The Making of a Monster: What the Cyclops from “The Odyssey” and South Africans Have In Common
Written by Gavin Coppage, Rachel Palmer, and Brenna Uporsky
The Cyclops from The Odyssey has something in common with people of South Africa in the Apartheid era called “monsterization.”
Hear us out: What we mean by this word (which doesn’t technically exist in dictionaries…yet) is what happens when an individual (or group of individuals) not only ostracize others based on ethnocentrism, but they specifically make them out to be monsters. We chose to use “monsterization” over the more commonly used term “othering” because for the ones committing it, the “othered” individual is not simply a human who is unlike them; the individual is completely dehumanized and represented as a savage monster.
The Cyclops chapter is arguably the most famous scene in The Odyssey. We were especially intrigued by the intense similarities between Odysseus’ view of Polyphemus and colonizers’ view of those who are colonized (specifically, the way that Fanon describes it). The words Fagles (the guy who wrote one of the more well-known translations: find it here) uses when Odysseus is describing Polyphemus parallel pretty strongly to a lot of people’s language when describing immigrants or people in third world/developing countries. In this piece, we’ll be looking specifically at South Africa during the Apartheid era.
Important side note: “xenia” is very important to Greek culture; it is the act of welcoming strangers into your home after they knock or announce themselves and offering food/water/bath/clothes before even asking their name or their purpose for being there.
Summary of the Cyclops Scene:
Odysseus and his crew are sailing along lost and then land on the island of the Cyclopes, home of Poseidon’s giant, one-eyed son Polyphemus. Odysseus wonders: “What are they here — violent, savage, lawless? / or friendly to strangers, god-fearing men?” (Fagles 97). While Polyphemus was away from his cave, the men raided its supply of food. The crew wanted to dine-and-dash, but Odysseus wanted to linger.
Once the Cyclops returns and later notices the crew’s presence, he calls them “strangers” and asks for their names and homeland. This is contrary to the strongly enforced Grecian cultural practice of xenia that we defined earlier. Odysseus is shocked at the abruptness but then announces himself and gives himself credibility, essentially, by linking his lineage to a war hero (in Grecian culture, the more you killed and conquered, the more heroic you were).
He then tells Polyphemus that if he wants to please the gods, he must practice xenia and offer the men guest-gifts and even more food. Polyphemus retorted back that as a Cyclops, he does not care about the opinion of the gods and is therefore not required to give them anything.
As they go back and forth, the Cyclops lashes out and Odysseus ends up losing some of his guys to Polyphemus’ appetite.
Odysseus enlists his crafty skill in language and gets the one-eyed giant wine drunk to the point that he lies down and throws up. As this is happening, 5 men heat up a pointed stick and stab it through Polyphemus’ eyeball (eloquently pictured to the left). They then use his pain and lack of sight to their advantage and escape. Polyphemus cries out to his father, Poseidon, pleading that the sea god make sure Odysseus gets home later than planned and without a single crewman alive (Spoilers: this comes true by the end of the poem).
Polyphemus as a “Monster”:
The Cyclopes are described by Odysseus as “lawless brutes” who live on an island that is “unsown, unplowed, the earth teems with all they need.” (Fagles 140). Odysseus thinks that their land is not fulfilling its potential because the Cyclopes race does not harvest it the way that men do; they instead let it grow wild. “They have no meeting place for council, no laws either, / no, up on the mountain peaks they live in arching caverns — / each a law to himself, ruling his wives and children, / not a care in the world for any neighbor” (Fagles 140).
Polyphemus is described as a “native,” a “savage,” a “monster” who is “deaf to justice, blind to law,” a “ruthless brute,” and a “barbarian.” Essentially, Odysseus is monstericizing Polyphemus based on his perception of what a civilized individual is.
Odysseus also refers to the Cyclops as the men’s “host.” This reflects the Grecian practice of xenia that we talked about earlier. A lot of the reasoning behind Odysseus’ “correct” opinion of Polyphemus being barbaric is based on his lack of xenia practice (granted, the guy also devoured multiple crewmen…but, I mean, that’s what his culture does, and they are on his land. Should Odysseus be enforcing his cultural practices on him?).
The Apartheid Era:
Obviously, Odysseus is not the only one who has ever used his ethnocentrism to project an “other” as a monster. With some gentle prodding, the savagery assigned to Polyphemus can be brought back to resemble the Apartheid era in South Africa — how the predominantly black nation was segregated and faced heavy acts of violence by the mostly white government officials and police forces in 1948, driving a large wedge between the black and white communities.
Before continuing, it might be a good idea for us to look at the two roles that blacks and whites of the Apartheid era play: here we have the role of a disgusting monster with no idea how to act civilized, and the other is a cyclops.
Here, unfortunately, the depiction of a monster has to go to Polyphemus and the blacks of South Africa, as the treatment of the marginally large population of black Africans was nothing less than hostile. We will now be discussing how they were dehumanized and how it relates to our Cyclops friend.
Under the Land Act of 1913, black Africans were no longer able to own the land that they had rightfully claimed, and their land was sold incredibly cheap to the white landowners of South Africa. Black Africans were forced to live on reserves and could not even work as sharecroppers as they had done before. Synonymously, this resembles Odysseus when he began to complain about the land that belonged to Polyphemus and how they have so much land that could be used more “efficiently” by someone else.
After being captured by Polyphemus and watching him kill a bunch of his dudes for entering his home and taking a large number of his food and materials, Odysseus and his surviving crew took it upon themselves to disarm their immediate threat. In contrast, during Apartheid, the police and special forces were tasked with disarming the South African people because there was probable cause they might be dangerous.
So, how did government forces disarm them, exactly? Under the General Laws Amendment Act of 1964, The Special Branch of South Africa (AKA Security Police, the most vanilla name ever created for a police unit) were given special privilege to incarcerate anyone they believed to be dangerous without being brought to trial. Physical assault was common, and they would also undergo mental tortures and were often made to stand on pieces of wood with nails sticking out of them, forcing detainees to stand on their toes. None of the people arrested under the General Laws Act were publicly brought forward, and were often killed by the Security Police and given false obituaries in the papers.
Finally, it was not until after Polyphemus confronted Odysseus and his crew who demanded even more from him that he struck. Not until after being insulted in his home, having his food and other luxuries taken from him, and requested by Odysseus to be more welcoming of him and his men did the giant Cyclops strike, finally bringing out the savage that Odysseus saw inside of him. If we are to continue with the false illusion of a monstericized African people, in a similar way after black Africans were stripped of their homes, after they were forced out of their jobs to provide for their families, and after peaceful protests that concluded with police brutality, the people of South Africa began retaliating with violence, bringing out the savages that the mostly white government of the nation saw inside of them.
Ethnocentric Tendencies
So what is the point of all this? Good question, reader. The point we are trying to make here is that… this phenomena is not new. Xenophobia has flourished throughout history, and we continue to see its horrifying effects today. Differing social norms and views of reality are a common basis of discrimination, which history remembers. Just as with the monsterization of the Cyclopes, Africans, Muslims, immigrants, and the innumerable other marginalized members of the Subaltern, history will remember them.
