Introduction
Oedipus, the ancient Greek character invented by Sophocles, and Martin Luther King, the civil rights movement activist of the 1950s, fight to reveal the truth in their stories but exhibit different temperaments throughout their journeys. As leaders, they are both ambitious, determined, and committed to justice. Nevertheless, their anger manifests the characters in distinct ways, pointing to the self-destructiveness of Oedipus and the controlled anger of Martin Luther King.
Main Body
The main difference between the characters comes from the fact that they exhibit different leadership motivations. From Sophocles’s (429 BC) text, it is evident that Oedipus enjoys the appraisal he receives from his nation, calling him “the noblest of men” (p. 5). Throughout the text, he tries to punish King Laios’s murderer to protect himself, so his noble motives turn into ego manifestations. Meanwhile, King’s motivation comes from seeing the people’s struggles and vulnerability. He does not enjoy high status or prestige but feels obligated to protect the nation. Nevertheless, both leaders try to help their people.
Apart from that, Oedipus and King demonstrate anger distinctly. The former is more fiery and impulsive, as seen when he meets Teiresias and blames him for killing the king without any evidence, forcing Teiresias to call Oedipus’s speech “neither temperate nor opportune” (Sophocles, 429 BC, p. 17). His quick temper drives all his decisions, while his rage is dedicated toward the outward world, and he becomes exceptionally self-confident while demonstrating his anger to other characters. However, when the character discovers the tragic truth about his guilt of murder, his anger and despair become directed toward him. His anger forces Oedious to become obsessed with revealing the truth, resulting in the character’s downfall.
In contrast, in his text, Martin Luther King demonstrates controlled anger toward injustice, not driven by his egoistic initiatives. He is more audience-focused and addresses his opponents respectfully, calling them “men of genuine good will” (King, 1963, p. 406). Although King develops particular criticism and anger related to the existing US oppression of African Americans, his language remains more neutral, and he prefers non-violent ways of demonstrating it. That is why King is positioned as the human rights protector and savior for the vulnerable populations, and he even declares himself as Apostle Paul, bringing peace and justice to his people. Meanwhile, his anger is fueled by the white clergy’s indifference toward the people’s suffering, justifying that it is the product of highly moral principles. His anger and temperament yielding to violence drive social change without harming the actor and opening the door for negotiations.
Conclusion
To conclude, leaders are respected for their decisions based on their temperament. Although Oedipus demonstrates more rage caused by his ego than Martin Luther King, both heroes deserve the audience’s appreciation. The latter’s success is driven by his anger, which facilitates non-violent interventions rather than Oedipus’s pure rage and obsession with uncovering the truth. Both agents fight with different manifestations of injustice, but King’s noble anger brings more fruitful results than Oedipus’s.
References
King, M. L. (1963). Letter from Birmingham Jail. In The challenge of the 1950s and 1960s: Democracy, dissent, and struggle for equality (pp. 406-416).
Sophocles. (429 BC). Oedipus Rex (An English Version by Dudley Fittz and Robert Fitzgerald, pp. 1-80).
Loading...
