Deliberative democratic theorists often trace their idea that vigorous democracies rely on open deliberation to ancient Athenian democracy. Furthermore, deliberative theorists claim that equal, ...inclusive, rational, and government responsiveness can reverse trends of political apathy. Although the equal right to speak in the Assembly (isēgoria) was a defining trait of Athenian democracy, we have little evidence for actual ancient deliberative practices. By using the agōnes or formal debates in two of Euripides' political plays-Suppliant Women and Children of Heracles-as a proxy for such interactive citizen debate, this article explores two main questions: first, to what degree does ancient tragedy reflect expectations of deliberative democracy?; and second, what lessons can be drawn from these dramatized speeches for contemporary debates? Importantly, confirming many key expectations of deliberative democratic theory, Euripides' agōnes provide additional support for the critique that successful deliberation is not solely rational but requires emotional saliency relevant to the context of the debate. Thus, Euripides' dramatizations imply that positive deliberation is not simply a matter of increasing communicative opportunities but requires a more robust civic education that includes psychological and philosophical training.
The expression “poiesis of democracy” in the title refers to its central concern: to understand “democracy” not as a univocal and absolute concept, but as a result of historical permanencies and ...transformations inherent of both its Greek formulation and its contemporary uses, that is, as a problem whose answers derive from permanently meditated and mediated negotiation. Thus, the main problem dealt with in the volume is the analysis — preferably interdisciplinary and open to multiple theoretical methodological approaches — of the construction of the concept of Athenian democracy as a problematic political and cultural arena (and not as a goal, structure or program), perceptible in different authors and discourses of the classical period, as well as reflections that supplemented them throughout the fifth and fourth centuries BC.
Scholars have generally held that Xenophon the Athenian favoured oligarchic constitutions and was therefore opposed to the Athenian democracy. Yet Xenophon's writings often seem to display remarkable ...sympathy for the democracy, and the issue is complicated by the difficulty of
assigning any ancient author to a definite place on the political spectrum. Using the categories that M. Walzer employs to analyse modern social critics, this study finds that although Xenophon can take an external/rejectionist approach to the criticism of the Athenian democracy, he more commonly
takes an internal/immanent stance. Moreover, his works sometimes seem to express a sympathy for the democracy that extends beyond a patriotic desire for the betterment of his native city regardless of constitution to a solidarity with the foundational ideology of the democratic regime. This
suggests, among other things, that the ideological hegemony of the people over the traditional aristocracy in fourth-century Athens was wider than is usually thought; it is reflected not only in the speeches of the active politicians, the orators, who needed the approval of the masses to win
honour in the city, but also in the writings of a politically uninvolved philosopher, who had no clear, practical motivation for supporting democratic ideology.
Introduction Ober, Josiah
Ancient Greek History and Contemporary Social Science,
09/2018
Book Chapter
The introduction to the volume outlines the approaches represented in the following chapters, discusses their importance and identifies running themes and the avenues of research that they open, and ...sets them into the wider framework of possible forms of fruitful engagement between ancient Greek history and the social sciences. It explores the methodologies employed in recent work, in particular by the author (Josiah Ober), to show that engagement with the social sciences is not just about using quantified data to test explanatory hypotheses. The chapter is also, explicitly, written for two audiences: on the one hand it strives to describe the advantages that thoughtful engagement with the social sciences can bring to the ancient historian; on the other hand, it addresses social scientists and makes the case for the significance of the ancient world (and of the ancient Greek polis in particular) as the source of privileged and (relatively speaking) abundantly documented case studies for testing modern theories.
In this paper I examine two theories of democracy that can be found in contemporary French philosophy. Both Cornelius Castoriadis and Jacques Rancière offer a critique of modern democracy with the ...purpose of refounding it. The ‘refoundation narratives’ they propose are both based on an account of the origins of democracy in ancient Greece. According to Castoriadis, ancient democracy is grounded in a ‘magma’ of ‘social imaginary significations’ in which ‘autonomy’ is considered the correct response to Being defined as an insurmountable ‘Chaos’. On the contrary, modern democracy defines Being as a determinacy and consequently fails to grasp the notion of autonomy. According to Rancière, the origins of democracy are to be found in the invasion of the public space by ‘those without a part’ who consequently have no title to govern. The problem with the ‘domesticated’ modern democracy is that it denies the existence of Otherness; that is, of non-citizens excluded from the public space. Therefore it appears incapable of letting the ‘dis-agreement’ manifest itself and consequently incapable of transforming the ‘police’ order. After examining the meaning of both theories, I attempt to elucidate the difficulties encountered by each author in the attainment of his goal, which is that of refounding modern democracy.
PDF
