BMCR 2009.01.16, Kostas Vlassopoulos, Unthinking the Greek Polis

Kostas Vlassopoulos, Unthinking the Greek Polis. Ancient Greek History
Beyond Eurocentrism.  Cambridge/New York:  Cambridge University Press,
2007.  Pp. xiv, 288.  ISBN 978-0-521-87744-2.  $99.00.

Reviewed by Angela Kuehr, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitaet Frankfurt
am Main ([email protected])
Word count:  1889 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2009/2009-01-16.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/01/20090116.html
-------------------------------

[Table of contents at the end of the review]

"To the liberty of oppressed peoples:" The dedication of Vlassopoulos'
thesis illuminates the author's intention to initiate paradigm changes
with political aims. You could speak of political historiography if it
was historiography, but Vlassopoulos does not write a new history of
the Mediterranean in those times which used to be characterised as an
era of Greek poleis. Instead, he deconstructs old approaches and gives
instructions to further researchers on how their work could be done. It
is a book of announcements, in a double sense: Vlassopoulos not only
begins every section by explaining what he wants to demonstrate and
ends it by concluding what he wanted to show (the reader is guided
perfectly through the outline of his argumentation), but he also
summarizes in the very last paragraph: "I have not attempted to rewrite
Greek history from a different perspective in this study; I have merely
tried to show that the perspective is deeply problematic, and that an
alternative perspective is both feasible and illuminating. But as the
English say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating" (p. 240).
Indeed. Being young, to write a book like this may be easier than being
old and looking back on a long researcher's life. At least it is
courageous. This book has to provoke, and the author wants to do so,
even to be polemical (p. 4).

In the introduction (pp. 1-10) Vlassopoulos describes the starting
point of and the motivation for his considerations: the politically
powerful dichotomy between Orientalism and Eurocentrism, which is
frequently traced back to the ancient opposition between Oriental
despotism and Western freedom. To criticize the usual approach, the
characterization of the Greek polis as the inventor of liberty and
freedom, which tends to be conceptualized within the frame of the
beginning, acme and fall of the Greek nation, Vlassopoulos names two
principal aims: first to describe the historiographic tradition and
then to develop a new approach, which includes all the alternative
narratives never told, oppressed narratives and narratives of the
oppressed. Following the model of Braudel's "The Mediterranean and the
Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II," nationalist and
ethnocentric views on Greek history should be overcome by an
interlinked history of the wider Mediterranean and Near Eastern world.

"Part I: Defining the contexts of thinking about the polis" (pp.
11-96), consists of three chapters.  The first, "An archaeology of
discourses" (pp. 13-67), offers a well-informed doxography on polis
historiography from Ancient Greek concepts to recent tendencies.
Vlassopoulos describes the emergence of approaches focused on the
autonomous polis as the result of nation-bound and imperialist thinking
in the 19th century, and juxtaposes this still dominant orthodoxy with
counter-tendencies since the 1980s. In the second, "The ancient
discourses on the polis" (pp. 68-84), Vlassopoulos propagates Aristotle
as the starting point for new approaches to Greek history, mainly his
largely ignored concepts: the polis not only as a community of citizens
and as the telos  of good human community life, but also as a form of
koino^nia and as a unity of mere^. From an ancient Greek point of view,
the polis is to be understood not only as a specific community, but as
a term for human communities in general. The third chapter, "Making use
of Aristotle: concepts and models" (pp. 85-96), stresses that the
Aristotelian concept of koino^nia offers a model to overcome the
linearity of our polis histories by looking at the plurality of levels
and temporal scales involved, and that the concept of mere^ provides a
fresh approach to people in action, determined by various roles they
fulfil in polis life, instead of describing supra-personal entities.
Finally, the polis should not be seen as a self-sufficient entity but
as part of a 'world-system,' deeply influenced by inter-poleis
relationships.

In "Part II: Rethinking the contexts. The polis as an entity: a
critique" (pp. 97-141), Vlassopoulos criticises the common view of
perceiving history as the succession, or juxtaposition, of entities
like   nations, West and East, societies, economies, or poleis.
Instead, the entities' boundaries should be resolved in favour of
interactive histories within wider systems of multiple scales and
levels. In the chapter "East and West, Greece and the East: the polis
vs. Oriental despotism" (pp. 101-122), Vlassopoulos dissolves the
contrast between the two opposed entities, aiming at a Greek history as
part of the wider Eastern Mediterranean one. He treats city identity,
self-government, magistrates and assemblies, political deliberation,
settlement of disputes, representation to authorities,  arriving at the
conclusion that they do not explain Greek distinctiveness, and that our
teleological view of Greek history as leading to the outcome of the
polis and finally democracy is misleading. In "The consumer city:
ancient vs. medieval/modern" (pp. 123-141), he criticises the schematic
view on the ancient consumer city, which does not take into account the
variety of Greek poleis, their interconnected economies, and the
co-existing levels of economic activities. This chapter contains the
only  orthographic mistake the present reviewer  noted in this
meticulously edited  book,  : "Konsummmentenstaedte" instead of the
correct spelling "Konsummentenstaedte" (p. 125).

"Part III: Beyond the polis: the polis as part of a syste\me-monde"
(pp. 143-240) tries to develop possible new approaches to Greek
history. Vlassopoulos stresses that research has not been done yet to
realize it (p. 143), but that the first step consists of providing an
analytical frame, which relies on three premises: "(a) that the polis
is part of a larger system (b) that there exists a multiplicity of
co-existing temporal and spatial levels within that system and (c) that
the poleis should be analysed within the 'environment' created by the
systems and its multiple levels" (p. 145). Vlassopoulos discusses the
aspects "The polis as a unit of analysis: poleis and koino^nia" (pp.
147-155), "Poleis and space" (pp. 156-189), "Poleis and polities" (pp.
190-202), and "Poleis and time" (pp. 203-220). Finally, he poses the
question, if his considerations lead "Towards new master narratives of
Greek history?" (pp. 221-240), and suggests looking at Herodotos and
his way of telling an interconnected history of the Mediterranean, even
inventing dialogues or speeches to visualize how life could have been
in former times.

Vlassopoulos is right that many of the established, yet already
questioned,concepts of Greek history have to be rethought and
differentiated. The reflection on Eurocentric master narratives creates
an awareness of interpretation frames we follow by custom or
conviction. Vlassopoulos knows that deconstruction on its own would be
the end of history. Floating on a sea of knowledge atoms without
context, interconnection, and sense, human beings would lack identity,
and this is exactly what Vlassopoulos does not take into account: Why
do the Greeks matter to us? No historian can avoid this fundamental
question. Yes, identity centred histories exclude possible alternative
developments which would not have led to certain results. Therefore
deconstructions stressing the 'oppressed' developmental routes are
healthy and help to detect master narratives stemming from current
identity concerns. We should not construct a European culture or a
culture of the 'West' translating it to the Ancient world, but we
should not neglect either that   differences existed between the Near
Eastern world and the world dominated by Greek-speaking people, who
distinguished their way of living by referring to a specific form of
settlement: the polis. If you want to show that the differences between
a Greek and a Near Eastern world are constructed, you risk using a very
general tertium comparationis which does not allow differentiation any
more. Polemically speaking, every agglomeration of houses is either a
settlement or a polis  , if you adjust the level of comparison. What is
more, Vlassopoulos argues ex silentio to make a point for Near Eastern
citizenship (p. 106). And if we follow Vlassopoulos's request to go
back to the roots and to have a close look at Greek perceptions of
their world, we cannot deny that the Greeks defined their identity by
opposing themselves to Persia, that they reflected systematically on
political concepts, and that they provide discourses around terms like
'liberty' and 'democracy.' Does Vlassopoulos offer a good alternative
to the condemned Eurocentric master narratives? His starting point:
"all of history is contemporary history" (citing Croce, p. 1), equally
refers to his own considerations. You wonder if Vlassopoulos's
political, thus subjective approach does not lead to anachronistic
views of Greek history, if it is not as problematic as the condemned
Eurocentric approaches, though in another way.

To conclude.Vlassopoulos's book offers many good observations on recent
or former tendencies of classical scholarship, and he comes along with
intelligent suggestions of how to go on. However, he is no hero of a
paradigm change, rather a good observer of changes which are in the
air. To put them together in a coherent way  is an admirable
achievement. His picture of future research is interesting, though
rooted in a land of dreaming: On the one hand, it can be problematic to
combine ideals of scholarship with visions of a world as it should
politically be. On the other hand, it is of course much easier to come
along with suggestions of how to go on instead of proposing new
historical interpretations of one's own. To cite the author: "the proof
of the pudding is in the eating" (p. 240). There have been attempts to
write interconnected histories of the Mediterranean, and Vlassopoulos
mentions them.[[1]] His reproach that Eurocentric views are still
dominant is partly the result of his focus on social, economic and
political history while leaving cultural and religious history apart,
as he states himself (p. 9; 101). Whether the interlinked history
Vlassopoulos dreams of can be realized is to be doubted. First, few
scholars have the language skills to write such a history. Second, we
lack sources -- there are no Near Eastern Politics, as Vlassopoulos
mentions (p. 102) -- and depend on narratives of the ancient Greeks;
archaeology cannot answer every question. Third, although categories of
analysis are problematic if perceived as monads or closed entities, we
cannot totally abolish them since it would make the description of
phenomena  impossible. Trying to un-think the Greek polis elucidates
established concepts. But the polis will live, and the search for
European identity by referring to the Greeks is not necessarily bad.
After unthinking the Greek polis you have to rethink it, from different
perspectives and in a more conscious way. Anyone interested in Greek
history will be stimulated by Vlassopoulos' book. Historiographers and
theorists like Vlassopoulos should come together not to un-think, but
to re-think the Greek polis.

Table of Contents

Introduction (pp. 1-10)

Part I: Defining the contexts of thinking about the polis (pp. 11-96)

1) An archaeology of discourses (pp. 13-67)

2) The ancient discourses on the polis (pp. 68-84)

3) Making use of Aristotle: concepts and models (pp. 85-96)

Part II: Rethinking the contexts. The polis as an entity: a critique
(pp. 96-141)

4) East and West, Greece and the East: the polis vs. Oriental despotism
(pp. 101-122)

5) The consumer city: ancient vs. medieval/modern (pp. 123-141)

Part III: Beyond the polis: the polis as part of a syste\me-monde (pp.
143-240)

6) The polis as a unit of analysis: poleis and koino^niai (pp. 147-155)

7) Poleis and space (pp. 156-189)

8) Poleis and polities (pp. 190-202)

9) Poleis and time (pp. 203-220)

10) Towards new master narratives of Greek history? (pp. 221-240)


------------------
Notes:


1.   To name but few: M. L. West, The East face of Helicon: West
Asiatic Elements in Early Poetry and Myth, Oxford 1997; K. Freitag, Der
Golf von Korinth. Historiographisch-topographische Untersuchungen von
der Archaik bis in das 1. Jh. v. Chr., Muenchen 2000; P. Horden, N.
Purcell, The Corrupting Sea. A Study of Mediterranean History, Oxford
2000.