Your Mind Matters – Dr Anastasios Gaitanidis, Medea, Power And Betreyal

Aristotle, the Greek philosopher and master of pure reason, said, "The friend of wisdom is also a friend of myth." Bruno Bettelheim, who wrote The Uses of Enchantment, stated, on reading or hearing a myth, that certain inattentions which are the consequence of events long past, can be relived. Previously unconscious can enter one's awareness and become accessible for the conscious to work through. This can happen if the observer is deeply moved emotionally by the myth and at the same time strongly motivated intellectually to understand it. Today's myth is powerful and deals with destruction, impulse, power, and murder. All in the shadow of love. We as humanity grapple with these unconscious impulses every day. It is our job, every individual, to put the brakes on, not to destroy our world or the world. Psychodynamic Psychotherapy helps discern between an impulse and the roots of an impulse and the consequence of how we behave. It is by making our at times chaotic unconscious conscious, or understand our shadow, that we can control our behavior. And by understanding ourselves fully, we can understand others, and our impulsive responses become less harmful. It is through love we develop, and we can also realize our darkest, harshest hidden self. The part of ourself we would rather not see, or we justify because of the other. But in fact, we can overcome our darkest feelings rather than submit to their domination. The power to control lies within you. Welcome, I am Dr. Maria Kempinska and I am so pleased to introduce my guest, Dr. which I always forget to say, Anastasios, Dr. Anastasios Gaitanidis. So we're two doctors here, um, but not medical doctors, psychological doctors, uh, who's an eminent professor and psychotherapist, and we're discussing the myth and in turn the psychology of a play written by Euripides called Medea, and also we're talking about the implications of the play today. Now, as I'm talking about this, I was just saying, we were just talking, that this play has come into prominence. I think they're now doing it in the West End of London. We're based in London, and they're now doing it in the West End of London. Medea was actually written in 431 BC. So it's almost 2,500 years old. Mm-hmm. I've got that correctly. And it is such a powerful play, and I'm so pleased that, uh, you've agreed that we can go through this. So let's take the story, because Euripides was part of, uh, one of three playwrights, and, uh, he was never a famous playwright, actually. He never won any of the awards. But he is the one that has had longevity, so, or longevity, and he is now, you know, so the one that's mostly referred to rather than, you know, sort of Sophocles or Aeschylus. And what they used to do was they would write a play written in one day, and they would only choose kings or queens or, you know, gods. So it was always based around the, you know, the sort of powerful people. And this is particularly a moving and absolutely tragic play. And it starts off in, you know, with a lot of tragedy and ends even more tragic. But let me just give an overview of the play because it's all— all these plays were always based in one day. Mm-hmm. So it begins, the curtain would open with Medea who is wailing and screaming and crying in her home, and nobody can make out why, what's happened for her to be so deeply upset. And who is Medea? So she is the granddaughter of Helios, the god, the sun god, and she's daughter of the King Aeetes, and she is the princess of Colchis, which is on the east coast of the Black Sea, just to give you an idea of what the Greek setting was at that time. Now, she is the mother of two boys. She was married to Jason. Now, this is where we will flip back slightly to why she is feeling so wretched. She's now been married to Jason for 10 years. They were being very, very happy, but Jason has decided he wants to marry somebody else. And it's— this is what has upset Medea so much. And Jason has fallen in love with a princess, and the princess's father is super happy because Jason is a hero, and he wants his daughter to marry a hero. Her name is Creüsa. Is that how you— Creüsa? Yes, yes. And, uh, he wants to now marry her. And however Medea's wails and her upset can be heard all around the city. But why has it— why is this so important? What, what has happened that everybody is noticing Medusa— uh, Medea being so loud? And what— why has it upset everybody? Well, because the leading up to this point with Jason, she is Medea who's helped Jason find the Golden Fleece. And in running away from— with the Golden Fleece, she murdered her own brother to save Jason, um, from being caught by her own brother. And then she murdered— she helped murder another king with— through the daughters. And so she has really helped Jason not only find the Golden Fleece, but she murdered her own brother, murdered another king. So to— in order to get Jason's status However, Jason has been helped by Hera, the goddess whom he helped cross a river. There's always these complicated reasons why ordinary people become, you know, godlike status. But Medea also is a sorceress. She has magical powers, and that's very important. And she's a very powerful woman in her own right because she was a princess herself of Colchis. And now her and Jason have been living here and, uh, in Corinth, and the king has decided his daughter needs to marry somebody powerful, and he has accepted Jason as the new husband who will become king. And why is Jason doing this? Jason's doing this because he needs the status, he needs the money, he says, and his boys are growing up and He wants the future to be the king because he's always had that agenda on his mind. Yes. So as she talks about her despair, she opens up in despair, and Jason comes down trying to appease her despair, if you like, or tries to argue with her 'Why he has to marry this princess. It's, it's going to be best for both of us. You know, the boys will, you know, the boys will be better off. We'll all have more money and I'll look after you,' basically. But Medea doesn't want that. She doesn't want that side of her life. She wants Jason. She married Jason. She's given him two sons. But also what we have to remember at that time, women, if they were not being looked after, they had nowhere to go. And she wasn't actually a native of that country, so she would have been exiled. And after arguing, she decided that she would have— she met King Aeetes. Jason left, and she met King Aeetes, who was from Athens, who just happened to be in the area. Poetic license. And he was suffering from some sort of sexual need. Basically, he was impotent. And because she's a sorceress, she said to him, "If you allow me to come to Athens, I will sort out some drugs to make you sexually fertile." He agreed to that. And because she had made this agreement to— she would be leaving and she had somewhere to go that— so she wouldn't be thrown out, basically, of a territory that didn't belong to her. And she could be alienated. She had somewhere to go, and she decided that her life was no longer worth living there. She going to get her own back, so she decided to send her two boys to the princess with a crown and a cloak that were poisoned, and in the sort of sense to appease the princess and say she's sorry, but in fact they were covered in poison. She wanted to punish Jason, so the princess put on the crown, wore the cloak, and she died through the poison. Her father, Creon, whilst he was holding her towards her death, also absorbed the poison, and he too died, leaving Jason— because they weren't quite married yet. Mm. But this wasn't enough for Medea. And this is the turning point. Mm. This is the turning point from a woman scorned to a woman who is full of retribution. Her psychological state turned from somebody who was suffering, from a victim to a warrior, a murderer. Yeah. And decided this wasn't enough. She wanted to punish Jason more, and she took her children back to her home, and she murdered them because she didn't want Jason to have any happiness. Hmm. This totally annihilated Jason, and there's some wonderful words that Medea uses, and I thought I should read them to you. Do I not suffer? Am I not wrong? Should I not weep? Children, your mother is hated, and you are cursed. Death take you and your father. And perish his whole house. This is where her pain turns to sadistic fury. Yes. And at that point she murders her children, but at the end of the play she is not scorned or punished. She is taken off in a golden chariot to Athens. Now that is the play in itself, but what does it tell us? This is a woman who was scorned by her husband. And she changed her pain into sadistic scorn. And it's such a sad story. And the reason why Euripides became, post his death, really so famous, because he didn't die a glorious death himself. But, you know, now it sits with us because this is a woman And this type of thing has happened to many women, as it has in fact to men, but we're talking about a woman here. And she was— the women at that time belonged to a man. Everything she owned belonged to him. Her role in life was always to support the man and also to make sure that he had children. And one of her points was, I've given you children, I don't understand why you need this. You've got children, we've got a home, we've got everything. If I didn't give you children, then I'd understand you going with a younger woman. But with a younger woman, you know, does that sound modern? Yeah. Everything about this play is modern. And she is in absolute despair because she still loves him. But in their argument, it's almost an argument you can hear today in a therapy session or in court, where he's saying, no, no, no, no, I'm doing this for you. You know, I'm going off with somebody who's got more money, your benefit. And you'll feel better because I'm feeling better. And what have you done for me? Of course you haven't done that much for me. You know, that sort of narcissistic approach that, you know, sort of some people have, and he's one of those. Because frankly, she did do everything for him. Yes, she did kill her own brother, she did kill another king, and she did do everything to elevate his status. And in his own psychology, in some way believes that he's entitled to this, and he continues his life like that. However, she punishes him in the worst way possible, and she murders her own children. How do you feel about this play? What's your take on it? I mean, psychologically, it's devastating. Actually, it's devastating. But let's talk— it's also symbolic, isn't it? Yes, it is devastating, and it is very difficult because on some level you see also Medea, even before she's killing her children, not hesitating to kill her brother or to kill another in order to be able to get what she is. So there is something about this murderous sort of aspect of her that is already, you know, we see through and it's apparent in her actions. So, but you know, the act of infanticide itself becomes, you know, the one that is quite pronounced, but she also kills her brother. She kills, she betrays her country. She gives everything up for Jason. But in many ways, it's also a bid for freedom, a bid for, you know, for love and freedom, but love that costs, you know, always at the expense of someone else's life. It feels to me that there is always this love comes comes with murder attached to it, right? There's never quite free of all of this hatred and murderous rage that is, is, is we assume love to be. Seems like it's always attached to this type of murderous rage that needs to eliminate any resistance, any, anything that comes between, you know, Madea and what you want. Years ago, there used to be, it used to be in Europe, not so much now, I don't think, there was something called the crime of passion. You know, you could have a crime of passion and you'd get away with that. I don't think it's the same now, but here we have a Medea Law, or there was one, and it was, you had to differentiate in the court of law whether a woman's murder was to do with that moment of madness, that passionate madness, or was it designed? Did she rationally think about it? And that's where the switch happened between murdering the princess and her children, where she decided she was going to switch into the point of being a sadistic murderer, brutal, right? I think also, you know what, this— let's be clear, you know, to clarify the state here, that the woman can equally murder as a man can. Yes, yes. You know, and that sort of— but to murder your own children because they're the product of your love for somebody, it is brutal, isn't it? Yeah, I think it shows that, you know, the moment you feel betrayed, then you have to eliminate any trace of the love you had for the other, including the products of that love, which is your children. And it is brutal, it is cruel. But, you know, I think Medea receives the betrayal in utmost cruelty. It's the sense of feeling absolutely sort of torn apart and betrayed by Jason, by the actions that she can't believe that this is possible, that this can happen here. And of course, she's totally dependent on him. On some level, although later on we realized that she's quite capable of taking care of herself. At that time, yes, you know, sort of she had that ability, didn't she, to take care of herself. There was something in her that was a survivor, as somebody might say. That survival instinct was so powerful inside her that it just so happened Aetis came along and needed something that she could give. And she would always— and it's always in terms of fertility. It's always in terms of that male virility. Yes. That she was able to sort of supply, but that's more than a muse, isn't it? Yeah, yeah, yeah. To be able to give a man that ability to be fertile, to be the person that actually continues life. And, you know, we've discussed this in mythology before. If the king dies, the whole country dies. His whole tribe dies, so the king has to remain fertile in order to keep his whole land alive, and that's what she manages to do. Yeah, I mean, she gives him the power of fertility, and, you know, for him it's very important. And he promises her to rescue her and take her away, and she also complains to him about Jason and the betrayals, he feels, and He feels sympathetic towards her, and I think she, you know, she sells it very well, and he buys it. He buys it. He buys the story, and he wants to rescue her as well. So, there is also a question whether this could potentially develop into a love affair, right, between the two. So, there's always this question mark, which Euripides very cleverly leaves open, and here, sort of, escaping in a golden chariot. And at the end of the play, of course, there is a sense that she's not appearing on the stage. You can hear her voice, but she's not present towards the end. We can hear, you know, there is the voices appear outside the stage, both her and the King of Athens. They just, you know, they behave outside the stage. There is nothing that Jason is left alone and bereft and completely destroyed and destroyed by the actions. But in the meantime, there is also the sense of— I always have this impression of gender relationships, especially the ones that are based on power, and how this very quickly turns upside down, this master-slave sort of dialectics. How Jason was supposed to be the master, the one who has all the power, the one who will become the king by marrying the princess, the one who has decided her future, who intends to exile her, by the way, right? This is, this is his intention. So if she stayed passive and she allowed for Jason to take action, she wouldn't be able to stay in, in the city. She would be exiled and the children would be taken away from her. So in many ways, there is, you know, the— we can see Jason's actions as being equally brutal, you know, equally cruel and brutal. But, uh, but with— she responds with the brutality which is of course 10 times worse than Jason's, you know, who at least spares her life. But I mean, she's She spares his life, she spares his life, but at what cost? By destroying it completely, by taking away everything that he desires and wants, and his children as well, which is actually on those days and even today, patriarchy is based on kind of the man's lineage, the children belong to the man, to the husband. They don't belong to the mother. The mother, you know, reproduces, procreates, but, you know, gives birth, but the children belong to Jason, and they was Jason's children, and his name is the one that will be, you know, will be passed to the next generation, not Medea's. Yeah, and here he loses everything and she wins, but as you say, at what cost symbolically Do you think as a therapist that there is this undercurrent? Because this happens a lot in life. There are— there's this sort of theme of the power couple, isn't there? Now you see Hollywood in the, you know, theater and so on, you know, oh, they're a power couple, they're a power couple in business and so on. But— and they always used to talk about the woman behind the throne. Yeah, conscious of that. And I do think for some— to some extent It's quite true that a woman does, in a good relationship— and I think a relationship can be balanced, I don't want to sort of say that relationships can't be balanced, and I think that can work very well— but if it is imbalanced, there is inevitably— is it inevitable that somebody is going to be betrayed? And is it inevitable that this narcissistic approach of Jason's is always going to be there, which seems to happen, you know? Trading down, trading up for a younger model. Yeah. And, you know, who's going to lose? The wife is going to lose. And I know so many stories where the wife is left to look after the children. What is the cost of that? What is the unconscious cost of a betrayed wife to that extent if she cannot reconcile that betrayal within herself? I've known lots of women who say, well, you know, my child reminds me of my husband. Yeah. And that conscious punishment that must take place there. And recently we've heard more and more, there's in two cases recently in court about a woman in Belgium who married, who murdered her four children. Another woman in America murdered her three children. One was more a sort of neonatal psychosis, that the other one was something quite dark, sort of again a burst for freedom. Yeah, yeah. This is why this is so pertinent today, because it is almost seeping into our society, this need to rid of the, the children, that, that total tie to somebody else. Yes, yes. And I think there is something about then the children become something that that feels like a heavyweight that they need to tie you into a certain place, that there is— unless you get rid of them, there is no freedom. And in many ways, you know, we have to think about that also in terms of how much value we place on the maternal and on mothers in a way. And we have a kind of very twisted, perverse conception of mothers as not being subjects, but only subjects in themselves, being their own agents. But always being quite sacrificial and giving, which of course on some level is very important, but on another, it's just depriving them of their own subjectivity. And I think I was reading a novel by Deborah Levy who writes about her mother. And in that, you know, she says, I could never imagine my mother doing what my father you know, who was to go out, live his own life, come back and play with us. But, you know, for a mother to do that would be absolutely unthinkable, right? And I understand that on one level, but that's why he says, you know, Marguerite Duras says, you know, mothers will be the craziest people we will ever meet. Because, you know, on some level, you know, they are, there are contradictory demands. On the one hand, they want to be women really, really have the desires to fulfill their own ambitions and their own sort of lives. But on the other, they are obliged both socially and also, you know, in terms of their own sort of desires, to tie themselves very closely to the children and put their lives as second to the lives of children and the lives of their husbands, you know. And I think this is something that can drive women really, especially if they are very unstable and not very secure, drives them crazy. I think in most cases this contradiction drives women crazy in any case, and they need a lot of support and understanding in order to be able to walk through it. But if there is a husband who betrays them, if there is an environment which is completely unsupportive, if there is a place where they cannot speak about this, this craziness needs to find an outlet. Yeah, because And of course, it finds an outlet then on quite very murderous, brutal acts, you know, like the ones you mentioned. Because the whole process of giving birth is primal. Yeah. It is something that engages every part of your mind, body, soul, everything. And so when a woman has a child, and we are talking about women here, when they do have a child, and the woman isn't supported by the husband. And in a way, that's why Medea is so present as a myth in our culture today, because the value of a mother is underplayed. And yet here we are with Jason, as you said, is saying, look, without my children, I'm nothing. I have no future. I have nothing. This is— I leave nothing behind. There's no legacy. There's no one to remember me. There's nobody to look after me when I get older. There's nobody to remind me that I have value. Because in our society, really, you know, sort of a golden crown or a cloak is poisoned, isn't it? All those trimmings, all those wonderful— that everybody searches for money and the representation of what money can give you actually is very poisonous. So The real aspect of life that we live for is that love that only your child can give you because they've been raised with you. They know who you are. They can see your— every sort of part of you that is wrong, every fault that you've got. Your children will remind you. But also on some level, my dear, it's the boys who are going to grow up and become like Jason and leave you behind. So she puts all of this investment in these two boys who on some level they are her life, because if Jason leaves her, you know, she's tied up with them. And actually, in many ways, she will be taken away from them, you know. This is the— this shows she's also gonna— so she chooses to, since they are the only thing that is left to her, she chooses to kill them instead of being taken away from them, which is another act of, you know, of of revenge towards, uh, what Jason is planning to do against him. But, but I think on some level we can see how this is played out in, on, in different ways with this. So I spent all this, all of this energy, all of my life sacrificing so much, sacrificing, you know, my family for the love I have for Jason, killing my brother, coming here, raising his kids, and then he treats me like this. He plans to take me away from all the investment I made to these two boys, who eventually are going to grow up and forget their mother because that's what boys do, right? And then leave the mother behind. They have to, you know, in the Oedipal sort of myth, you have to kill your mother as well, and to kill your father and leave your mother behind in order to be fully independent of that sort of Oedipal attachment. But, you know, but then But then Medea feels totally deprived of any value, as if she's someone who can be disposed of without any consideration. And of course she realizes that she does have power, but the power she has is the power of all this chthonic sort of sorcerer type of, you know, that derives from the earth, of Mother Earth, right? And this is where This is the power of the mother to take revenge upon men who try to rape her and kill her. And do you think, you know, I always go around to myself as a therapist and also as a mother, you've got to reconcile that aspect that your children are going to leave. And, you know, there's lots of people who don't get on with their children. I'm, you know, I'm just fortunate. But, you know, It's also a mother being able to say, actually, you don't belong to me, you are not my prize, you have your own lives to lead, you do have to make your own way. You can't be that devouring, overpowering, you know, sort of mother that actually, because you've given life and you've helped them develop, you've got to help them on their way so they become independent. But also you've got to start living your own life, and that's super hard for women. Exactly, exactly. I think you're absolutely right, Maria. This is what is the fundamental difference, that at least, you know, currently women might have the opportunity to experience their own subjectivity as independent of the children and not rely totally on the children for recognition as mothers. Because unfortunately, coming from a traditional culture myself, you know, the value of women derived solely from motherhood. You know, you either— you move through being, you know, a daughter to being a mother, and there was no place for being a woman. And this is— this is— so there was no place for your own individual development as a subject yourself. So in many ways, you know, when your children are taken away, when your children are leaving you, you feel completely worthless. No value attached to you being on your own. And then, you know, of course there's a value of being a wife, but when your husband is not actually honoring his part of the deal, then you feel completely rejected. There is nothing left in you socially of value. And I think on top, on top of that, Maria is also an immigrant, right? She's been, she's in a foreign country. She's not a native. So on top of that, she's not, she doesn't have any rights. Yes. As a Greek woman. She's, in many ways, is considered for Greek a barbarian, you know, someone from a foreign land, who, which is not the same meaning of barbarian as it was attached in Greece, but it's almost like a kind of illegal alien. Totally. And she can't get back, even today, there's that element in certain cultures that she, you know, children— Not just in certain cultures, in our culture too. But that's, that's another— I know. And you know, and why, that's why it's so relevant today. And so what about the act of revenge per se? How important is revenge? Is it— I mean, it exists. There's no question it exists. It exists on a subconscious level, on an unconscious level, but it also exists in this respect. I mean, soon after that, um, I was reading about the Code of Hammurabi, who's now was in Babylon where his code was to take an eye for an eye. And we talk about that, or that has a law that has been around. And she took hers to the extreme. But revenge is such a powerful instinct. And we have to hold the reins on that instinct as a father, as a mother, as a human being. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I think, I think you're right. I think we all You know, there are so many raw feelings that lead to that type of, if you do this to me, I'll do this to you, you know, and revenge. But revenge is always leading to perpetuation of violence. But in this case, it's interesting because Jason is left quite powerless to do, to enact anything, right? He's, he's completely left impotent. Everything is taken away from him. He's completely ruined. This is a total annihilation of his subjectivity and his fatherhood and his manhood and everything. And it's quite devastating, the level of revenge here. It's a total sort of annihilation of him, of his symbolic value and his place in the world. And I think that type of revenge, It's of a different order. It's of a different order. And we can see though how that can be enacted and why we associate it mostly with women than with men, which is very interesting. Why with the scorn there is no, you know, fury in hell like a woman's scorn, right? Hell hath no fury. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. And I just think that that is so true because it is so unexpected. Because you've got this dichotomy of the creator, the giving birth and taking away, the devouring mother, the power. You know, Freud talks about that, isn't it? You know, the power of the mother, the mother that can take, give and take away. That must be so— actually, I mean, it's so— as a concept, it's scary. It's scary because, you know, as well, if someone gives you life and you take it away, and that testifies to the power of women. I think, Madeira, to the power of women as life givers and actually as life deniers. Absolutely. And I do worry, actually, you know, as my kids were growing up, I do remember parents, you know, so they had this, and I don't think I'm the only one, you know, sort of vying, oh, my child is so clever, my child is this, and they were literally living their lives through their children. And I think happens, as you were saying, such a lot, and it's such a scary part of our world, how women should and need to understand their own power. Because I think this is what this shows, that yes, you may not be the one getting the glory, may not be the one getting the crown, but you have the power to give life and take it away here. And that's what she's showing. And she goes on to live. She goes on to be Queen of Athens. Absolutely, and, you know, carry on with your life and possibly live happily ever after, which is quite scary, right? Very scary. Very scary. But this is what, you know, in many ways, this testifies also to the power of matriarchy, which, you know, was overtaken and somehow substituted by the power of patriarchy, that somehow the fear that we have, the patriarchy has, is of the power of women. And if it's not controlled, if it is not regulated, if it is not oppressed and dominated, then that is the outcome. I think there is a lot of misogyny that is based on this fear and hatred of the power of women, and power of mothers especially. Yeah, I do, but also I think where you're quite right, it is that fear of the power of women, a sort of patriarchal structure needs to contain, and women need that. Women need to regulate themselves because within every woman, if you know that that's your power— once you've given birth, you have an awareness of some, to some extent, that this amazing— it is a miracle when you give birth. You know, scientists try to give it all sorts of terminology, but it is a miracle of life. And suddenly these Children grow into individuals and they have a relationship with you. You've got a relationship with them. So the work of a woman has to be to regulate herself. But I think there is something about, you know, overall, I think there is something about regulating, containing, I agree. But overall, there is also, I think for a lot of men and our culture in general, it's also very premised on the fear of that type of power, that, you know, the dependency we have on our mothers in a way as the primary caregivers, at least in patriarchal terms, and how this dependency is life-giving or life-denying. You know, you can, you know, without being dependent on a primary caregiver, whether it is a mother or a father these days, which thank God is more, or other sort of caregivers, we won't be able to survive. We are totally helpless and dependent on, on, on the care that is provided for us to live. So that type of power and this, the enormity of that power, which is life-giving or life-denying, is, is, is frightening, you know. And for most of us is something— and of course not just Freud, but Klein and Jung and everybody's talked about this type of enormity of power that we face in this total helplessness we have as infants and kids, that we need to rely on that. And of course, you know, I think subsequently there is an attempt to control and dominate that power because of its frightening and terrifying power. And I think Medea is a representation, it's also a representation of that, how much a mother can give and but also take away. And how this is regulated in a way and controlled and dominated, not contained, but dominated by patriarchy. And I think we have to move to a place where this power is facilitated, you know, worked through and regulated in a way that is not dominated and hated, because there's a lot of hatred towards this power. And of course there is mutual hatred. Exactly. There's a mutual hatred for the domination that women suffer from, from that, from, for being controlled and denied their own subjectivity. So it goes back and forth, you know, this must play. Absolutely. I do think this is the biggest problem for me. It plays out in business quite a lot. You know, I talk to women in business and they say, oh, well, you know, sort of women aren't given a chance in business. And to some extent that was true. Now it's less so, but women equally have to understand what they want. And I think women now are beginning to say, well, actually, do I want to be that person? And they, a lot of women in business take on that patriarchal role, that masculine role, and forget to integrate the feminine principles. And I think we're going through such a major change here. And once women realize that they have a power, instead of adopting the masculine power, you know, sort of revealing their feminine power, you know, what they can do, what they've done, how do we work together, live together. And I think it's such a— it's such an important discussion. We don't discuss it enough because, you know, we— the whole thing of women's lib has been so powerful, and I've never been— I've never quite understood women's lib in that sense. I've never been a women's liber myself, but I have lived my life as a liberated woman as much as I can. You know, it wasn't until the '80s— women, '70s, '80s— you could get, um, your own bank account, mortgage. So it's not that long ago. And being in business as well, you know, I know those elements. So you were inhibited as a woman, but within that I do believe in the spiritual nature. If you don't have a spiritual understanding of life, you're lost, and you're only in the literal sense of the world. Well, you know, you're here, you're stuck in the literal fight between, you know, the oppressor and the oppressed. Yes, you don't understand that there is a spiritual something else going on here. I don't know how people reconcile it. Yeah, I think it's difficult, but I think there is, there's the other dimension of of, you know, of how do you actually connect with this without, you know, necessarily associating it with something that a man can actually give or take away. Yeah, like, yeah. So there is something— if you— if there have been centuries and thousands of years of oppression where women have felt like they were simply, you know, accessories, so second-class sort of citizens or human beings, you know, compared to men. And of course, that plays into different sort of categories depending what sort of woman you are, where you come from, your culture, your background, etc. But, you know, if this is the centuries-old tradition of women being in that place, How can they actually deal with the freedom and their own sort of place within society without necessarily having to turn it into another sort of version of patriarchy? Exactly. Yeah, or to become the ones who either give or take away in the same way that a man does. And I think it's very difficult to to connect, to connect with the maternal, to connect with the feminine, to connect with the masculine within, within a woman. And the same, of course, with men, for different reasons. To, to be able to have this fluidity and versatility between the different sort of places that we can go, and, and, uh, and to be flexible in terms of, of the ways that we, we, we position ourselves as subjects in, in the world. Right now, and it's in its changes, you know. In many ways, the world has been very liberated, but also in many ways has been also not liberated at all from all of this. Yeah, because I don't think the structure has had enough time to disintegrate, and if you disintegrate it, what takes place is chaos, and you can't afford that. So you've got to keep a structure or create a new structure. Yes, I think that's the challenge, Maria. How do you create a new structure? How do you leave this all sort of patriarchal, oppressive, dominating, you know, and allow for women and men, you know, and, you know, different gender orientations, of course, not just, you know, traditional, to position themselves in a way that is more fluid, flexible, allows for different sort of types of positions without being prescribed so much. And I think this is where Medea becomes, you know, a symbol of also of a kind of resistance and against a certain prescriptive power of patriarchy, where she rebels against it by saying, no, I will not play that role. I don't want to be that woman. I will be something else. And of course, she commits the ultimate sin act against motherhood, you know, and against the maternal, of killing her own children. But actually, you know, I think there is something about that, that a lot of mothers might, you know, at some point have identified themselves as an impulse, not as an act. Yeah, quite. Yeah, as an impulse. I think it's very important to go to these places. I think what psychoanalysis, what psychotherapy, psychodynamic sort approaches do, and analytic psychology approaches do, is to go to these dark places, these places of impulse and destruction that other approaches might not want to see. And how these are contained within the lives of what is usually idealized motherhood, fatherhood, that, you know, mothers sometimes might have these impulses. They might want really, they hate and they might want to kill the children because they feel like they are a burden, or they feel alone and betrayed, or her husband left them or abandoned them for a younger model, or they feel they are single parents and they, they really struggle to survive. And they feel that, you know, on the one hand, love for the children, but on the other hand, they feel completely sort of, um, overpowered and overtaken by all of this sort of pressure. And, you know, of course they will go to this place, but of course they also feel very guilty and very very, very ashamed to even admit. And of course therapy allows for these impulses to be talked about and say, 'Grace, I understand that you can go to these places. It's okay. Yeah, we can talk about these things. It's not the end of the world. You don't need to feel so embarrassed and ashamed and guilty.' You know, of course you will not act them out, but you can speak about them. And that is the key, isn't it? Because Melanie Klein deals with this so much, and I love her work because of it. Because it almost— once it's identified, it gives it, uh, it gives it power but also takes it away. Yes. Enables you to actually just look at the aspects of the outcome if you act. If you allow it just to build up as this you know, sort of ideation of destruction of externally rather than internally. If you then allow that to build up, they will act on it. And that's clearly what happens to people. Mm-hmm. They don't talk about it and other people don't want to hear it, but it doesn't always mean that they're going to act on it just by saying it. Yeah, I agree with you, you know, about this idealization of the mother-child-mother wife, you know, as a wife or even as a father if they're left in charge of the child. But what Medea also shows, if you act on it, you've destroyed so much. Yes, everything is destroyed, you know, because it's so vengeful, it's so absolute, you can't stop yourself. And that's what she did. Step by step, it wasn't enough. It wasn't enough to murder the woman that his— her husband was going to go with.— it wasn't enough to murder her father, she had to murder something that represented her and her husband. Yes, she had to literally sort of erase everything, everything, you know. It's a total, total annihilation, it's complete erasure, which is frightening just to think about it, that someone can go to these lengths. But This is the human psyche, does this. That's it. And I think this is what we're looking at here. That's why it's so powerful. And I think that's why, as you say, in psychotherapy we hear that from clients, but not, you know, and we know they're not going to act on it, but they can say, look, what do I do with this impulse? Because our impulses, you know, and as we know with Freud, dealt with these impulses. But I love Melanie Klein because she actually talked about it. She gave it a name. And, you know, we have these thoughts and feelings, but we can't act on them. We cannot act on them. We have to find ourselves a way that we regulate ourselves. I think there is— this is true, but at some, some point, how much freedom we have to regulate and how much, you know, and then we don't give any other option with Medea. You know, she knows that if she doesn't act on any of this, she will be taken away from, you know, possibly die, die a lonely death somewhere exiled and, you know, completely alienated from anything that is important to her. Yeah. So, so in many ways it's also an act of desperation. Yes, it is, because she will then be sacrificed. She has to sacrifice herself for her husband to live the life he wants with the children. She has to be sacrificed, but she— it's almost as if she'd forgotten she has this power. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So it changed from actually, I can go and recreate myself, to no, revenge. You're not getting anything. I got this and I'm gonna take it away. This is, this is the zero-sum game, right? You know, one will die, the other will live. There is a winner, loser. There is no one here that could— and we see that in, in couples as well, and how, how vengeful it can be, and how, you know, love that can be, you know, potentially, um, love that can be quite powerful and intense which is based and premised on a lot of sacrifice and a lot of symbiotic sort of connections, can turn very ugly very quickly. And people, people become really sort of absolutely vengeful and vindictive towards each other. And you see the, the amount of rage that that generates, how, you know, and the amount of accusation and not taking any responsibility for one's actions. It's, it's incredible. I think in a lot of couple therapy we see that. And, you know, you see the amount of rage that sort of, how can you do this to me? How can you do? How dare you do this to me? Right? And then, you know, the unleashing of all of these sort of primitive powers of annihilation and destruction that can happen from both sides. Oh, totally, both sides. And I think this is the danger of a society that is breaking down. You know, when the rules break down, and we're talking about the patriarchal rules here, if all structures that are being questioned, but nothing's being put into its place, it's all being broken down. And consequently, everybody fights for themselves. And you get this intense, almost cage fight between couples. Mm-hmm. And they are prepared to tear each other apart if they're not careful. You know, and this is what the children can observe. So the whole structure is being broken down and it becomes brutal, it becomes almost beast-like. Yeah, and I think this is, this is the danger here. It's a big danger for— and the illusions of, you know, the illusions, then, then love and, you know, love, connection, coupled, all of this just being shown as illusions that can be torn apart. And nothing good remains. Nothing good remains. I mean, part of the Medea story, nothing good is left. Exactly. It's all taken away. It's all destroyed. All destroyed. Nothing good is left. I mean, there's no goodness anywhere. Yeah. And even in her life, she has to go and give virility and some drugs to somebody, you know, sort of some sort of, you know, sort of herbal drug to give fertility to somebody. It is a story of our time. It's just so— it couldn't be more apt in this time, and it's so scary. But let's leave it on a positive note. But, you know, what would you like to say as a positive? I think this is also, you know, Medea perhaps represents and, you know, symbolizes whatever can go wrong, the vengefulness, the hatred towards women, the women's sort of revenge against the oppression of patriarchy. All of this can be seen as a kind of morals that we can take out of the story. However, we shouldn't forget that, you know, human beings also have the capacity to create, to meet, to relate in ways that are not vengeful but quite mutual and to create something new out of possibilities which might be very difficult. So this is not just— we should not just stay with this power of destruction and revengefulness, but which is part of humanity. There is also a part of humanity which is absolutely creative, ingenious, playful, generative, and we need to honor that too. And but we can't honor that unless we also pay attention to the shadow. Absolutely. And this shadow side of Medea shows us, if we engage with that, if we not only recognizing it is one thing, acting on it, this is what happens. Destroyed. You cannot— she cannot go back. Can't regenerate it. She's not that powerful. No, that's just— yeah, has totally destroyed everything. And if we go down that road. If we don't recognize our shadow, if we don't recognize that we all have these impulses that we can talk about and we can look at them, regulate them, and transform them— because that's what therapy is, transforming our own impulses into something higher— is this good? Is it beneficial? How can we work this out in a different way? And I think that's what you're saying. You know, the positive side, not only of therapy but also of the human mind and our own capacity, the psyche. If we don't look at that and just go into the danger side, the war warrior side, I'm going to kill everybody, which is being acted out at the moment, there must be another way. And I think she and this story just shows us what happens if we do not go into our, our, you know, sort of more Regulate. I still use the term regulation, but we need to talk about it to people. We need to express ourselves. Sometimes we might not be able to regulate it. We might be able to act. But the thing is taking responsibility for that and trying to pull the handbrake before we reach this form of total destruction. Because, you know, senselessness leaves nothing that anyone can build. On. You know, it's, it's this total destruction. It's almost like you don't, you know, wipe the, the clean, the, the slate clean. You simply, there is nothing left that you can build on. And that, well, the future cannot be based on this act of total annihilation, but on something that needs, you know, collaboration, both in terms of, you know, men and women coming together, but also socially, you know, where facilitating environments can help people to think new ways of relating which doesn't lead to this type of vengefulness, allows the expression, allows the symbolic sort of transformation, but doesn't lead to this total annihilation, and but actually can create the space for something new to emerge. And this is where, this is where I think, you know, the creator, the greatest structures that we have, they need to be called into question, and something new needs to come in order to create a space for all of this to be discussed and explored. And I do, I like that term, the handbrake. We do need to learn where our own handbrake is. Yes, you know, the collaboration, the male and the female, the masculine and the feminine coming together and working out a new way and just collaborating. Because sometimes freedom does not lie, you know, it's not Free, we are not just free to follow our impulses. Freedom lies in sometimes being able to say no. Yeah, totally. No to the fact that, you know, to the temptation of violence and revenge, you know, because it's always there. And this is why, you know, Bruno Bettelheim used to write about plays being, you know, they called it the uses of enchantment. So plays did reflect back to us what the possibility of our behaviour is. And this is what this story does. If we do not put on the handbrake, if we live out that impulse of revenge, you know, that sadistic side of ourselves, this is what can happen. Just think about this. Yeah, but there are two sadists in this, you know, it's a sadomasochistic sort of equation, it's a duo tanto, it's both Medea and Jason. Both of them. Both of them. Yeah, and that's because he permitted her to do all those acts on his behalf. Yes, exactly. Very powerful. Very powerful, yeah. Anastasios Gattanidis, thank you so much for yet another sort of— it's a dissection but a discussion about Medea and mythology. Thank you very much, Maria. It's a pleasure.