The Enlightenment of Odysseus’ Phallic Masculinity

I wrote this research paper this semester. I'm pretty proud of it actually, but I know it needs more sources and a bit more revision. The choice of the term "enlightenment" probably needs to be reassessed too.

Joseph Campbell suggests in an interview with Bill Moyers that the typical hero must undergo a “transformation of consciousness” (Campbell) before his deed bears fruit. Although Campbell’s suggestion holds in many epics and folk tales, it lacks ground in Homer’s The Odyssey. Using examples of Odysseus’ intellectual inflexibility it is easy to demonstrate how he does not fit into Campbell’s framework, but an explanation for why that is so tends to be elusive. Drawing from feminist studies of masculinity, the aim of this paper is to demonstrate that Odysseus’ inability to undergo Campbell’s “transformation of consciousness” is a direct result of his strict adherence to a hegemonic phallic masculinity.
The best direct example of Odysseus’ inability to undergo any form of “transformation of consciousness” can be seen when Athena reduces him to rags (Fagles 13.491-501). This transformation of Odysseus from the proud and vibrant warrior who endangers himself and his crew because he feels the spirited urge to jab the blinded Cyclops (Fagles 9.558-562) to the shriveled beggar who makes a meal of the suitors’ conservative charity and brutal Antinous’ abuses (Fagles 17.507-13) offers the greatest glimmer of hope for Odysseus’ potential “transformation of consciousness”. Unfortunately, that potential is never realized; when the herald, Medon, begs Odysseus to exclude him from the slaughter it seems almost as if Odysseus has the sword raised over his head, readied to sever Medon’s head from his body despite his pleas until Telemachus vouches for the herald (Fagles 22.360-99). We furthermore see Odysseus acknowledge that were it not for his son he would have slain the herald when he says, “The prince has pulled you through, he’s saved you now” (Fagles 22.394). As if to give finality to the certainty of Odysseus’ inability to undergo Campbell’s “transformation of consciousness” we see that it takes not only a lightning bolt from Zeus but also an admonition from Athena (Fagles 24.591-7) to prevent Odysseus from bloodying the pact (24.585-91) with his hunger for dominance.
Richard S. Ruderman addresses the issue of Odysseus’ lack of transformation from a different angle. In “Odysseus and the Possibility of Enlightenment” Ruderman suggests that Odysseus sets out from early in the epic to attain Enlightenment; Ruderman says of Odysseus “he recognizes that the most heroic quest is the liberation of one’s soul from the ‘mythological’ or ‘social’ world in which it is, at first, inevitably imbedded” (140). Ruderman argues that the use of the term arnumenos, translated in Fagles translation as “to save” (1.6), “implies [instead] ‘to win what is not yet yours’” (143). Using the implied definition of arnumenos, Ruderman argues that Odysseus’ attempt to achieve Enlightenment is inseparable from his attempt to wrest his soul from the gods (143), an example of which we see when Odysseus calls Athena to task for abandoning him after the Trojan war (Fagles 13.359-62). Ruderman concludes that line of argumentation with the insistence that Odysseus ultimately fails in his endeavor because:
he is still a thymotic man who needs and accepts Athena's outlook which informs him that men can earn the eternal protection of the gods by punishing injustice and by taking risks on behalf of justice. (149-150)
We certainly see this to be the case in the example of Odysseus being forced by the bolt of Zeus and the admonition of Athena to quell his anger, or thymos, I provided earlier; rather than coming to the realization on his own that killing the peasants—who we imagine are wearing torn leather armor, if that, and are probably wielding something like pitch-forks—is unjust, it takes to intervention of the gods.
Although Ruderman defines thymos, or thumos as “spiritedness [...] the element of a person's soul that insists, often angrily, on his/her worth or dignity, and it requires the assumption of free will” (154-155), he ignores the aspect of “manliness” which Barbara Koziak begrudgingly acknowledges is typically associated with thumos (1069). While Koziak does shed light on the “manly” characteristic of thumos, she almost immediately begins to argue that thumos is not simply a masculine feeling since its range of emotional expressions are extremely varying (1069-1072). Koziak’s argument is enticing; giving the example of Achilles hospitality to Priam, she says that Achilles’ thumos is “not the anger of a militarized, overly masculinized, heroic personality, but compassion and shared sorrow, pity, and mutual fear” (1071). But Koziak’s recollection of the scene excludes the fact that Priam approaches Achilles as a suppliant (Fagles 24.560-2), which demonstrates Ruderman’s thumotic aspect of free will which he says is “granted by the gods” (155).
That’s not all that Koziak ignores; the scene in which Achilles denies Priam the instant ransom of his son and an end to the war (Fagles 24.647-69) demonstrates not only that Achilles, through his knowledge of Priam’s godly escort, adheres to Ruderman’s god-sovereignty aspect of thumos but also the “manly” thumos against which Koziak rails. Koziak is on the right track in her protest of attributing “manliness” to thumos, but her argument falls short in that endeavor because she never clearly defines masculinity. Instead, she seems to misandristically imply that the attribution of “masculinity” automatically assumes a negative connotation. In order to understand how Odysseus as a thumotic hero prevents we must remedy Koziak’s mistake and clarify the “manly” aspect of thumos.
Mark J. Justad argues in his essay “A Transvaluation of Phallic Masculinity” that “masculinity has been a reification of the experience of erection and those qualities associated with this somewhat dramatic and singular occurrence” (Justad). Using Justad’s definition, we can clarify that the masculine aspect of thumos is certainly phallic in that “it reflects the qualities and capabilities usually associated with the penis in its engorged condition—hardened up and ready to make its way in(to) the world” (Justad).
It is this phallic aspect of thumotic masculinity that prevents Odysseus from undergoing any sort of “transformation of consciousness”. Justad suggests that phallic masculinity stems from an overwhelming view of man’s body as simply an erect penis (Justad). From our first glimpse of Odysseus we see him identifying himself instrumentally phallic through his interaction with Calypso; after he weeps for his wife and is granted leave of Ogygia, Odysseus beds the goddess down before embarking on his voyage home (Fagles 5.251). The action can easily be seen as an expression of gratitude or perhaps even payment for his release since there is no implication that Odysseus is anything but ecstatic to make love with the goddess. In fact, Odysseus’ intercourse with Calypso after his release can even be seen as a way of securing his liberty with, quite literally, his phallic thrust. Odysseus, the phallic tactician, utilizes his “masculinity” on more than this occasion.
Odysseus’ adventure with the Cyclops is the first of Odysseus’ phallic exploits on his journey home. Ruderman’s assertion that Odysseus’ determination to stay and meet the inhabitants of the island is not so much simply characteristic of greed as it is of Odysseus’ attempt at reaching Enlightenment is fairly convincing (153). Ruderman suggests that Odysseus’ thumotic decision to stay on the island is the first instance in which Odysseus challenges the gods to intervene on his behalf (153). The problem with Ruderman’s assessment is that Homer gives no reason for us to believe that Odysseus has any idea of the brutality of the inhabitants of the island. I must take issue with Ruderman’s assertion that greed is not at the heart of Odysseus’ motive to stay on the island (153) since Odysseus actually says that the reason he stayed was to see “what gifts he’d give” (Fagles 9.256-258). It seems as though Ruderman were saying that any time Odysseus steps onto a foreign land and thinks of Xenia he is testing the sovereignty of Zeus. Ruderman takes for granted that since we as scholars of The Odyssey know what’s going to happen to Odysseus, he should too.
Instead of seeing an attempt at reaching Enlightenment, I see the encounter on the isle of the Cyclops as the most egregious embodiment of phallic masculinity. Although the most symbolically phallic instance takes place when Odysseus rams the sharpened log in Cyclops’ eye, it’s not until he reaches his ship that Odysseus fulfils Justad’s definition of phallic masculinity and it comes out in the form of thumos. After Odysseus’ first taunt at Cyclops, we are told that though they begged, Odysseus’ crew “could not bring [his] fighting spirit round” (Fagles 9.557-8). Admittedly, I haven’t a Greek copy of the Odyssey with which I can justify my statement, but I feel fairly certain that the “fighting spirit” that Odysseus’ crew could not “bring round” is a reference to thumos since thumos is typically translated as such (Koziak 1069). The inability of the crew to restrain Odysseus’ thumos is essentially the crew’s inability to restrain Odysseus’ hegemonic phallic masculinity; Odysseus’ expression of thumos when he yells his name at Cyclops is an expression of phallic thrust with which he aims to exercise complete dominance over his opponent.
From this point on, Odysseus continues to express thumos in some phallic sense; with Circe, for instance, Odysseus literally resorts to phallic thrust in order to dominate the nymph (Fagles 10.382-5). The encouragement from the god Hermes to use his hegemonic phallic thumos (Fagles 10.310-34) demonstrates an interesting parallel with Ruderman’s suggestion that Odysseus’ Enlightenment can only be achieved once he ceases to rely on the judgment of the gods’ (139-142) in that we see a strong desire of the god to reinforce Odysseus phallic masculinity rather than suggest an alternative. And Odysseus seems to relish in his hegemonic exercise because he stays on the island for a much longer time than necessary.
The best chance that Odysseus has to undergo a “transformation of consciousness” by alteration of his phallic masculinity presents itself when Odysseus is reunited with his son. In order for Odysseus to undergo his “transformation of consciousness,” he must achieve Enlightenment in the manner illustrated by Ruderman—he must be able to assess and dole justice without being under sovereignty of the gods—and he must do it through a sort of revaluation of his phallic identity. Justad argues:
men who choose to be fathers and are involved in the caretaking needs of children interrupt cultural gender expectations, admit to a range of revalued phallic values, and subject the (body)selves to the productive ‘baby gaze’ all in one activity. (Justad)
But Odysseus never realizes the opportunity; instead of taking time to admire his son that he’s not seen for 20 years and catching up on everything he’s missed, Odysseus launches into a tactical assessment of the situation at home (Fagles 16.265-70). As a result, Telemachus continues to view his father as the engorged member who can forcefully remove the suitors from his house.
As an old man in rags, Odysseus also has an opportunity to revalue his phallic identity. The impotence of Odysseus as an old man could help him realize that his current conception of his phallic masculinity needs to be reconsidered by forcing him to learn a more civil means of interaction better suited for everyday life. Unfortunately, Odysseus doesn’t take the opportunity to learn, metaphorically speaking, that “almost all men are genitally soft by far the greater share of the time” (Justad); he provokes the wrath of Antinous (Fagles 17.500-517) and eventually is exempted from, shall I dare say, phallic growth when he is given a chance to wrestle back his virility from the equally impotent Arnaeus (Fagles 18.102-13). Homer even goes so far in the fight scene between Irus and Odysseus to show Athena “fleshing out the limbs of the great commander” (Fagles 18.81), an action highly suggestive of phallic erection.
Athena’s intervention in the development of Odysseus’ phallic revaluation suggests further that the gods want Odysseus to remain engorged with his phallic masculinity; and they succeed. The problem with Odysseus is that he receives his phallic reinforcement far too happily; after he’s dominated the lowly beggar, despite the mocking laughter of the suitors, Odysseus rejoices in his heart while he celebrates with—appropriately enough—a “generous goat sausage,/bubbling fat and blood” (Fagles 18.130-8).
As if to deliver absolute finality in demonstration of Odysseus’ lack of a “transformation of consciousness,” the epic ends with Odysseus selecting not to restrain his hegemonic phallic thumos as he rushes after the fleeing villagers only to be stopped by the bolt of Zeus and admonition of Athena (Fagles 24.585-97). We see in this final expression of thumos that Odysseus has neither learned to reshape his own phallic identity into one more suitable for everyday life nor separated him from the hegemony of the gods that is associated with his rigid phallic identity. As a result of this lack of change, one can easily see that The Odyssey ends on a very sour note as Odysseus cheerily obeys the hegemonic phallic thumos ordained by the gods (Fagles 24.558) and we can assume that Odysseus is in for some rough times.