Download Elizabeth Robertson Assign Reflective on Athens

FYS—Debating Democracy
Fall, 2007
Robertson
Paper #4—Reflections on Athenian Democracy: Due Thursday, Oct 24th
Please read Josiah Ober’s essay “Civil War and Political Thought in Classical Greece”
pp. 103-116 in your course packet.
Ober is one of the designers of the Athens game, and the design reflects to some extent,
his point of view that the key to the power of Athenian democracy (and it did survive
defeat in the Peloponnesian war) was to be found in” the mediating and integrative power
of communication between citizens—especially between ordinary and elite citizens—in a
language whose vocabulary consisted of symbols developed and deployed in public
arenas: the peoples’ courts, the Assembly, the theatre, and the agora.”
Ober also addresses the perennial question of how Athenians reconciled the enduring
power of democracy with the influence of political theorists (Plato, Socrates, Xenophon)
who described its defects rather than championed its causes. Again, his contention is that
the practice of democracy—in the Assembly, in the law courts, in the theatre—was its
own best defense—and that issues of free speech and censorship were at the heart of most
debates.
Now that our “game” is over, you can reflect on the Athenian Assembly not simply
narrowly from the point of view of your historical role, but from the standpoint of your
fuller knowledge of what happened then and how we might interpret it now.
For this paper, I would like you to work closely with Ober’s essay. How do you
understand his essential stance on “political thought” in classical Greece? How does
he use Socrates, about Plato, about Xenophon, about Thucydides, etc –sources you
yourself know and have used—to support his argument? How does Ober’s reading
of Athens in 403 BC fit with your own understanding of what happened at that
time, and its significance for democracy?
Because you have “lived through” a certain version of the Athenian Assemblies after the
Peloponnesian War in a particular role, you could be said to have some sympathy with
that perspective, even if, ultimately, it is not the perspective you would take now. In the
course of writing this paper, I would like you to sort through what views you were
compelled to take during the game and discuss the extent to which you still share
those views, the extent to which you would modify them. You are doing this in order
to come to some conclusions about the nature of democracy and how it is formed
and about the nature of historical perspective itself. You are using this shifting and
sorting of your own points of view to come to terms with Ober’s arguments as
presented in his essay. You may or may not agree with Ober. Either way, you will
need to offer concrete evidence for the position you take.
You will need to return to the papers you have already written. You may want to take
portions of those papers and examine them. You will want to work more closely with the
primary sources—especially Plato, and the histories provided in the course packet. Feel
free to use Aristophanes, and also the Apology as well as any other sources you have
come across in your preparation for the game. You are arguing for a position (which you
yourself will define) and you are offering readings of primary texts, including the texts of
your own earlier understandings. Do not hesitate to refer directly to your role, to its
difficulties and complications. It is through a thorough understanding of these that you
have some insight into the direct workings of the Athenian struggle for democracy.
NOTE: There is a sense in which this paper is a “rewriting” of your others—not a direct
“clean up or extension” of an earlier paper—but a re/vision, a “looking again” at things
that you have already worked with, but from a new perspective and with the addition of a
fuller knowledge of events. Here, though, you are working reflectively. The “role” you
occupy will be one that you make clear as you develop your sense of Athenian
Democracy throughout the paper.
NOTE #2: REQUIREMENT:I would like each of you to work with a tutor in the
Writing Workshop at least once on this paper. Take in a draft of the essay, along with the
assignment, and get some specific help from the tutor, a specific reading of your work. Be
sure that the tutor signs and dates the draft so that I know when you went in and whom
you worked with. You may certainly work with Christi, but there are other tutors as well.
You may also consult me IN ADDITION TO a tutor (not instead).
The electronic sign-up for the workshop is: http://turing.cs.drake.edu/wws.html.
The workshop meets in Howard 227 during the day, in Room 23 in Cowles on weekday
evenings, and in Herriott Basement on Sunday evenings. Not fulfilling this expectation
will lower your individual paper grade by one grade. (e.g. a “B” becomes a “C”).
NOTE #3: Please turn in BOTH your rough draft and your final copy on Oct. 24th