Antigone: Both Must Bend or Both Will Break

In Sophacles’ classic tragedy Antigone, two different approaches to injustice are shown: one in the play’s protagonist Antigone, and one in her fiancé Haemon. The play beings with Antigone’s declaration to her sister Ismene that she will not only break Creon’s law, but also do so openly and defiantly. She does so, earning her the death penalty for her crime. Her fiancé, Haemon, in an attempt to do what is right, attempts to use his gift of reason to negotiate and try to come to a peaceful conclusion. Antigone displays not only conflict between Antigone and Creon, but also juxtaposition between what it means to bend and what it means to break.

Peaceful moderation efforts like Haemon’s in Antigone have been historically proven in some cases to work. The Greeks in the time of Sophacles surely related to Haemon’s plea for sense; Haemon explains to his father, “the gods endow a man with reason” (37). Haemon’s plea falls to deaf ears though, for his father is unwilling to hear the will of people of Thebes and “bend” (38). When the opposing party (i.e. Creon) is flexible, peaceful moderation efforts become possible and are often successful. A contemporary example being the successful efforts of the leaders of United States and the Soviet Union during the 80’s and 90’s to resolve the conflicts of the Cold War. When both parties are willing to bend, no one has to break. But when one refuses to bend, then one or both will break. In Antigone, Haemon’s efforts to bring peaceful resolution are lost to the inflexibilities of Antigone and Creon. Emotions become high powered and overwhelm reason—a contemporary example of this situation being China’s control over Tibet. The Chinese unquenchable thirst for power and absolute refusal to allow the traditionally peaceful Tibetans to practice their religion and culture. The previous rightful leader of Tibet, the Dalai Lama, has traveled the world with his message of peace and moderation. He has, on numerous occasions, attempted to negotiate with the Chinese government to restore the Tibetan way of life. Like Haemon, many activists for Tibetan peace are looking out for the interests of both parties. Peacemakers have tried to offer to keep China in control of foreign affairs of Tibet, but allow Tibetans to control domestic ones. China, like both Creon and Antigone, has shown itself to be unbendable on this issue, and because of that unbendalbility, Tibet is breaking.

In the story of Antigone, both parties, instead of bending, break apart. Although Antigone’s stance is right, it almost doesn’t matter. I feel her unwillingness to bend as a sign of pride. Unlike Haemon or Ismene, she never went to Creon herself to express that his law was undermining the gods. She decided that it would be a battle when it didn’t have to be. Creon is equally wrong in his inflexibility. He listens to neither his son nor the leader of the chorus. Thus, because neither bends, both break. Antigone is a tragedy because of just that.