I Problems and Methods
A. differences bt athenian and modern democracies
1. mods
a. distg bt state, citizenry and gov
b. elite, sometimes bureaucratic, sometimes elected, run biz of dem gov [delegation fo cit power]
c. judiciary distg from leg and executive
d. official roles/duties clearly described and circumsribed; "branches" of government clearly circumscribed, defined
e. citizenry includes women; no slaves ­ q re status of aliens. (political and whole society comparable)
2. Athenians limited cit rts to free born male
B.  -> class consciencessness, incentive to cooperate; use of alterity to mask distinctions w/in citizenry]; i.e., rich metic is less than poor citizen -> poor citizens don’t press for more economic equality
b.  nb: universal suffrage is not a common characteristic of democriacies
B. Athenian political org
B. no entrenched governing elite (bureaucratic or representative)
C. roles/duties of pol leaders not clearly defined
D. no clear distg bt state, people and gov [i.e. more egalitarian in gov organization]
B.  Democratic Athens
B. Athenian demo values
B. innate widom and binding nature of group decisions,
C. freedom of cit subject to group interets
D. equality of all cits in political sphere
E. no inalienable negative rights of modern liberalism
F. no correlation bt econ and pol equality
C. Elites & Masses
B. kinds of elites
C. political/governing elites
D. cultural elites
B. education
B. wealth
C. status
E. masses: members of society who are not members of an elite
F. Athens refused to grant formal pol privileges to econ/ cultural elite
aristocracy had special privileges only re relig
i. age requirements for jury/magistrates -> pol privileges by generation
1. egalitarian ideology discouraged public display
G. not easy to dist bt governing elite and demos, although elites took active role in public affairs and no rhetors were poor.
i. no control of bureaucratic infrastructure
ii.no group id vs masses
2. no method to control decision making and state policy
H. what about iron law of oligarchy?
1. Robert Michels: oligarchy evolves I nevery human org which strives for the attainment of definite ends; dmocracy cannot exist w/o org; bureacratic org becomes effective conservative oligarchy
i) no way for large collectivity to make decisions and resolve disputes
j) -> even in democracy a ruling elite is necessary
2. doesn’t work for Athens [structural role of demagogues in Ath democracy ­ the demogogues perform the leadership function; but never form id as leadership elite;]
3. but still have to ask the q how and why did Athenian demos come to accept political leadership of elites who do not hide their elite status
4. i.e., hw to reconcile egalitarian ideology with elite leadership
D. democratic stability
I) fact ­ several hundred years of consciously pursued successful democracy: why?
i. how did they deal w/ existing inequalties; esp economic [why did the poor tolerate the functional advantages and social privileges of the elite; why did the elite not demand more power?]
ii. how did direct deomcracy function w/o intstitutionalized ledership
J) answer requires understanding the nature of the power of the demos [democracy]
K) traditional economic answers
i) demos didn’t have power: Pericles and generals did [Pearson]; Council did [de Laix]  (i.e., deny democracy existed)
ii.  Assembly lost sovereignty to courts [Hanson] (constitutional/legal)
iii. Athenian empire (and $) -> stability for demoracy [Finley]
D. Slavery -> stability ($) for demoracy [Jameson/Ste. Croix]
E. Middle-Class presence in all important gov bodies -> moderation
L) traditional anthro answers
i. Finley: face to face model
ii. corporate and individual genius ("The Athenian Miracle")
M) Ober’s answer
i. the mediating and integrative power of communction in a language whose vocabulary was developed and deployed in public arenas [the discourse of Athenian democrcy]
ii. primary factor in promotion/maintenance of social harmony,
iii. made direct democractic deciison making possible
E. Rhetoric
i) orators were members of the elite who wrote speeches for oral delivery to mass audience -> we see elite accomodating selves to ideology of masses
j) in speeches the orators used symbols that derived from/referred to common ideological frame of reference of his listeners -> topoi (standardized metaphors that rehearse ideological content
k) speeches of elite performed a social function that transcended desire of any speaker to win his case: legal/political rhetoric was a vehicle for on going communication bt mass and elite
l) => rhetoric not only reveals social/ol reality; but produces a response at the level of image/symbol
II. Ober’ Constitutional history of Athens
A. Generally
2) 6th-5th centuries: Athenians seeking balance bt positions of mass & elite
3) 4th century: balance struck
B.chron
1. pre-Solonian: Eupatridai dominated major magistracies -> nobility controlled gov, economy and religion [with rivalry from those who had money but not birth]
2. Solonian:
i. key reforms are rescue of debt bondsmen (made clear distinction bt cit & slave) and opening of pol offices
ii. via change in membership of ruling elite and soc/pol rel of mass & elite  [he loosened ties of birth at top of social ladder: opened magistracies; and strenghthened them at botttom: debt condsmen]
3. Pisistratis:
i. tyranny via intra-elite rivalries (i.e., not via mass & elite conflict)
ii. strenthed ideological identification of citizenry w/ Athenian state (to support his position as head of it ­ mass awe for state replaces mass awe for elite as tyrant humiliates rival, defeated elites). [=> not just protection from slavery but something postiive and politically meaningful; vis vis other interest groups w/in state and other states]
4. Cleisthenes:
i.ordinary Athenians act together in support of Cleisthenes vs Isagoras [Spartan stooge]
ii. reforms emph’d bonds bt cits and permitted widespread cit participation in affairs of state
a) ostracism
a) expelled from community anyone who treatened national consensus by acting in ways or advocating views that threateed the values of a political society
b) demonstrated binding nature of demo decisions on individ
c) -> no member of elite was safe from the ire of the masses
b) isonomia
1) bonds bt cits based on assumption of pol equality
1. nb: Cleisthenes probably didn’t promote isegoria ­ contra consenesual spriti of his reforms; open airing of pol disputes puts consensus at risk
2. limits awe/deference trad elites get because they like everyone have to get sons recognized as cits by community
5. Fifth Century
a) dismantlement of any institutional remnants of elite political privilege
a) developed ways to operate on basis of majoritarian and communitarian principles
b) democracy and equality bc central organizing principals of social and pol order
b) isegoria
1. Athenian’s thought it was the cornerstone of their democracy
2. meant mass expectation of assembly was one from simply saying yes or no to actively judgeing merits of competing arguments
3. transforms awe for magisrate as member of elite into awe for office
c) pay for jury service
1. all cits cd sit as jurors
2. -> masses now judges of all cit behavior;
3. -> elite’s life subject to scrutiny by those who were his economic, social and educational inferiors according to their standards

6. Pericles
1) Elite Leadership of Democratic Reforms
a) general points
not merely didn’t they block, they actual led
i/ aristo ethos -> competition
ii/ elites use mass ambitions as weapon against each other [-> increasing dem reforms in order to support of masses]
iii/ -> elite competition led to loss of control of pol institutions
=> elites had to become overt politicians and suppress "symbolic code" of elite identity
2) factors in success
a) early enough to still have "nondecision power" ­ ability to defer decisions by Assembly
b) good at finances
c) great military strategist
d) great rhetorician
e) effective use of ostracism
3) ideology
a. encouraged Aths to id cit interests w/ state
b. appears to have dropped elite lifestyle, but maintained elite contacts
c. fostered and acknowledge mass control over public behavior
7. Post Periclean leadership
a. Pericles’ domination -> political and military leadership split
1) Nature of warfare changed (more time father away; strategically more complicated)
2) -> generals stop being politicians
3) -> politicians lack power base that generals have
i) -> politicians increasingly appeal to/identify w/ demos
ii) nb: oligarch coups fail -> aristocracy can’t offer a stable alternative to demoscracy
8. Fourth Century
a. q is legal significance of reforms to law making process at very end of 5th and beginning of 4th century ­ does demos lose its sovereignty to "the law" or is it simply a procedural reform
b. Ober -> no: no meaningful "moderation" of political power of mass or elite; Athenians thought of 4th century assembly as "most radical" of Athenian constitutional establishments
c. Note: effect of war and coups had been loss of "consensus" side of democracy; loss of financial basis of democracy; q re quality of leadership in democracy
1) none of the con changes of 4th century (e.g. nomothetai) contributed substantively to maintenance of social stability or effective leadership
2) none of the changes effected the "sociology of Ath politics
3) none of the changes effected the demo principals of the Ath politeieia

III Public Speakers and Mass Audiences
A. Mass Communication
1. key to soc/pol stability in demo Ath is found in communication bt elites & methods
2. need to id who was sending/receiving messages, what form the messages took and in what contexts communication took place
B. Classes of Public Speakers: Rhetores and Idiotai
1. disting bt priv individs using courts for resolution of disputes [cf Amer civil litig]
2. public speakers whose Assembly and law court speechs must be read in larger context
a. rhetor is term for expert orator/politician ­ value neutral
b. other terms often simply desriptive, speakers, who is is inovled in politics
c. language reveals that ability in public speaking was critical to job [cf american terms which -> manegerial/behind scenes skills more important; chair, governor, director
3. rheotres formed recognizable set of men
4. Legal standing of rhetores and Idiotai
a. not legally defined group; i.e., have to look at behavior to figure out who they are/what they do
b. no special legal privileges, but someone who acted as orator subject to legal sanctions (law suits, scrutinies)
c. There was no leg diff bt expert pol and ordinary cit, except that former was more likely to engage in activities that made him liable to legal action
d. But there was certainly a perceived diff bt the ordineary cit and the expert speaker.  Functional diff bt rhetor and idiotes was a consequence of increased risk expert face
C. Elite status of public speaker
1. private law suit was most common forum for idiotes to speak;
a. our sources privilege elite idiotes
b. private speeches mostly written by logographers
2. public suits and assembly speeches are forum for rhetores ­ all elite
a. of education, training and ability [e.g. Isocrates couldn’t pursue a political career bc he couldn’t project]
b. of wealth
D. Politics and Political Organization
1. political influence of rhetor was not dependent upon local constituencies, elective offices, or constitutionally granted powers
2. rhetores and strategoi
a. discourse characterizes orators and generals as performing parallel functions and as constituting the set of the politically powerful
b. generals needed orators to survive impeachment trials to which they were subject and to get funding for army
c. orators needed generals to support the military campaigns that subtended long range foreign policy plans; to serve as char Ws at pol trials
d. orators also worked informally with other orators
e. cooperation was balanced by intesne competition with each other
3. Political Groups vs Individual Leadership
a. cooperative rels bt orators & gen not political parties
b. political groups were fluid, shifting alliances based on family, rels, friendship, shared pol ideals and ambitions
c. no organized or consistent popular constituencies for Ath pols (cf. Democrats and "labor")
i) in fact, orators never claimed they were part of a larger political group; and
ii) accusation that opponent was part of a group was discrediting [-> oligarchy]
d. perception that rhetor was a "leader" a function of success in getting proposals passed ­ you were only as good as your last game
e. when an orator addressed demos (in Assembly or court) he stood alone beffore the people
f. most important pol rel in Athens bt speakers and demos, not between speakers and speakers/generals
i) aristo critics of democracy hated the primacy of this rel;
ii) accused demagogues of pandering to demos
g. successful orator was one who dc consistently and seamlessly combine ideas drawn from mass ideology to present a workable policy, a defense of it, or an attack on a policy of an opponent.
4. Politicians and Role differentiation
a. modern societies characterized by high degree of role differentiation (by and large we judge politicians in the public role differently than in their private life ­ do we?)
b. "simple" societies don’t role differentiate: pols judged by ordinary social values
c. Athens not simple, but pre-modern; some role differentiation (cd distinguish bt idiotes and rhetores) but very little interest in separating the "character question" from the "policy question"
d. Demos’ decisions were jments on rhetor’s character at least in part
E. Public Forums of Debate and Communication
1. Demography and Subsistence
a. forums of communication were assemblies, courts, council, agoara, theater
b. leisure class only 5-10% of population [those who didn’t have to work]
c. Assembly
1. attendees repped 20-40% total cit pop
2. seating was egalitarian
3. attendees were representative; voted as he saw best, in ownn interests
d. Boule and Areopagus
1. nb. No deliberative speeches b4 council preserved
2. Council representative of wealth distrib of larger pop
e. Dikasteria
1. privileged older cits
2. panels included poor; probably rep of social composition
f. Rumor
1. effective means of communication in Ath soc
2. shaped community by false assumption that it was fact to face
3. -> direct & causal rel bt Ath public opinion and state policy and leg decisions on fundamental qs
4. => speaker had to use ideology to convince audience that a vote for him was consistent w/ their values