Readings and Access Thereto

Via myCourses > course site > PDF Course Readings

DAHL - "Theory of the Democratic Process"
SCHOLTZ - Speech-Act Theory, Dialogical Theory
OBER - Select pages from Mass & Elite "Conclusions: Dialectics and Discourse":
- 295 mid.-306 mid.
- 309 mid.-311 mid.
- 324 top-327 top,
- 332 near top-339

Readings Journal Assignment

I would like you to pick an ANCIENT PASSAGE from Plato's Gorgias and ask yourself:

Do any of the assigned theoretical readings relate to it? If so, how? (Again, I'm not looking for extremely lengthy responses, but some good observations.)

I'd like you, in other words, to start thinking about how we can start theorizing persuasion and / or democracy through these kinds of "lenses" (theoretical frameworks or models). This will form the basis of discussion in class, as well as of the first paper.

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?
- Why?

Readings: Background

Robert Dahl (contemporary American political scientist)
About Andrew Scholtz learn more here
Josiah Ober (contemporary American ancient historian)

I have chosen these three 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, Scholtz)
Theorize-describe ancient Athenian democracy (Ober, though Dahl takes Athenian democracy as a kind of starting point; Scholtz insofar as I address the social dynamics of democratic speech)

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)?

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 democracy, presented 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 clipboard. So, . . .

According to Dahl, would the classical Athenian polity count as real democracy or something else?
Is this or any modern model at all appropriate for Athens? (Dahl also has a supposedly ancient Greek set of criteria; these are not so interesting)
Do Dahl's "criteria for a democratic process" adequately map out an empirical-descriptive (corresponding to something actual, agreed upon, or otherwise practical) model for Athenian or any democracy?
- Does his model go far enough in theorizing the processes-dynamics involved
  - Do we, e.g., need to relate democratic process to sociological-psychological-dialogical-rhetorical processes?

Scholtz

This reading have to do with the fact that public speech was the medium through which ancient Athenian democracy was done. It has especially to do with the fact that Athenian democracy was direct democracy (voting citizens were legislators), and that Athenian democratic speech was a genuine back-and-forth (citizen legislators, even if they did not address the crowd, registered approval/disapproval/etc. in a variety of audible and visible ways) involving the creation of community as well as the sharing of information. So under the ancient Athenian democracy, speech was how things got done. But speech itself was — and still is — a thing you do. As to that, the reading explores:

Speech acts, what they are and what they accomplish (above all, they alter social reality).
How the back-and-forth of speech creates community.
Why and how that relates to Athenian democracy and therefore to our course.

Ober

It will help to have read the following distillation of Ober's basic thesis (from his "Preface," 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."

It will also help to have a sense of what is discussed in the pages preceding the "Conclusions" to his book, that is, the part you'll be reading. In outline form, that includes . . .

"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

Additional key concepts/terms for Ober:

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. "Consensus," an idea that in ways contradicts the debate implied by isegoria as an ideal
logogapher. 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 a use of 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"

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

[top]