Are We Able to Understand the Political Emotions of the Athenian Democracy? Some Reflexions in Order to Overcome the Confrontation Paradigm between Mass and Elites

Abstract

This paper analyzes, based on previous papers of J.L. Moreno Pestaña and L. Sancho Rocher, the paradox concealed in the descriptions of democracy, philosophy, and historiography of Vth and IVth Centuries BC yield, which do not entirely meet the institutional dynamics that shaped this classical form of government. The first section will focus on some appraisals of democracy contained in Euripides’ tragedies - especially in the Suppliants - and in Aristotle’s Politics, as both perspectives decidedly show a certain demophobia , yet a moderate one. Euripides and Aristotle view democracy as the “normal” form of government they want to improve through measures inspired by an aristocratic approach to episteme. The second part of this paper will concentrate on the opposed accounts of Athenian democracy represented by Hansen and Ober, suggesting a third way for casting light over this political form. This paper claim that democratic procedures as draw and the reception of a salary for taking part in politics entails a radical transformation of the aristocratic notion of government and knowledge, which also modifies the public emotions that this political form arises. So, it becomes possible to overcome the approach to classical democracy that moves from a dialectic of elites and mass and recognizes the emergence of a “social field” (Bourdieu) that allocates to the community epistemic competences and the capacity for ruling the public sphere.