FREE SPACES: IDENTITY, EXPERIENCE AND DEMOCRACY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS

Abstract

Most modern works onGreek history accept a categorical distinction between different identities and statuses in classical Athens: there was a deep chasm between the male citizens' club and those excluded: foreigners, slaves and women; and the identity of male citizen, slave, foreigner and woman was clear, well defined, easy to establish, immutable and unchallenged.1 Admittedly, this is not simply a modern construction: there are innumerable references in the ancient texts, which present this view of identity and make it a legitimate perspective for modern scholars to adopt. 2 These images created by ancient sources became acceptable to scholars belonging to very different traditions and schools.For those scholars who believe that politics can be best understood through a study of institutions, what matters primarily is the distinction between those who have the right to participate in these institutions and those who do not.3 Accordingly, it was easy to accept the existence of a clear distinction between the citizens and everybody else.For those who accept a structuralist perspective, the polarities between citizen and metic, free and slave, Greek and barbarian, or men and women offered a fruitful way to apply their approach to Greek history.4 For those who accept status and order as essential categories of analysis, the distinction between different status groups becomes essential in an analysis of Greek society.5 Finally, for those who work within a tradition of legal history, the clear legal distinctions are the essential means of interpretation.6 It is the aim of this article to challenge these long-entrenched assumptions.I want to argue that the distinction between citizens, metics and slaves was often difficult to establish in Athens; that this was connected to the functions of Athenian democracy; that citizens, metics and slaves formed mixed and interacting cultures in collaboration and conflict; and that these interactions were created and enabled by what I will call free spaces.This discussion will raise a second important issue: the interpretation of Athenian democracy.I will argue that many of the current approaches to Athenian democracy have a strong elitist perspective and that we have to turn our attention to a bottom-down perspective; the concept of free spaces can play an important role in changing perspective.33 * The essence of this article was originally presented in a Nottingham-Leicester conference on 'Space and identity in the ancient world' in April 2006.I would like to thank the participants, the anonymous reader for CQ , Matt Edge and Steve Hodkinson for their suggestions.All translations come from the relevant volumes of the Loeb Classical Library. 1 See e.g.P. Cartledge, The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and Others 2 (Oxford, 2002); S. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives and Slaves (New York, 1975), 78.2 See e.g.Dem.22.55, 59.122; Arist.Pol.1326a18-22.3 See e.g.M. H. Hansen, 'On the importance of institutions in an analysis of Athenian democracy', C&M 40 (1989), 108-13.4 P. Vidal-Naquet, Le chasseur noir: Formes de pensée et formes de société dans le monde grec (Paris, 1983).

Cite this

Kōstas Vlassopoulos (2007). FREE SPACES: IDENTITY, EXPERIENCE AND DEMOCRACY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS. The Classical Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0009838807000031

@article{kstas2007free,
  title  = {FREE SPACES: IDENTITY, EXPERIENCE AND DEMOCRACY IN CLASSICAL ATHENS},
  author = {Vlassopoulos, Kōstas},
  year   = {2007},
  journal = {The Classical Quarterly},
  doi    = {10.1017/s0009838807000031}
}

Citations in this library

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 157 citations exist upstream.

References

Cited by