Political Dissent in Democratic Athens : Intellectual Critics of Popular Rule

How and why did the Western tradition of political theorizing arise in Athens during the late fifth and fourth centuries B.C.? By interweaving intellectual history with political philosophy and literary analysis, Josiah Ober argues that the tradition originated in a high-stakes debate about democracy. Since elite Greek intellectuals tended to assume that ordinary men were incapable of ruling themselves, the longevity and resilience of Athenian popular rule presented a problem: how to explain the apparent success of a regime "irrationally" based on the inherent wisdom and practical efficacy of decisions made by non-elite citizens? The problem became acute after two oligarchic __coups d' tat__ in the late fifth century B.C. The generosity and statesmanship that democrats showed after regaining political power contrasted starkly with the oligarchs' violence and corruption. Since it was no longer self-evident that "better men" meant "better government," critics of democracy sought new arguments to explain the relationship among politics, ethics, and morality. Ober offers fresh readings of the political works of Thucydides, Plato, and Aristotle, among others, by placing them in the context of a competitive community of dissident writers. These thinkers struggled against both democratic ideology and intellectual rivals to articulate the best and most influential criticism of popular rule. The competitive Athenian environment stimulated a century of brilliant literary and conceptual innovation. Through Ober's re-creation of an ancient intellectual milieu, early Western political thought emerges not just as a "footnote to Plato," but as a dissident commentary on the first Western democracy. Cover 1 Title 4 Copyright 5 Dedication 6 CONTENTS 10 PREFACE 14 ABBREVIATIONS 16 INTRODUCTION Why Dissent? Why Athens? 20 CHAPTER 1: The Problem of Dissent: Criticism as Contest 31 A. Beginning at a Dead End: Ps.-Xenophon Political Regime of the Athenians 31 1. Democracy as Demotic Self-Interest 33 2. Public Pleasures and Private Perversity 37 3. What Is to Be Done? Ps.-Xenophon’s aporia 40 B. Dissident Texts and Their Democratic Contexts 44 1. Critical versus Democratic Discourse 45 2. Democratic Knowledge 50 3. J. L. Austin and Performative Political Speech 53 4. Why Democracy Begets Dissent 56 C. The Company of Athenian Critics 58 1. A Competitive Community of Interpretation 60 2. Immanent versus Rejectionist Critics? 65 CHAPTER 2: Public Speech and Brute Fact: Thucydides 69 A. Subject and Author 69 1. Historical Knowledge: erga versus logoi 70 2. Three Models of State Power: The “Archaeology” 80 3. Human Nature: Individual and Collective Interests 84 4. Stasis at Epidamnus 87 B. Justice and Interest I: The Corcyra/Corinth Debate 89 C. Leadership in Democratic Athens 96 1. Themistocles and the Value of Foresight 96 2. Pericles’ First Assembly Speech 98 3. The Fragility of Greatness: Funeral Oration of Pericles 100 4. The Last Days of Pericles 106 D. Justice and Interest II: The Mytilenean Debate 111 E. Disastrous Consensus: The Sicilian Debate 121 1. Speeches of Nicias and Alcibiades 124 2. Aftermath and Assessment 130 CHAPTER 3: Essence and Enactment: Aristophanes Ecclesiazusae 139 A. Comic Theater as Political Criticism 139 1. The Comic Poet and His Critical Genre 140 2. A Retreat from Politics? 143 B. Plot and Structure 145 C. Persuasion and Enactment 151 1. Nature versus Political Culture 152 2. Persuasion versus Perception 157 3. Violence and the Law 159 4. Nomos and ps ̄ephisma: Old and New 162 D. Equality and Exclusivity 164 CHAPTER 4: Justice, Knowledge, Power: Plato Apology, Crito, Gorgias, Republic 173 A. Plato and Socrates in Athens 173 1. Modern Contextualist Readings 173 2. Toward Political Philosophy: The Seventh Letter 179 B. Gadfly Ethics 182 1. Doing Good: Apology 183 2. Not Doing Harm: Crito 196 3. A Socratic Code of Ethical Criticism 201 C. In Dubious Battle: Gorgias 207 1. Gorgias versus Apology and Crito 208 2. Citizen Socrates 210 3. Callicles and Erotic Proportions 214 4. Socrates’ Political technē 223 D. A Polis Founded in Speech: Republic 231 1. Setting the Stage 232 2. Founding “Logopolis” 235 3. Obedience Training: The Education of the Guards 240 4. From logos to ergon: Philosopher-Rulers 249 5. Republic versus Apology and Crito 257 CHAPTER 5: Eloquence, Leadership, Memory: Isocrates Antidosis and Areopagiticus 265 A. A Rhetorician among the Critics 265 B. Isocrates’ Verbal Monument to Himself: Antidosis 273 1. A Novel Oration and Its Imagined Audience 274 2. Isocrates’ Mimesis of Socrates 277 3. Great Men in the Democratic Polis 281 4. Timotheus and the Impossible Priority of praxis 285 5. The Corruption of Language 290 C. Restoring the politeia: Areopagiticus 294 1. Dēmokratia Redefined 295 2. Dodging the Oligarchic Tarbrush 297 3. Hierarchy, Patronage, and Oversight 299 D. The Rhetorician and the Democracy 303 CHAPTER 6: Political Animals, Actual Citizens, and the Best Possible Polis: Aristotle Politics 307 A. Aristotle in and out of Athens 307 1. The Politics in Its Fourth-Century Context 308 2. Final Democracy 310 B. The Natural Polis: Political Animals and Others 312 1. Problems of Exclusion 318 2. Regimes and Citizens 327 C. Who Should Rule the Polis? 333 1. Oligarchy versus Democracy (Politics 3.8–10) 333 2. Aristocracy versus Democracy (Politics 3.11–13) 336 3. Democracy/Aristocracy versus Monarchy (Politics 3.15) 341 D. Political Sociology and Its Limits 345 1. Economic Class as an Analytic Category 347 2. Types of Democracy 349 E. The Best Possible Polis 356 1. Potential Citizens 4 Actual Citizens 357 2. National Character and the Role of Kingship 359 3. Slave Laborers and the Economics of eudaimonia 361 4. The Macedonian Solution 364 CHAPTER 7: The Dialectics of Dissent: Criticism as Dialogue 369 A. An Arbitrator among the Critics: Ps.-Aristotle Political Regime of the Athenians 369 1. Correct and Final Democracy? 369 2. Seizing the Middle Ground 373 3. The Duty of the Good Citizen 377 B. Theophrastus’ “Oligarchic Man” and the Paradox of Intellectualism 381 C. The Power of Ideas? Toward a Critical Democratic Discourse 386 BIBLIOGRAPHY 392 INDEX LOCORUM 420 GENERAL INDEX 425

how And Why Did The Western Tradition Of Political Theorizing Arise In Athens During The Late Fifth And Fourth Centuries B.c.? By Interweaving Intellectual History With Political Philosophy And Literary Analysis, Josiah Ober Argues That The Tradition Originated In A High-stakes Debate About Democracy. Since Elite Greek Intellectuals Tended To Assume That Ordinary Men Were Incapable Of Ruling Themselves, The Longevity And Resilience Of Athenian Popular Rule Presented A Problem: How To Explain The Apparent Success Of A Regime Irrationally Based On The Inherent Wisdom And Practical Efficacy Of Decisions Made By Non-elite Citizens? The Problem Became Acute After Two Oligarchic Coups D' Tat In The Late Fifth Century B.c. The Generosity And Statesmanship That Democrats Showed After Regaining Political Power Contrasted Starkly With The Oligarchs' Violence And Corruption. Since It Was No Longer Self-evident That Better Men Meant Better Government, Critics Of Democracy Sought New Arguments To Explain The Relationship Among Politics, Ethics, And Morality.ober Offers Fresh Readings Of The Political Works Of Thucydides, Plato, And Aristotle, Among Others, By Placing Them In The Context Of A Competitive Community Of Dissident Writers. These Thinkers Struggled Against Both Democratic Ideology And Intellectual Rivals To Articulate The Best And Most Influential Criticism Of Popular Rule. The Competitive Athenian Environment Stimulated A Century Of Brilliant Literary And Conceptual Innovation. Through Ober's Re-creation Of An Ancient Intellectual Milieu, Early Western Political Thought Emerges Not Just As A Footnote To Plato, But As A Dissident Commentary On The First Western Democracy.

robert W. Wallace - The Annals Of The American Academy Of Political And Social Sciences

this Book Is First-rate: Intelligent, Judicious, Original, A Seamless Performance, And On A Fundamental Topic. . . . [a] Great Achievement.

How and why did the Western tradition of political theorizing arise in Athens during the late fifth and fourth centuries B.C.? By interweaving intellectual history with political philosophy and literary analysis, Josiah Ober argues that the tradition originated in a high-stakes debate about democracy. Since elite Greek intellectuals tended to assume that ordinary men were incapable of ruling themselves, the longevity and resilience of Athenian popular rule presented a problem: how to explain the apparent success of a regime "irrationally" based on the inherent wisdom and practical efficacy of decisions made by non-elite citizens? The problem became acute after two oligarchic coups d' tat in the late fifth century B. C. The generosity and statesmanship that democrats showed after regaining political power contrasted starkly with the oligarchs' violence and corruption. Since it was no longer self-evident that "better men" meant "better government," critics of democracy sought new arguments to explain the relationship among politics, ethics, and morality.Ober offers fresh readings of the political works of Thucydides, Plato, and Aristotle, among others, by placing them in the context of a competitive community of dissident writers. These thinkers struggled against both democratic ideology and intellectual rivals to articulate the best and most influential criticism of popular rule. The competitive Athenian environment stimulated a century of brilliant literary and conceptual innovation. Through Ober's re-creation of an ancient intellectual milieu, early Western political thought emerges not just as a "footnote to Plato," but as a dissident commentary on the first Western democracy. How and why did the Western tradition of political theorizing arise in Athens during the late fifth and fourth centuries B.C.? By interweaving intellectual history with political philosophy and literary analysis, Josiah Ober argues that the tradition originated in a high-stakes debate about democracy. Since elite Greek intellectuals tended to assume that ordinary men were incapable of ruling themselves, the longevity and resilience of Athenian popular rule presented a problem: how to explain the apparent success of a regime "irrationally" based on the inherent wisdom and practical efficacy of decisions made by non-elite citizens? The problem became acute after two oligarchic coups d'etat in the late fifth century B.C. The generosity and statesmanship that democrats showed after regaining political power contrasted starkly with the oligarchs' violence and corruption. Since it was no longer self-evident that "better men" meant "better government," critics of democracy sought new arguments to explain the relationship among politics, ethics, and morality. Ober offers fresh readings of the political works of Thucydides, Plato, and Aristotle, among others, by placing them in the context of a competitive community of dissident writers. These thinkers struggled against both democratic ideology and intellectual rivals to articulate the best and most influential criticism of popular rule. Cover; Title; Copyright; Dedication; CONTENTS; PREFACE; ABBREVIATIONS; INTRODUCTION Why Dissent? Why Athens?; CHAPTER 1: The Problem of Dissent: Criticism as Contest; A. Beginning at a Dead End: Ps.-Xenophon Political Regime of the Athenians; 1. Democracy as Demotic Self-Interest; 2. Public Pleasures and Private Perversity; 3. What Is to Be Done? Ps.-Xenophon's aporia; B. Dissident Texts and Their Democratic Contexts; 1. Critical versus Democratic Discourse; 2. Democratic Knowledge; 3. J.L. Austin and Performative Political Speech; 4. Why Democracy Begets Dissent.;How and why did the Western tradition of political theorizing arise in Athens during the late fifth and fourth centuries B.C.? By interweaving intellectual history with political philosophy and literary analysis, Josiah Ober argues that the tradition originated in a high-stakes debate about democracy. Since elite Greek intellectuals tended to assume that ordinary men were incapable of ruling themselves, the longevity and resilience of Athenian popular rule presented a problem: how to explain the apparent success of a regime ""irrationally"" based on the inherent wisdom and practical efficac. And as for the fact that the Athenians have chosen the kind of political regime (politeia) that they have, I do not speak well of them(ouk epaino) on that account inasmuch as in making their choice they have chosen to have lowly scoundrels (poneroi) fare better than the excellent elite (chrestoi). Josiah Ober. 'index Locorum': P. [403]-407; 'general Index': P. [409]-417. Includes Footnotes And Bibliographical References (p. [375]-401).