Unthinking the Greek Polis: Ancient Greek History Beyond Eurocentrism. By
KOSTAS VLASSOPOULOS. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Pp. xiv +
288. Cloth, $112.00. ISBN 978–0–521–87744–2.
Order this text for $103.37 from Amazon.com
using this link and benefit CAMWS and the Classical Journal:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect-home/classjourn-20
This and previously published CJ Online reviews are at
http://classicaljournal.org/reviews.php
CJ Online 2010.03.01
Vlassopoulos (V.) has written an ambitious and challenging book that seeks
to “examine and make explicit forms of silence” (p. 5) caused by a
Greek historiography that has focused on the polis to support Western,
European, and Occidentalist [sic] ideologies since at least the 19th
century. The author makes clear in the Introduction that his work is meant
to be polemical, both challenging the assumptions behind the current study
of Greek history and beginning the work of outlining alternative approaches
by drawing on other fields of history. V. thus seeks to make it possible
for Greek historiography “to move beyond teleological and Eurocentric
Grand Narratives into an understanding of the multiple, yet co-existing,
and co-dependent courses of history” (p. 10).
V. provides a well-structured review (by way of extensive critique) of the
origins and structure of Greek historiography’s relationship with the
concept of the polis. The book should accordingly be required reading for
anyone interested in the subject, particularly since it encourages readers
to confront the question of whether our desire to create alternative
historiographic approaches should necessarily supplant those centered on,
or at least admitting of a specifically Greek polis. V. makes a sustained
attempt to answer this question in the affirmative; whether he is
persuasive will depend on the perspective of the individual reader.
The chapters and contents follow a logical pattern, in which Part 1 seeks
to show that, once the study of the Greek polis is placed within—and is
seen to have been at the mercy of—the wider currents of Greek
historiography (Ch. 1), it becomes clear that ancient discourses,
especially Aristotle’s (Ch. 3), on the polis should be taken more
seriously (Ch. 2). In particular, V. notes (p. 80) that the examples,
definitions, and levels of analysis found in Aristotle highlight the
problem that, since Greek texts provide no evidence for the idea of the
Greek polis [italics V.’s], the concept should be dismissed from the
field of Greek history as misleading at best, oppressive at worst. Part 2
continues to push for the deconstruction of the concept of the polis,
particularly with regard to two teleologically-charged dichotomies in which
it often figures. Here, V. undertakes to decouple the study of the Greek
polis’ notion of citizenship from the political teleology of Western
democracy (Ch. 4), and its economy from that of modern capitalism (Ch. 5).
He is concerned to show the insufficiency and, indeed, historical
inaccuracy of analyzing nucleated urban communities with their hinterlands,
participatory citizenries with excluded demographic groups, and the
economic relations established by these entities as characteristics
uniquely and specifically definitive of the Greek polis. Part 3 attempts to
outline some avenues along which a historiography of the un-thought Greek
polis, once revealed as an historiographic illusion (Ch. 6), might proceed.
V. posits that, since the polis disguises a multiform of historical
polities ranging from the politically decentered ethnos to the
quasi-imperialist hegemonic city-state (Ch. 8), we would do better to
investigate a variety of spatial (Ch. 7) and temporal (Ch. 9) alternatives
both below and above the polis-level of analysis. A call to revive
alternative narrative approaches, such as the ancient travelogue and
embedded speech kata ta deonta, rounds out the volume (Ch. 10).
V.’s avoidance of cultural and religious history makes him focus on the
political narrative, and this leaves unclear whether some of the goals he
seeks have been already achieved by modern research into
Mediterraneanization or Punicization, the Delian League, various
Amphictyonies, the Panhellenic sanctuaries, the Greek ethnos, class,
status, gender, age, sex, slavery and other forms of dependant labor,
burial, religion, performance, the colonial poleis, etc. One might
therefore ask whether V.’s un-thought polis is the necessary or only tool
to fill the silences he rightly identifies as needing to be recovered. What
goals that could not be met by emphasizing the extent and the limits of
both the historical relevance of the polis and the contemporary relevance
of our study of it can only be met by unthinking the polis and reasserting
the diversity and plurality of its historical forms, networks, and
discourses? As the world enters a new era of globalized, postnationalist
political forms, from silent hegemonies to non-state actors, will an
entirely new historiographical perspective be more useful than an ongoing
critical revision of the current one? And which approach can best justify
the study of the Greek political past in the first place, especially in a
time of economic crisis?
V. would seem to advocate the type of historiographical awareness raised
by, e.g., Hayden White (pp. 229–33, or even Croce’s dictum that “all
of history is contemporary history” quoted in the book’s first
sentence), that the practice of Greek historiography depends a great deal
on what you start out trying to do with it. For V., as a Greek historian,
Greek history should be no different from any other history, and history
should be divorced from teleology. Classicists, perhaps, or anyone who
would argue implicitly or explicitly that Greek and Roman history can be
different, special, perhaps even unique in illuminating contemporary
concerns, will therefore find much that is stimulating in V.’s
perspective. Will narratives recapturing the complexity of historical
diversity in order to liberate the silenced voices of the past coexist with
those that, e.g., utilize the rise and fall of the Greek polis as a tool to
conceptualize and critique how a free autonomous enfranchised citizenry
might articulate issues such as domestic social problems or overseas
involvement with both dependent allies and ideologically opposed foreign
powers? V. demonstrates that an alternative way of proceeding is possible;
the extent to which the scholarly community will take up his suggestions is
less certain. But a recognition of the plurality of approaches V. advocates
and practices is certainly a minimal desideratum for future discourse.
DAVID GRANT SMITH
San Francisco State University
[log in to unmask]
If you have been forwarded this review, you may subscribe to the listserv
by sending an email to: [log in to unmask]
Leave the subject line blank, and in the first line of the message write:
SUBSCRIBE CJ-Online
You may remove yourself from the CJ-Online listserv by sending an email to:
[log in to unmask]
Leave the subject line blank, and in the first line of the message write:
UNSUBSCRIBE CJ-Online
|