Reflections on Thucydides
I thought the most interesting point of our discussion was the point about the contestability of Athen's success in the Melian dialogue. It is notable that during the dialogue, the Athenians are not able to convince the Melians to surrender. This is particularly damaging to the Athenians because the backbone of their argument is that they have stumbled upon a universal law that governs the behavior of man kind, " to rule whatever one can."(404) The Athenians further extend this rule arguing that:
"...when you are allowed to choose between war and safety, you will not be so insensitively arrogant as to make the wrong choice. This is the safe rule - to stand up to one's equals, to behave with defence towards one's superiors, and to treat one's inferiors with moderation."(407)
But the actions of the Melians do not comply with the Athenians rule. The Melians choose the integrity of their identity over their security. The Melians do not "behave with deference towards one's superiors" they stand their ground and fight to the bloody end.
Though the dialogue is often cited by Realists, the text does not give a clear victory to the "Realist" Athenians. The Melians do not behave in the 'rational' way that would be predicted by the realist school. Instead they stay and fight against impossible odds--motivated by the virtues of their ideals.
Further, when the dialogue understood within the context of the book it is, arguably, a turning point at which the Athenians adopt the Hubris of "Realism" and which begins the path to their demise.
In this light, it is odd that many within the Realist school have chosen to privilege History of the Peloponnesian War and particularly the Melian Dialog.
posted by Mike Haack @ 6:39 PM
2 Comments:
Avi- Thank you for your comment. You are correct to point out that my assumption of the "ought" is too hasty.
Beyond the "ought" however, and this was not articulated in my original post, I don't think the Melian dialogue conforms with what I understand to be the most basic assumption of realist thought, that states are rational actors. I say this because the Melians do not make the 'rational' choice and surrender but continue to fight despite having near perfect information about what would happen to them if they did.
If realist are correct that states "were, are and will always be" rational actors then the Melians would have made the 'rational' choice and surrendered. The dialogue shows that the Melians are not governed by 'rational' behavior. By continuing to fight they, predictably, loose everything. Even if they did value their identities over their lives, after the Athenian invasion they, predictably, lost both.
This is all based on my loose understanding of realist though and you are more schooled in realist theory then I am so please respond.
One final thought: One could also make the argument that the Melians did not have perfect information, their ability to process that information was distorted by appeals to G-d and justice. But, from what I understand, realist thought does not recognize G-d and Justice as considerations that dictate the decisions made but states.
OK, I just listened to PTJ's lecture-let about "realism" so after "states are rational actors" insert, concerned first with there own survival. To modify my last comment, the Melians were not concerned with physical survival over everything else as a realist would assume.
Post a Comment
<< Home