Elites, Elitism, and Community in the Archaic Polis

John Ma
{"title":"Elites, Elitism, and Community in the Archaic Polis","authors":"John Ma","doi":"10.1017/S2398568218000079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the famously diverse and expressive political cultures of the “Archaic” Greek communities (650 – 450 BCE) in the light of recent work on public goods and publicness, to which the present essay partly responds. This contribution may also be considered as a fragment of the long history of the Greek polis. The distinction between “elitist” or “aristocratic” styles and “middling” or “popular” styles, upon closer examination, turns out to be a set of political play-acting gestures, predicated on different political institutions and notably on access to public goods. The “middling” styles paradoxically reflect restricted political access, while “aristocratic” competition in fact responds to the stress and uncertainties of broad enfranchisement. The whole nexus of issues and gestures surrounding distinction is hence not socially autonomous, but immediately linked to political requirements and institutional pressures. This article thus argues not just for the centrality of public goods to polis formation in early Greece, but also for the centrality of formal access and entitlements to the “public thing”—in other words, for the centrality of the state and its potential development. Putting the “state” back in the early history of the Greek city-state: the exercise has its own risks (notably that of teleology), but it attempts to avoid problems arising in recent histories of the polis, where the state is downplayed or indeed dismissed altogether, and the polis itself reduced to a pure phenomenon of elite capture or elite constitution.","PeriodicalId":86691,"journal":{"name":"Annales Nestle [English ed.]","volume":"12 1","pages":"395 - 418"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annales Nestle [English ed.]","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S2398568218000079","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This article explores the famously diverse and expressive political cultures of the “Archaic” Greek communities (650 – 450 BCE) in the light of recent work on public goods and publicness, to which the present essay partly responds. This contribution may also be considered as a fragment of the long history of the Greek polis. The distinction between “elitist” or “aristocratic” styles and “middling” or “popular” styles, upon closer examination, turns out to be a set of political play-acting gestures, predicated on different political institutions and notably on access to public goods. The “middling” styles paradoxically reflect restricted political access, while “aristocratic” competition in fact responds to the stress and uncertainties of broad enfranchisement. The whole nexus of issues and gestures surrounding distinction is hence not socially autonomous, but immediately linked to political requirements and institutional pressures. This article thus argues not just for the centrality of public goods to polis formation in early Greece, but also for the centrality of formal access and entitlements to the “public thing”—in other words, for the centrality of the state and its potential development. Putting the “state” back in the early history of the Greek city-state: the exercise has its own risks (notably that of teleology), but it attempts to avoid problems arising in recent histories of the polis, where the state is downplayed or indeed dismissed altogether, and the polis itself reduced to a pure phenomenon of elite capture or elite constitution.
古代城邦中的精英、精英主义与社会
本文根据最近关于公共物品和公共性的研究,探讨了“古代”希腊社区(公元前650 - 450年)著名的多样化和富有表现力的政治文化,本文对此做出了部分回应。这一贡献也可以被认为是希腊城邦悠久历史的一部分。“精英主义”或“贵族”风格与“中等”或“大众”风格之间的区别,经过更仔细的研究,原来是一套政治表演姿态,基于不同的政治制度,尤其是对公共产品的获取。“中等”风格矛盾地反映了政治准入的限制,而“贵族”竞争实际上回应了广泛选举权的压力和不确定性。因此,围绕区别的问题和姿态的整个联系不是社会自主的,而是直接与政治要求和制度压力联系在一起。因此,本文不仅论证了公共产品在早期希腊城邦形成中的中心地位,而且论证了“公共事物”的正式获取和权利的中心地位——换句话说,论证了国家及其潜在发展的中心地位。把“国家”放回到希腊城邦的早期历史中:这种做法有其自身的风险(尤其是目的论的风险),但它试图避免在近代城邦历史中出现的问题,在近代城邦历史中,国家被淡化或实际上完全被忽视,城邦本身被简化为精英捕获或精英构成的纯粹现象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信