the depth of the realization that “there is no virtue” other the one inherent in our individual humanity. But is the discovery of this always best obtained through isolation?
Heiner Müller, an East German dramatist, also takes on the myth of Philoctetes and advances a certain skepticism of the state through his analysis of isolation. The author suggests that power commits incredibly inhumane actions time and time again, with the motif of creating a better future for its citizens. He focuses on the state rather than on the individual and concludes that conflict is needed for the state to exist as a hero (Oscar Mandel, a Belgian author, echoes this rationale in his analysis of the same writing).
Unsurprisingly for an East German author, Muller appears to to be pointing out what happens when a state no longer hides behind the curtains of morality. He suggests the expressions of this is the deprivation of citizens of real choices and decides for them instead. In that sense then, can Philoctetes be blamed for acting the way that he does or is he being simply realistic and not willing to confine to a choice that isn’t his?
And finally, Seamus Heaney, the Nobel laureate from Northern Ireland creates an entirely different version of the myth of Philoctetes, in his play The Cure at Troy. While this play is not very different from the Sophoclean version, the points on which it does differ are quintessential for a thorough understanding of Heaney. From the very title of the play, the readers are informed that Heaney’s emphasis is on the cure, and not on the war at Troy or the victory at Troy. In that sense then, the focus changes to the drama of the individual that is caught up in a sickness he can’t escape other than by his own will power (physical or societal, as is conflict).
In Heaney’s version of the Philoctetes play the chorus is made up solely of women. The role of women in conflict or in war is often overlooked. However, in terms of the reconciliation process, it is often women who play a more active role. In that sense then, Heaney seems to be making space for these voices in his play, while also not tempering too much the original text he is working with. Could it be that Heaney recognizes the cure to conflict and war to rest upon more inclusion of women in public life?
And if so, what does confinement through isolation in lockdown mean for women in particular? In recent findings from the UK, there was a surge of domestic abuse just in the first 3 weeks of lockdown with the number of deaths doubling. So while states argued that lockdown was the best measure to secure public health, it seems that there is little knowledge of what this measure means for the number of deaths in lockdown. The right to life and the right to public life are interlinked in more complex ways than originally observed.
Last but not least, what does isolation do to mental health? In all the plays and explorations of Philoctetes depicted above, from Sophocles to Heaney, the impact of his remoteness from society on his mental wellbeing is clear. In some cases, he even forgets to speak. It is worth noting, this phenomenon has also been noticed in political prisoners who were kept in isolation regimes for extended periods of time.
The COVID19 global pandemic seems to have normalised the idea of lockdown and ‘self-isolation’ – but there is nothing normal about it. The numbers of suicides have also been increasing in the countries under lockdown. As time goes on, society will demand to know the numbers of those who died by isolation, the numbers of those who lost economic self-sustainability and what the long-term impact of human rights suspension will have on the health of individual and community life.
While the world is searching for a cure, we ought to ensure that the containment measures place health and wellbeing of the individual at the centre. Are the lockdowns and self-isolation regimes the best way to proceed in the meantime, until we find the cure? Well, time will tell but certainly there will be a request for transparency for the real impact of this policy.