Redefining Heroism

Jen McClellan Dombourian Old Testament 23 Nov 2014 Redefining Heroism Esther is a lousy hero. No, actually, she is an average hero. The thing is, when a people find themselves locked into a cycle where they are being uprooted and shuffled around to foreign lands where the people ruling are different, they are also going to find themselves in an almost constant state of conflict. Esther is one in serious of heroes arising separately to break each conflict. But this is not good enough. More than each individual conflict must be solved. The whole cycle of oppression must be broken. In order for Esther to see beyond the single instance of strife her family faces, to the larger ongoing struggle of the Jews, she would need to develop a revolutionary consciousness. Esther challenges class barriers when she goes to live as the queen. She challenges ethnic boundaries simply by being a diaspora Jew. She even challenges gender roles by exploring her power over the king. However, in the end her motivation is only to win victory for Mordecai, and this limits her abilities in her opportunity to redefine heroism. Esther fails her people because she lacks a revolutionary consciousness. Esther’s first failed opportunity at redefining heroism comes when she challenges her class role. Esther’s lower position in this society is made readily obvious by exaggerative style in the narrative. “The army of Persia and Media and the nobles and governors of the provinces were present, while he displayed the great wealth of his kingdom and the splendor and pomp of his majesty for many days, one hundred eighty days in all” (1.4). The author’s use of hyperbole when describing the affairs and capital of the king makes his exaltation distinct. The fact that the hyperbolic style is repeated serves to remind the reader that this behavior, the repetitious behavior of unchallenged kings, is ridiculous. That’s the first hint that Esther has the opportunity here to protest something other than the treatment of just herself or her family. Esther takes advantage of being collected with the women of the kingdom, makes use of her talents, and as a result the king “set(s) the royal crown on her head and (makes) her queen instead of Vashti” (2.17). Another issue with Esther’s heroism arises here because although she did have a small part in getting herself to this position of power by giving the king what he wants, she isn’t actually the one that changes her class; the king is. So she too will be a Vashti one day. In her book on Women and the Politics of Class, Johanna Brenner reflects, “While opening up a space for sexual expression, the Blueswomen’s defiance could not constitute a basis for contestation with the surrounding white supremacist order.” There is a parallel between the Blueswomen of early 20th century America and Esther, in that they both use their sexuality to express their discontent with their oppressors and they are both unable to make that into anything beyond an expression because they don’t challenge the system that allows power to remain in the hands of their respective tyrants. Esther fails to redefine heroism because she fails to analyze the systems of power that put her in the position to need to challenge her class role in the first place. [explain quickly]. Her lack of revolutionary consciousness, thus, causes her to, ultimately, let her people down. Esther’s chance to develop her analysis on ethical clashes is before her throughout her entire life, yet the most she does to face her oppression is to hand the power she gains off to another man, who, in turn, becomes the oppressor. Esther’s failure to mature a rebellious ideology before acting on it not only fails her people, but causes them to become the very enemies they have previously despised. In his article, Antisemitism: Its History and Causes, Bernard Lazare makes the observation that “There is no anti-Semitism until the Jews, having abandoned their native land, settle as immigrants in foreign countries and come into contact with natives or older settlers, whose customs, race and religion are different from those of the Hebrews.” So Esther, being a Diaspora Jew, naturally finds herself facing ethnic barriers. In this story specifically, her most obvious threat comes from Haman, who convinces the King to “kill, and to annihilate all Jews, young and old, women and children” because “their laws are different from those of every other people, and they do not keep the king’s laws” (3.8-13). Such an immediate and outrageous threat, certainly, would cause Esther to react. But that’s just it. She reacts. She should have recognized that cause for an impulsive response to be a sign that she should stop and carefully consider what her counter will be. Joshua A. Berman also attempts to understand this foolishness in his essay, Hadassah Bat Abihail: The Evolution from subject in the Character of Esther, asking, ”What becomes of Jewish identity and the self-concept as Jew under the strains of Diaspora existence?” Esther can react to her situation in several ways. One way is to integrate her identity and fully participate “in the life and leadership of the host culture” (648). Another is to, as she does, manipulate the powers that be. A third option, and the one that will lead Esther to the possibility of redefining heroism is to explore “the issue of Jewish identity in a Diaspora setting, not in terms of the possibilities of survival and success, but in ontic and existential terms” (648). It is because she is reactionary instead of thoughtful that Esther’s actions lead to Mordecai gaining power and leading the Jews to be murderers. They make the mistake of striking fear in others the exact same way it was struck into them: “Furthermore, many of the peoples of the country professed to be Jews, because the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them” (8.17). It’s tragic repetition! If she develops her consciousness she will be able to see beyond ethnic divisions and embrace even the king’s people. Instead, Esther allows tyranny to continue ping ponging between patriarchs, with ethnic boundaries being one of the many surface boils pointing to a deeper sickness. Esther’s third point of intersectionality—the intersecting points of various oppressions—is her prescribed gender role. She goes so far as to recognize her role, in fact she uses her sexuality in that role to her advantage, however, she doesn’t go beyond that to challenge her male-dominated society. In this respect she fails her people because she has power but then she goes on to hand it back to Mordecai, which allows that the women after her will continue to be submissive to men (or be forced to explore exploiting their own sexualities in their countless individual power struggles). It’s easy for Esther to know sexism is inherent in the system she lives in because the king establishes gender inequality by royal decree: “…he sent letters to all the royal provinces, to every province in its own script and to every people in its own language, declaring that every man should be master in his own house” (1.22). However, even when Esther surrenders her body, “The girl pleased him and won his favor…” (2.9) her new position in the kingdom is only granted to her by the power of a man. He can throw her out at any time, or she can grow old and be replaced. This is no victory; not for Esther and certainly not for the women who come after her. The Zapatistas offer an example of what a revolutionary consciousness in Esther could lead to, in their textbook on Participation of Women in Autonomous Government. From southern Mexico they detail what this alternative system looks like after twenty years of development, “There are some towns in which the compañeras do now participate together with the compañeros. Also in the towns meetings are done, sometimes they are exclusively meetings of compañeras, just us compañersas get together to organize collective work within the town.” Or as Maggie Phair, a long time socialist feminist wrote in a document titled, “The Feminist Process,” “…we value synthesis and cooperation rather than competition… we value each individual’s contribution to the group and encourage the active participation of everyone involved in an action.” “The Feminist Process” understands, as the Zapatistas do, that sexism is built-in to a patriarchal system. Esther doesn’t consider a future of collective decision making with other women as a means to keep power equal between genders. She simply aids in man’s continued elevation above women. Some feminists argue that Esther is a hero, but because she fails to push any boundaries, (be they ethnic, gender, or class based) she plays the role of servant and leads her people to become agents of slaughter. A modern practicing Jewish woman, Shoshana Wheeler reflects on Esther to state, “I don't think she was at all interested in a revolution, merely the saving of her people, who Haman had plans to kill.  Her heroism comes from the fact that she went to the king without permission to plea her case, an act that could have cost her life.  I would say that not all heroes are revolutionaries, merely people standing up for what they believe in, putting themselves at risk in the process.” Hence, Esther can be seen as an average, every day, working-class hero. However, during the cold war era, the art and paintings in the Soviet Union featured such heroes. The Wende Museum in Los Angeles has a painting of a healthy looking working woman on a tractor. Those heroes failed Eastern Europe the same way Esther fails the Jews. People need more than average heroes, they need revolutionaries. Works Cited Berman, Joshua A. “Hadassah Bat Abihail: The Evolution from Object to Subject in the Character of Esther.” Journal of Biblical Literature. The Society of Biblical Literature. 2001. Web. 26 Nov 2014. Brenner, Johanna. Women and the Politics of Class. NA: Monthly Review Press, 2000. Print. Lazare, Bernard. “Antisemitism: Its History and Cause.” Marxist Internet Archive. Publically sponsored. Web. 26 Nov 2014. Socialist Party USA. Los Angeles local. Womens’ Commission. Feminist Process. Maggie Phair. Print. The New Oxford Annotated Bible 4th ed. Ed. Michael D. Coogan. New York: Oxford UP, 2010. Print. New Rev. Standard Vers. Wheeler, Shoshana. Personal interview. 18 Nov 2014.