Have the groans subsided yet? One hopes to be forgiven, eventually. The university at which I work requires a core history/political studies course of all freshmen, the faculty for which are provided by the history and political science departments. As one might imagine, the approaches taken vary quite a bit by discipline, but they also vary by faculty member as well. I take the subtitle of the course, The Idea of Democracy quite literally, and teach as best I can the history and evolution of the idea itself. Working with freshmen as I do, I begin by thinking about definitions as intellectual tools; what they are, and how they work to clarify discourse. Definitions establish boundaries. Students get this idea when I use the example of muscle definition. The male students in the best shape have "six packs". Those who have consumed too many six packs have "barrels" instead. I’m working my way down from a barrel to something more defined as I keep shedding pounds to keep my doctor’s nagging to a minimum.

One of the things I try to impress upon my students is that there are legitimately different kinds of definitions, and it becomes important to recognize those differences as one applies the definitions to establish the boundaries between things and determine whether a specific instance "fits" within the general class. For example, some definitions are descriptive. If X looks or acts like this then it belongs to a class of like objects. Others are procedural: If this, that, and the other thing happen, and happen in the proper order, then the object belongs with other objects sharing the same things in the same sequence. Finally, some definitions are causal and achievement/outcomes driven. If X exhibits certain ends, the achievement of those ends justifies inclusion of the object within a named class of objects.

Why Euripides? Because in the play, The Suppliants, he creates a dialog between two men, the subject of which is the nature and value of Democracy. On the one hand, we have the hero, Theseus, and on the other, a Herald (ambassador) from Thebes. Theseus defends Democracy. The Herald attacks it. One of my objectives is to help the students recognize that the two speak from different defining contexts, which means that they talk past each other rather than to each other.

Theseus uses a descriptive process–signposts, which if observed, indicate that the culture is, indeed, a Democracy. Among these...

• This city is not ruled by one man, but is free.
• Our people rule themselves, taking office in succession year after year.
• The wealthy get no preference or special privileges: the poor share in government equally.
• Rich and poor alike have equal justice. If the rich reviles the poor, the poor can respond using the same words, and if the weaker has the better argument on his side he will win over the stronger because he has justice on his side.
• Freedom can be recognized this way: anyone who believes he has good advice can choose to give it, and gain public fame. Anyone who prefers to remain silent can do so.

The Herald responds with a series of criticisms which speak by implication to procedures under which Democracy operates. One has to do a bit of reading between the lines, but the underlying assumptions about the unfitness of the common people to rule themselves points to this.

• My city, Thebes, is ruled by one man only, not by the mob.
• Nobody there has to flatter and fool the citizens with fancy speeches in order to do what he thinks best.
• Nobody has to put a spin on things.
• Nobody manipulates people, twisting them this way and that for his own advantage.
• Our leader doesn’t have to worry about having his failures exposed by whistle blowers, and face punishment by the same crowd who praised him moments before.
• How shall people govern the state if they cannot form true judgments?
• No, it is time for reflecting and intellectual training, not haste, that leads to a better understanding of civic affairs.
• An ordinary working man, even if he had some education, would not have time or energy after working all day to give his mind to politics.
• The better sort of citizen knows that when a worthless man rises to high office by campaign promises to the ordinary people it is no healthy sign of community well being.

Set out this way, one notices that neither really answers the arguments made by the other. The Theban Herald never critiques the outcomes of Democracy as Theseus posits them. Theseus never refutes the arguments about technical qualifications for creating the just society.

What in the world does a play written over 2000 years ago have to tell us today? Lots, I think. If we frame the definition as does Theseus, we look at the contemporary United States and ask, "Is the United States, functioning as a democracy today?" If not, why not, and what do we do about it? If we frame the discussion as the Theban Messenger does, how do we answer his criticisms of the workings of the political system as he describes them? Which are capable of remedy and which are endemic?

Defining Democracy using a combination of descriptive and outcomes/achievement analysis would seem to be important if we’re going to do more good than harm in our interactions with other nations and cultures. Does it make any sense to define Democracy procedurally in terms of Western style Constitutionalism, voting, and institutionalized bureaucracies if a system based upon kinship alliances, family networks, sheiks, and the like already exists? Or does it make sense to see whether or not that system provides the kind of access about which Theseus writes, and then seek to provide argument and incentives to liberalize that system as necessary? MHO, current experience in Iraq would argue for the latter approach.

Here at home, it seems to me that one could argue that the kind of elitism reflected in current Republican thought and in the NeoCon’s theory of the Unitary Executive is simply what Euripides understood by despotism and the Theban Herald’s defense of it. Euripides would understand the David Broders and Sally Quinns and beltway insiders very well. He’d understand the Roves, too. He’d want us to refute the idea that spin is a necessary adjunct of governing, even if Theseus doesn’t do so, and he’s question whether growing inequality in America allows for Democracy to exist, regardless of the whether the country follows the formulaic rules of procedure, conducting elections, relying on expertise, and laws written by and for "the better sort of citizen".

*The text is my own free paraphrase of

the translation by E. P. Coleridge.

aMike

Reminder.  As I indicated in my first post, if someone would like to contribute thoughts on Education and Democracy under their own name or nom de blog, contact me, include the text, and I'll post it under your by-line.