Modern Theory 1

Note. . .

This study guide ends wth "optional reading" perhaps best used for reference when you come across something that absolutely requires explanation. You can also consult the Terms page for help. If all else fails, bring your questions to class!

(There's also a guide to abbreviations at the bottom of the page.)

SWA 3 Prompt

I would like you to pick a passage — long enough to make sense as a quotation and be emblematic of an idea, but not too long — from Plato's Gorgias and ask yourself:

Do either of the readings assigned for today relate to that passage from Plato? How?

Please copy and paste the quotation, or part of it, with the number indicating its position in the text (for instance, [449d]). At least provide the number; I need to know where to find it. A long copy-and-paste won't, though, count towards minimum length, but neither will it count against maximum length.

Purpose. I'd like you to start thinking about how we can theorize issues of persuasion and leadership through these kinds of "lenses," that is, theoretical frameworks or models — ways of looking at things to shed light on them. But I'd also like you to start small. Here, you'll be targeting just a single passage from one reading. It'll also get you used to documenting your arguments and citing evidence.

Readings and Access (requires BU Libraries login)

• DAHL — "Theory of the Democratic Process," chapter 8 (pp. 106-118) of Democracy and its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press (1989)
• OBER — Selections from Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens, Princeton: Princeton University Press (1989):
  • Chapter IV, "Ability and Education: The Power of Persuasion," only pages 156-174
  • Chapter VII, "Conclusions," only pages 332-336 (Ideological Hegemony of the Masses, Athens and the Iron Law of Oligarchy)

Additional Study Questions

• Was the classical Athenian polity (constitution, political system) a . . .
  • Democracy?
  • Something else?
  • Why?
• Democratic process-dialogue at Athens, what . . .
  • Enabled it?
  • Hindered it?
  • How?

Readings: Background

• Robert Dahl (d. 2014, American political scientist)
• Josiah Ober (contemporary American ancient historian)

I have chosen these two writers because of their pertinence to this course. At the most general level, they:

• Theorize-describe democracy (Dahl, Ober)
• Theorize-describe language as a sociological, and therefore potentially political, phenomenon (Ober)
• Theorize-describe ancient Athenian democracy (Ober, though Dahl takes Athenian democracy as a kind of starting point)

These are by no means the only possible modern sources we can use, but I'm hopeful they'll help with a crucial question:

What was the role of persuasion, and discursive interaction more generally, in the classical Athenian democracy during its heyday (ca. 461-ca. 323 BCE)?

That is, they will provide us with analytic models or "lenses" by which to approach the discursive dynamics of Athenian democracy.

Dahl

Dahl is interesting for our purposes because he sets forth, among other things, a set of fairly straight-forward criteria for democracy. One could, if one wished, tick off on a clipboard whether the classical Athenian or any constitution presents characteristics diagnostic of democracy as Dahl views it.

Also interesting for our purposes: To a certain degree, Dahl takes, I think, features of classical Athenian democracy — specifically, its participatory character — as a model upon which to build a better democracy for our future.

Yet despite the virtues of Dahl's criteria, we should still use him only as a starting point and intellectual bouncing-board, not internalize him as our unerring democracy gauge. So, . . .

• Do Dahl's "criteria for a democratic process" map out an empirical-descriptive model for Athenian or any democracy, is it meant to tell us what democracy is?
• Or is his model prescriptive, is it meant to describe what democracy should be?
• Would the classical Athenian polity according to Dahl count as real democracy or as something else?
• Is his or any modern model at all appropriate for ancient Athens?

Ober

Ober, in discussing Athenian democracy, naturally refers to various components of it and, in doing so, uses technical terms that may be unfamiliar to you. You can find explanations of some of them below; also on the Terms page. But our main task is to understand the general outline of his argument.

It will help to have read the following distillation of Ober's basic thesis. First, from the "description":

This book asks an important question often ignored by ancient historians and political scientists alike: Why did Athenian democracy work as well and for as long as it did? Josiah Ober seeks the answer by analyzing the sociology of Athenian politics and the nature of communication between elite and nonelite citizens. After a preliminary survey of the development of the Athenian "constitution," he focuses on the role of political and legal rhetoric. As jurymen and Assemblymen, the citizen masses of Athens retained important powers, and elite Athenian politicians and litigants needed to address these large bodies of ordinary citizens in terms understandable and acceptable to the audience. This book probes the social strategies behind the rhetorical tactics employed by elite speakers. A close reading of the speeches exposes both egalitarian and elitist elements in Athenian popular ideology. Ober demonstrates that the vocabulary of public speech constituted a democratic discourse that allowed the Athenians to resolve contradictions between the ideal of political equality and the reality of social inequality. His radical reevaluation of leadership and political power in classical Athens restores key elements of the social and ideological context of the first western democracy.

Then, from the "Preface," pp. xiii-xiv:

I hope to show that Athenian decision-making processes were coherent without being completely rational, that effective leadership coexisted with genuine popular sovereignty, and that ideological hegemony,* while vitally important, was not a tool of the leisure class. In the end, I hope to demonstrate how a democratic political culture came into being and how it sustained and reproduced itself through the generation of rules (laws and political institutions) and discourse (especially public rhetoric). This demonstration should have some significance for students of political theory.

* By "Ideological Hegemony of the Masses" (a heading in ch 7), Ober basically means the idea that the ordinary citizens of Athens were in charge of the Athenian state. He contends not only that this was an ideology to which most Athenians subscribed (an idea in which most believed); it was actually true in practice.

It will also help to have a sense of what is discussed in the pages preceding the "Conclusions" to his book. . . .

• "Mass" and "elite"
  • The "mass" of the title refers to the mass of ordinary male Athenian citizens, men not rich enough to afford the education or leisure to take on a leadership role at Athens. And yet, the demos, the citizen body composed mostly of just such Athenians, held, at least in theory, sovereign power at Athens. They did, among other things, take a direct role in reviewing and enacting legislation. (Athens was mostly not a representational democracy)
  • "Elite" means the minority of men fulfilling the role of rhetor, literally "speaker," but the term can better be translated as "leader" or "politician," i.e., someone who actually took an active leadership role in the popular assembly of all Athenian citizen-males of voting age (and thus proposed legislation and presented speeches pro and contra proposed legislation)
    • These were typically men of financial means, leisure, education, and often with a special talent (sometimes enhanced by special training) for public speaking
    • What does political equality mean in the face of wealth- and other sorts of inequalities?
    • How is Athenian democracy democratic if it's run by just such an elite?
  • Ober's theory has to do with how public speech could be a way to transact elite leadership yet preserve popular sovereignty as a reality - in a sense, how elite rule at Athens managed not to be oligarchy, power confined to the few

Optional (not required) Reading

Ober: Some Terminology

• demos. The adult male voting citizenry of Athens
• isonomia. Equality before the law. No one is above the law
• isegoria. "Equality of political speech": any member of the Athenian demos could speak before the Athenian assembly
• parrhesia. Frank speech, the freedom to say what's really on your mind - crucial for proper political deliberation
• homonoia. "Same-thinking, "consensus." Homonoia, the coming together of multiple perspectives into a shared vision was the aim of democratic discourse, but it could also represent a curb on democratic discourse — the pressure to conform ideologically
• logógapher. A professional speech writer, someone you hire to compose the speech you'll need to give in a court of law to defend yourself. To hire a logographer was viewed as an elite trait, and in a bad way. Why? Because you're using wealth to gain a non-egalitarian advantage over others
• idiotes (plural idiotai). Citizens supposedly not involved in politics, or not very involved in court cases or in speech writing. Something important at least to seem to be even if it's a fiction
• topos, plural topoi. Topoi were commonly voiced sentiments, ideas, and notions that, in being voiced by a public speaker, were intended to activate particular responses on the part of audiences. They typically consisted of appeals to, or activations of, shared attitudes, values, and so on. For instance, "I'm just an ordinary Athenian too busy with farming to meddle in politics or in legal harassment of others. Contrast my opponent, a veritable busybody." Or, "My opponent claims to love you ("you" = "the Athenian people") but all he loves is himself"
• Cleisthenes, Cleisthenic. Cleisthenes is generally understood to have founded Athenian democracy in 508/7 BCE. Anything that's "Cleisthenic" has to do with Athenian democracy in its infancy
• prostates tou demou means both "leader of the people" and "protector of the people"; it is not an official title. Rather, it's the person who, in the popular assembly, was generally viewed as the sole popular leader
• iron law of oligarchy. The idea, formulated by Robert Michels in 1911, that all democracies are doomed to become oligarchies, "rule by the few." According to Michels, all democracies need an elite leadership class to run things. To run things, that elite needs power. And the people, by ceding power to an elite, eventually have to surrender sovereignty, supreme authority. Therefore, all democracies are doomed to become oligarchies

Athenian Democracy: Background Sketch

Finally, it will help to know certain basic facts about how Athenian government worked.

• Officials, offices. Note that most Athenian officials could be subject to a "scrutiny" (dokimasia) prior to holding office (i.e., to determine fitness for office) and to "audit" (ethunai) after serving (to check if they'd been honest or corrupt - that sort of thing)
  • Archons. Every year, nine archons were chosen BY LOTTERY from the adult-male Athenian citizen population
    • Pretty much any man could find himself one of the nine, principal archons ("officials" or "magistrates"). The yearly, and highly egalitarian, transfer of the archonships was considered by Aristotle to be among the most democratic elements of Athenian democracy (Athenians as "ruling and being ruled in turn")
      • These archons eventually started to receive pay, which democratized the institution yet more
    • BUT, the nine archons exercised VERY LITTLE AUTHORITY under the mature democracy. Rather, they tended to play ceremonial or symbolic functions, often with the aid of advisors to guide them
  • Generals, strategoi (board of 10). The generals were chosen not by lottery, but by ELECTION: ten new ones every year, and for a term of one year only (though you could be re-elected for unlimited consecutive terms). The "Old Oligarch" states that they, unlike the nine archons, typically came from among the elite. They were unpaid. The generals had charge of
    • War. They commanded in war, both on land and on sea. But the demos (the citizens meeting in assembly) functioned as the "commander in chief" - only they could authorize expeditions
    • Politics. In the 400s at Athens, the elected generals of the state were often prominent and influential politicians (e.g., Cimon, Pericles, Cleon). At home, they had charge of recruitment and such
• Legislative functions
  • Boule ("Council") of 500, i.e., 100 men from each of the 10 tribal divisions at Athens. Membership was open to ALL MALE CITIZENS, selection by lottery. They served for one year, and had charge of setting the agenda for the Assembly, of diplomacy, of foreign affairs, etc. They could also try certain types of judicial case. Boule members were PAID under Pericles and later - a distinctly democratic feature of the office
  • Assembly: ekklesia, demos. This consisted of ALL CITIZEN-MALES OF VOTING AGE - i.e., the entire citizenry ("entire" at least in theory) meeting as a political body. The Assembly passed various kinds of measures ("laws" and "decrees") and, at least up until 404 or so, exercised sovereignty at Athens. It was in the Assembly that the rhetores would deliver speeches for or against this or that measure. They would then vote by show of hands
    • It was principally at Assembly meetings that the give-and-take dynamic of Ober's mass-and-elite leadership happened
    • The Assembly members began to be paid starting after 403
    • Any Athenian (male, adult) had the right to speak before the Assembly
    • In practice, however, only that small class of leaders (the rhetores) actually did
• Judicial functions
  • Included the Areopagus Court (for homicide),
  • but most notably consisted of the "People's Courts," the dikasteria or Eliaia. The dikasteria employed large juries chosen by lot, and that sat as representatives of the Athenian people. Each side to a dispute (whether of a public or a private character) delivered one or more speeches; then there would be a vote w/o deliberation, verdict determined by simple majority. Jurors to these trials were paid
    • A variety of cases might be heard, some even brought by non-Athenians. But the courts could also become venues for exacting private revenge (for matters seemingly unrelated to the trial itself), or for attacking political opponents and rivals
    • The courts were also the place where up-and-coming politician-public speakers would "cut their teeth" - get their training and acquire a reputation before the people. Jury trials, like the speaking that went on in Assembly, could be regarded, and treated, as a kind of public entertainment